><BR>> > Dear all,<BR>>
><BR>> > Since I am a beginner in ProE I may
ask some foolish questions, please<BR>> > bear
with me.<BR>> ><BR>> > I have
made a simple assy and the drawings of the assy as well as
the<BR>> > parts. For a similar assy i need to
copy the assy with drawings and<BR>> > same
parts with minor changes.<BR>> ><BR>>
> To be more specific, I need to create new product with new
names for<BR>> > the assy/parts/drawings by
duplicating the existing without<BR>> >
redesigning it from scratch also the drawings.<BR>>
><BR>> > I have tried it by adding the config
option<BR>> > rename_drawings_with_object <
both> & all the concerned parts/drawings<BR>>
> in the session and following problems
faced.<BR>> ><BR>> > 1. Within
the drawing only the generic model is changed and the flat<BR>>
> state is having the old instance name as in the parent part,
any<BR>> > option to change instance
name?<BR>> ><BR>> > Open the gneric and
rename the instances. This doesn't sound like much of a problem. Outside of
Intralink or PDM-Link, this isn't possible as part of the simple 'Save a Copy'
way of saving/renaming a bunch of assemblies, parts and
drawings.<BR>> ><BR>> > 2.The
assy is copied and one of the parts are given a new names.
But<BR>> > the flat state is not there in the
copied part and the drawing uses<BR>> > the
parent parts flat instance.<BR>>
><BR>> >
Ditto above.<BR>> ><BR>> > "3.While saving
a part/assy., the new parts/sub assy/drawings are also<BR>>
> copied to the destination of new file. This disturbs the
directory<BR>> > structure and the traceability as well. Any
suggestions other than<BR>> > using different working
directories for each projects?"<BR>> ><BR>>
> Can't 'Save a Copy' move these new files to any directory you
select/create for the purpose of holding them? Maybe I'm not understanding the
problem/question properly. Or what you mean by 'disturbs the directory
structure and the traceability as well'. You don't have to set a new working
directory or save to the current working directory to do a 'Save a Copy'. The
problem will be, in the long run, that you will have some common parts, shared
by several different configurations of the same part. While PDM/PLM solutions
like Intralink and Windchill PDM-Link are meant to keep track of the location
of assembly components, no matter how many directories they are scattered
over, native Pro/e has only one trick up it's sleeve for finding such
scattered parts (otherwise, yes, they must all be contained in the working
directory). The trick it has is an option called SEARCH_PATH where you specify
all the directories your components could be stored in with their full path
names. The downside of this is that it can tremendously slow down the opening
of large assemblies as it searches each directory in the path for each and
every component (or at least until it finds it). The more paths it has to
check, the slower it gets. It's a good solution for relatively small
assemblies with relatively simple product structures and relatively few
storage locations. In the end, though, you may have to turn to a program that
records location as metadata through some kind of relational
database.<BR>> ><BR>> > David
Janes<BR>><BR>> Thanks for the
reply,<BR>><BR>> > 1. Within the drawing only
the generic model is changed and the flat<BR>> >
state is having the old instance name as in the parent part,
any<BR>> > option to change instance
name?<BR>> ><BR>> > Open the gneric and
rename the instances. This doesn't sound like much of a problem. Outside of
Intralink or PDM-Link, this isn't possible as part of the simple 'Save a Copy'
way of saving/renaming a bunch of assemblies, parts and
drawings.<BR>><BR>> This can only change the name of the
instance in the part. Since the<BR>> drawing uses the flat
state of the parent part if I modify the new<BR>> part the
drawing will not get updated.<BR>><BR>> 3. We are currently
working in Autocad and have a very fine system of<BR>> saving
different parts and assy drawings in different folders
with<BR>> respect to the type/usage of the part. I was trying
to keep the same<BR>> directory structure in ProE also and as
you said, i had already put<BR>> the concerned path in search
path.<BR>><BR>> The explanation is clear to me. I was
thinking to avoid PDM since we<BR>> are in the beginning stage
of implementing ProE and the management has<BR>> to decide on
purchasing PDM. As expert users of ProE and data<BR>>
management solutions are you suggesting me to get PDM to sole
my<BR>> issues?<BR>><BR>> My major issue is
as I explained earlier, I need to create new<BR>> product with
new names for the assy/parts/drawings by duplicating the<BR>>
existing without redesigning it from scratch.<BR>><BR>>
Thanks<BR>><BR>> Vinu<BR>><BR>> Honestly, I haven't
done anything in Pro/e, as far as file management, product stucture, drawing
trees, etc., outside of a PDM/PLM/MRP system, ever. That's just the way places
are set up, especially the one that have multiple facilities, outsourcing,
multiple product groups who need common access to common files and local
customization. It's just that I haven't done or experienced what you're
talking about with a PDM system. And, from what you've said, it sounds like
you're doing everything correctly. And, I see no reason you shouldn't be able
to duplicate your existing directory structure with Pro/e. Are you getting any
error messages? As to a new flat state name registering in the drawing,
drawings are funny. Some things are associative, some not. Generally, they're
controlled within the drawing. You can't change the part for a view except in
a limited number of ways, controlled by the drawing with drawing models>add
model or delete model or replace (which should be possible with a family table
instance). And you can't delete a model with a view still using it. None of
this is automatic with adding or "renaming" instances. I'm not sure if this
particular thing is easier with a PDM system but lots of things are. It
wouldn't hurt to get PTC's pitch on the benefits and present them with various
problems with migrating data and see get their
approach.<BR>><BR>> David
Janes<BR><BR>Dear Mr. David<BR><BR>There are two cases;<BR><BR>1. While
duplicating a part using 'save a copy' things seems to be ok<BR>after changing
the instance name in the family table manually in the<BR>newly copied part and
by replacing the instance in the drawing.<BR><BR>2. In case of an assy. case
is different. After copying to a new name,<BR>since there are no flat states
available in the renamed part, even<BR>after creating one with the same name
as in the parent part, it is not<BR>possible to replace it in the drawing.
More over the drawing fails to<BR>open and asks for the parent parts instance
if both are in different<BR>folders.<BR><BR>I have tried my best to find a
solution for the above said issue but<BR>couldn't sort it out, anyways I'll
get back to you once I get a<BR>perfect solution.<BR><BR>Thanks & best
Regards,<BR><BR>Vinu<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>The chief problem is that, in creating a new assembly and creating new
"parts", you don't actually create new generics. With 'Save a Copy', there's no
opportunity to change the name of the generic (which remains hidden, the
obscure container). What you might try doing is to do a save as on the generic,
do a Replace and pick, not 'Family Table' but 'By Layout' and pick the new
generic which ought to bring up the instance selection dialogue. Creating newly
named instances ought to help with distinguishing the families from one another.
Baby is easily confused enough as it is without adding the challenge of same
named instances in different family table parts. Pro/e'd have conniptions. It's
too easy to get it riled up anyway without goin' out of your way to aggrevate
it. Be very cautious and conservative with family talbes and family table
parts!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David Janes</DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=