best practices for naming configurations?

I name the default configuration the same as the filename. For me file names are generally numbers, part numbers to be specific. This way each configuration is a distinct part number. I then make the configuration description, the configuration specific custom property description the same. In a PDM system you can then search on the description for various types of parts. In a drawing the part number becomes the filename, the title block description the config specific description and the drawing number may be unique and different from the part number.

TOP

In a drawing the part number becomes the filename, the

OK, the part number is the configuration name, as you said earlier, so how do you get the drawing to be named after the configuration name instead of the part name? Do you manually change the drawing name or is there some trick?

-Mike

Well, if the default configuration has been renamed to the part filename, then SW will, by default give the drawing the same name as the part which will be the same name as the configuration. However, in a drawing I think it is best to pull in information from configuration specific custom properties. Therefore when starting a part you name the default configuration to the filename which is the part number. You also create a configuration specific custom property with the part number in it. I do it with a macro.

TOP

For manufactured components, we use a suffix on the end of the part number. By default all parts end in -00. This means default, or in the case of sheet metal parts, the flat pattern. Then the configurations progress from -01 to -99. -01 and -02 are left and right for mirror folded sheet metal parts that are made from the same default or -00 config. If the configs. are not manufactured, just shown for modelling purposes, then we generally use descriptive names, ie; compressed, short, etc.

I guess the point to note is that all manufactured items require a unique way of being identified. We use sequential numbers for this to avoid any confusion or different designers having different ideas as to naming conventions. After using different methods, I now loath designs that have descriptive names.

Dom.

Using descriptive names for parts it is too difficult to be unique. Descriptive names for features and sketches is good though.

Bob

A few years back I set up PDM for my company. dbWorks had no problem tracking our part numbering scheme. What I learned is that as soon as you try and automate anything it has to be automation friendly which means the exceptions that humans have no problem with are a big deal for software to deal with. Because we were an engineering house and not a programming house it was deemed better to have meaningless part numbers (read sequential). Dash numbers were for sub-configurations like simplified, fea, sheet metal flat pattern, blank, etc. Because we used design tables top level configurations were always parts. The lesson learned from the dbWorks people was their method of assembling descriptions. This is where the part searches should focus. They had a hierachical, automated system to create descriptions quickly so even that could be automated.

TOP