toolbox location

I'm editing a customers files and in the assemblies there are references to their toolbox which is on a different drive then mine. How do I change this
so it looks where my toolbox is?
Thanks
Marty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Before you open the assembly click references and change to location there. I'll bet you will get large bolts if you don't have their bolts with the assembly.
IMO - You should have them go to File\Find References and have them save all the parts to one directory and have them send that to you. That way you are at least starting with their original bolts.
Regards, Scott

to
this
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Marty:
Words fail when it comes to describing how far SolidWorks has missed the mark with Toolbox. The only thing I can think is now that it is not sold separately, but bundled together with other things, they are no longer concerned about the viability of this product. Sometimes there are ways to get Toolbox to do what you want it to do, but most frequently, when presented with the facts about file naming, custom properties, compatibility of Smart Fasteners with custom parts, "collaboration" with offsite users, setting up a networked library that works properly, issues relating to PDM applications and general customization, many companies opt to turn off Toolbox and develop their own library.
CAD is not just about images shaped like parts, it's also about the data attached to those parts that describes the non-geometrical attributes.
It is true that Toolbox has improved a lot over the past couple of years, but the underlying fundamental flaws are still there. I have spoken several times with the product manager at SW for this product and it looks to me that there are people who understand the problems, but people at SW higher up the ladder are giving other projects higher priority.
How many people are using the Deform feature on production models? How many people are using the new mold tools? Add those up and multiply them by 100 or even 1000, and I don't think you will begin to compare with the number of users who have been stymied by Toolbox's flaws. Ask tech support which Office add in generates the most angst (prior to PW2).
To be specific, these flaws include:
- library installs with config creation as the default and only one size config of each part, ENSURING that new installs and file sharing will cause problems with missing configurations unless steps are taken to circumvent Toolbox or do a lot of manual config creation.
- there is no convenient or efficient way to add company specific descriptions, part numbers, materials or finish data en masse to all the size configs. there are a couple of workarounds, the best of which is probably creating the configs beforehand somehow and then autocreating a design table and use that to add custom props
- custom standards or user added parts cannot be used with Smart Fasteners.
- you cannot use Toolbox AND PDMWorks properly at the same time. one of the benefits of PDMW is that it takes your parts off of the network, and you work locally without conflicts. Toolbox INSISTS that your parts go on the network, and until recently, they didn't provide a workable method for avoiding file access conflicts. Also, unless you have duplicates of your Toolbox parts put in the PDMW vault (duplicate files is a definite "don't do this" PDM situation), you don't have any information available via PDMW reports or property searches for the hardware.
PDMW is a great product for the price. The ironic thing is that the same person manages both products. The responsibility for this irony is the lack of commitment from people higher up the chain who don't experience the pain of implementation, management and everyday usage with this product.
So I lied when I said "words fail".
matt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
matt wrote:
...snip
Good points Matt.
How the heck do you market integration though?
Areas that need integration are:
PDMWorks with Toolbox/Moldbase with Library/Palette directories and with (piping parts also)
PDMWorks with external references incontext features multiconfiguration parts.
PDMWorks with non-MSoft servers like Samba on Linux (even a gpm that correctly setup and ran the existing server in Wine would be acceptable)
PDMWorks with new SW releases (the vault conversion process)
PDMWorks with the BOM
Did I miss anything?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

ooh, piping parts. ick. hmm, never tried it, but it sounds messy.

Actually, these work well, as long as you don't mind the fact that it doesn't track configs as separate documents or part numbers. You can search config names, but not directly. You have to do an initial search using the Generate Report, and then dbl click in the config column, and it will let you search that column for a string.

I recently set one up on Novell. The vault data can be on a non-MS OS, but the service has to run on MS. It's not a great idea to do things this way, but it does work.

Personally I haven't have any problem with this, especially after seeing how other PDM products handle it (or like SmarTeam, don't handle it). You can even mix PDMW2004 with SW2003, except if you have SolidWorks Network Licenses.

if you do a report on an assembly in PDMW, you can output a text bom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.