Skip to main content
J
jfrance1-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 7, 2012
Question

Family Table Revision Control Issue

  • November 7, 2012
  • 18 replies
  • 6346 views

Hi all,



A little background information first:



Our engineering departmentrecently transitioned from WF4/Windchill 9 to Creo/Windchill 10. One of the biggest issues we've run into involves revision controls for family table instances. For simpler components, like screws and washer, we have traditionally utilized a single generic component to drive a family table of part numbers, each with their own drawings. In the past, modifying a single component required the designers to check out the generic component and revise the specified instance only. The rest of the family table remained untouched, and did not need to be revised. Since the transition, CREO/WC requires the user to revise and check out the entire family table to modify any one single instance. Obviously, this is creating an administrative nightmare, as we are now forced to roll revisions on the rest of the parts in the family table,which have not been modified.



Here is my question for those of you who may have encountered similar issues: What is the best practice for handling components like screws and washers? Is it better to keep all parts stand alone? Do you utilize a single drawing for all similar components, simply using tables to display part variances and revising that drawing whenever a change is made?



I'm curious to hear how other people in industry have been using their family tables.



Thanks in advance for your advice and expertise!



Jason France


Design Engineer


Benchmade Knife Co.


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

18 replies

M
merrill.rosenow1-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 8, 2012

Our company has taken the approach that if it is in a family table, it should be close enough in design that if any revision to an instance is made, the entire family and thus its drawing should be revised to reflect the intent as well. If we have nuts, screws, etc.they are all their own independant part with separate drawings. We have been considering how to implement a more parametric system like family tables, but as you pointed out there are a least a couple of issues with such methods.

D
dgschaefer21-Topaz II
21-Topaz II
November 8, 2012
Several years ago (2007) there was a presentation (attached) at PTC User
on using inheritance features instead of family tables that solved this
problem. You'd create a master part (generic) and then use an
inheritance feature to bring the entire part into a new part (instance).
Within the inheritance feature you can specify variable items, thus
creating different 'instances'.



Because they are tied to a common 'generic' changing the master will
propagate through the 'instances', but because the variable information
is stored in each part, changing an 'instance' does not propagate up to
the 'generic' and then back to all the other 'instances'.



I believe the only loss compared to family tables was ease of
interchangeability.



--
P
ptc-19327451-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 8, 2012
In Pro-e WF 2-5, and testing in CREO1:



In cases where we are purchasing stock components (Bolts, screws,
washers, etc...) but have individual drawings to spec out the parts, we
are slowly getting away from family tables for a couple of reasons:



1) We are using more vendor CAD models

2) limitations of the family table and complexity.



This is a slow transition, but I am finding that using several
independent models, linked by an Interchange Group is the best
(simplest) solution for now.

I can make one Interchange 'family' that includes flat head, hex head,
socket head, etc... bolts, or flat washers, lock washers, toothed
washers, tabbed washers, etc... and not have to worry about complicated
and nested family tables.



I am considering this approach also for solid modeled milling cutter
assemblies for use in Pro-Man, but have not tested it yet.



I do not use Interlink / Windchill but I would estimate that this would
be simplified as well by limiting the scope of the change to the
individual item, item drawing and possibly the Interchange group only.





Christopher F. Gosnell



FPD Company

124 Hidden Valley Road

McMurray, PA 15317
S
21-Topaz I
STEVEG21-Topaz I
21-Topaz I
November 8, 2012
Has anyone tested to see if an interchange assembly works as advertised in Intralink/PDMLink? I thought at one point someone mentioned it doesn't play well with PDM.

Steve G
H
HugoHermans12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
November 8, 2012

Hi Doug,


The loss with inheritance features are assemblies! Inheritance features apply only to parts, and we need the same functionality for assemblies 😞


Regards, Hugo.


<< ProE WF5 - PDMLink 9.1 M060>>

T
23-Emerald IV
TomU23-Emerald IV
23-Emerald IV
November 9, 2012
I just finished testing this with PTC tech support. Creo Parametric 2.0 M020 and Windchill 10.0/10.1 do NOT change the behavior of family table instances or generics during check-out/check-in or during revising. The PTC support engineer demonstrated revising instances separately from the generic, revising the generic separately from the instances, checking out, modifying, and checking back in both the generic and select instances without affecting any other instances. We were not able to identify any changes from previous Wildfire / Windchill 9.1 behavior concerning family tables.

Tom U.
K
kimndave91-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 9, 2012
When such opposite results come up, it is a sign that the problem is not
entirely described.**

In this case, I'm going to guess that the change Jason is dealing with
forces the generic to be marked as changed in a way that forces all the
instances to be marked as changed. I'm leaning towards a
mass-properties calculation. Any other ideas?

It does seem like expectations for the family table are getting
over-extended. The family table core is a model with a list of alternate
configuration names and related configuration variations. There is only
one model and that model has an integral list. Take a dowel pin as an
example. Suppose in Rev A the -1 is .5 inch long and the -2 is 1 inch
long. This is found to be a mistake, and the -1 is changed to .75 inch
in Rev B. How should the system resolve the case of a Rev B -1 with a
Rev A -2?

Dave S.

**Many 1990s Ford/Mazda 626 4cyl had a <60k mile w/automatic
transmission life. Owners would complain about the unreliability of the
Ford/Mazda 626s. Often a comment would pop up and say they had a 626
with 150k and no problems. Only later did it become clear they either
had manual transmissions or the automatic transmissions were attached to
6 cylinders. Details, details.
T
23-Emerald IV
TomU23-Emerald IV
23-Emerald IV
November 9, 2012
You are correct. I did some checking with another user who was having difficulty with family tables and it turns out the problem actually has to do with bringing pre-WF5 family tables forward into Windchill 9.1 or later. The TAN is 150276 (
J
jfrance1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
November 13, 2012

Hi all,



Thanks for your great responses! We ultimately decided to break the family tables apart and utilize stand alone part files, except where multiple components are already tabbed on one drawing. This was decided based on inputs found on here, as well as taking into account the preferences of our purchasing and documentation control groups. Despite losing the interchangeability of components in assemblies, we believe this will be the best solution for our company as a whole.



It sounds like new family tables work a bit better than those we were working with, since these were originally created in WF4. I plan on doing some experimentation and seeing whether or not that is true.



Thanks again,



Jason

P
ptc-19327451-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 14, 2012
To get interchangeability back, use Interchange Groups. You need a
license for Advanced Assembly, or Tool Design, or some form of NC , I
think.



Christopher F. Gosnell



FPD Company

124 Hidden Valley Road

McMurray, PA 15317
Show more replies
Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement