Skip to main content
A
akelly12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
February 19, 2010
Question

Layers: "default_layer_model" vs. "template_solidpart" / "template_designas

  • February 19, 2010
  • 2 replies
  • 892 views
We're slowly realizing that we can reduce some embarrassing drawing changes (and gain some other benefits, too) by explicitly controlling layers in drawings.

(REF:

Applying the "start model" concept to drawings seems more hassle than it's worth. As I understand drawing templates, they include the sheet size. We use B-E sizes, plus various lengths of H- and J-sizes, so we have 23 sheet sizes in active use. Maintaining drawing templates for all 23 sheet sizes is impractical. Telling users that they have to start every drawing from one common sheet size is also impractical.

I just found TPI 131400 (

So finally my questions:

Does anyone have experience using "layer_setup_file" with drawings?

We need to continue to use "template_solidpart" and "template_designasm". Are there any potential conflicts between the start models and using "layer_setup_file.prt" and "layer_setup_file.asm"?

Is it possible to use "default_layer_model layer_setup_file" and only "layer_setup_file.drw" to avoid a conflict with the start part / start assembly?

Andrew Kelly, P.E. | Senior Engineer | Crane Aerospace & Electronics | +1 440 326 5555 | F: +1 440 284 1090


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.

2 replies

I
iturner1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 19, 2010
We fixed this by spotting changes creeping in to drawings caused by accidental changes.

We convert all drawings to pdf before it goes into our plm system (smarteam). Before they go in we run it through a pdf comparison software called blubeam (< £100 seat). We compare the new issue against the last released PDF. We estimated the pay back was one week based on the cost of the change process.

Blubeam spots all sorts of changes that affect the visual appearance text, layers, components layered off by accident - well worth the money. We now also use it to help compile change documentation so the designer can see all the changes that have occured.



Ian Turner

CAD Manager

Cobham Mission Equipment
B
bfrandsen10-Marble
10-Marble
February 22, 2010
Andrew,
we use default_layer_model for both prt, asm and drw combined with start
templates for all types as well. It works OK in general.
As layer templates differs only on file extension we have experience that
working with Process Assemblies is a problem. It can not use a layer
template for a standard assembly. But we have not found any problem
between standard part and e.g. sheetmetal.
We have placed the template files in a local folder outside Windchill to
boost performance. But this might have been corrected in newer builds.

By the way we only have one start template drawing and it is without a
predefined format. It holds parameters and standard config.dtl options. We
then have formats for each sheetsize that users apply as needed.

Regards,
Bjarne



"Kelly, Andrew C" <->
19-02-2010 15:34
Please respond to
"Kelly, Andrew C" <->


To
-
cc

Subject
[proecad] - Layers: "default_layer_model" vs. "template_solidpart" /
"template_designasm" / drawing template






We're slowly realizing that we can reduce some embarrassing drawing
changes (and gain some other benefits, too) by explicitly controlling
layers in drawings.
(REF:
default datums on their correct layers, but also some standard parameters
and relations. Our config.pro has a series of "def_layer" statements to
automatically add new features to appropriate layers.
Applying the "start model" concept to drawings seems more hassle than it's
worth. As I understand drawing templates, they include the sheet size. We
use B-E sizes, plus various lengths of H- and J-sizes, so we have 23 sheet
sizes in active use. Maintaining drawing templates for all 23 sheet sizes
is impractical. Telling users that they have to start every drawing from
one common sheet size is also impractical.
I just found TPI 131400 (

having to resort to drawing templates.
So finally my questions:
Does anyone have experience using "layer_setup_file" with drawings?
We need to continue to use "template_solidpart" and "template_designasm".
Are there any potential conflicts between the start models and using
"layer_setup_file.prt" and "layer_setup_file.asm"?
Is it possible to use "default_layer_model layer_setup_file" and only
"layer_setup_file.drw" to avoid a conflict with the start part / start
assembly?
Andrew Kelly, P.E. | Senior Engineer | Crane Aerospace & Electronics |
+1 440 326 5555 | F: +1 440 284 1090
We value your opinion! How may we serve you better?Please click the
survey link to tell us how we are doing:
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement