Skip to main content
ASC1-Visitor
1-Visitor
July 3, 2014
Solved

Part name clash in family tables / Windchill

  • July 3, 2014
  • 11 replies
  • 5830 views

Hi all,

I have a predicament whereby a compressible component has been modelled as a family table, the generic being the "as manufactured" instance and the second instance being compressed to be correct in an assembly.

The problem is that I need both to be named identically such that the parameters in our drawing sheet give the correct part number to the manufacturer and the assembly BoM calls for the correct part number.

I'm struggling to believe that there is not a way of managing this issue and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has had it, so there must be a workaround: please help!

Many thanks.


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.
Best answer by GabrielZaha

Another way to handle this is to assemble the spring as Flexible Component. This way you don't need the family table and there are no names conflicts for this reason.

11 replies

dschenken1-Visitor
1-Visitor
July 3, 2014

One method is to create a string parameter in all the parts that is used to generate the BOM which represents the desired name of the part. This is often done because of limitations on part names - not being able to include spaces, slash and backslash, and so forth as part of the ProE/Creo file name. Using the parameter, any number of unique parts can have the same name. The Common name is a built-in parameter that can be used to manage this.

The BOM needs to use the parameter as the report index instead of the part number.

ASC1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
July 3, 2014

I was afraid that somebody might say that. Would I be correct in thinking that that would require all parts that needed to be in that BoM would then need this parameter since one cannot overwrite individual cells in a repeat region?

GabrielZaha14-AlexandriteAnswer
14-Alexandrite
July 3, 2014

Another way to handle this is to assemble the spring as Flexible Component. This way you don't need the family table and there are no names conflicts for this reason.

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement