CreoView publishing as-stored or latest

[jellis]

As the use of CreoView increases in our processes our CAD team gets repeating questions of why the CreoView viewable does not match the Creo Parametric model? Upon investigation we learn that a lower level component was edited and checked in to PDMLink which created the new as-stored image for that component. When the parent assembly is viewed in CreoView they expect to see the latest lower level component like they would if they added the parent to a workspace and opened in Creo Parametric. This is not the case with CreoView since it creates the collection of viewables associated to the checked in file. Whereas Creo Parametric builds the parent/child dependancies based on a preference to use "latest" versions.

If I may ask, how are other companies dealing with this scenario?

To pose a simple question with a hard answer. Why can't CreoView build its viewable image using similar function to Creo Parametric where it pulls the latest image files from the components to build the parent image ? This would certainly slow down the growth and maintenance of millions of image files and present what most users expect to see when looking at the lite weight file.

Kind Regards, Jim

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.

[GregoryPERASSO]

Hello

Complex topic ... cause it deals with CAD structure and/or BOM configuration management ...

As_stored in a "pure" CAD environement can be consider as the "latest correctly re gen assembly".

But an astored assembly is a non sense in term of structure or BOM management. cause As you says, if we modify a component in a sub level, without updating the root asm (typical case of a non trackable part, with a minor change consider as inter changeable (3F etc ...)), the asstored view will not display it...

And it is totally impossible to regen and update all CAD assemblies that use a component , for each levels ....

Since Windchill 10, CreoView is able to dynamically load the structure, depending of ConfigSpec filter and position matrix of each part (for example LATEST, or other filter like baseline, lot number, promotion request ...). So you're able to see the exact assembly as Creo param (except if you use assembly features, like cutting a hole ...).

The little Pview image on the info page is still by default a link to the "as_stored" rep. And there's always the same question for drawings , and notably assembly drawings. as they are also published with as_stored, Should we consider a drawing obsolete, if one of the ub level component in one view is not the latest ? I think No, ...

When using Winchill as an enterprise PLM, with CAD and WTPart BOM integration. My advice is to avoid in drawings "BOM information", like part number, multilevel BOM table ... simplify drawings, use bubles with BOM find number, and use in complement a Windchill report, like BOM or Part infor page with attribute ...

And use the ConfigSpec filter. As Windchill contains all the history and . There's not a single "LATEST" source of truth ... it depends of users role in the company, and "when" in the product lifecycle ... a Design Engineer will probably work in LATEST, but may be a purchase engineer should work in LATEST + RELEASED lifecycle state ...

just my though

[jellis]

Agreed....Complex Topic! Thanks for the comment!

IMHO, I believe some of this CAD Structure and BOM configuration challenge is addressed in the Windchill Options and Variants coupled with Creo 2 Options Modeler Extension. With these two coupled together it will provide some form of usable viewable based on the Checked In configuration whether filtered for 'as-stored' or 'latest'. The Top Level model has lower level modules that will have their viewables from Check In publishing. However I believe the problem will still exists where a sub-level component is edited but those edits do not affect the 3f of the parent assembly. When one views the sub-level viewable it could possibly match the Creo Para model but the parent assembly viewable would not be current unless a new publish request is created to provide the current viewable.

Regards, Jim

[GregoryPERASSO]

It will work with Option Modeler. Variant Spec is "just" another type of filter. But end users still need to know which filter to use, depending of the usage context ...

There will be always a "problem" for the default viewvable (little picture on part info page), which will still open by default an astored ..

An idea for PTC product management, is that each user can be able to set in his preferences, the default filter for opening in Creo View... Or open creo view with the selected filter instead of as_stored.

Today, he have to explicitly go in the structure tab, set the filter, and then open in CreoView from the root WTPart...

[jellis]

I recv'd an email from our App Engr, Matt Mason. Matt provided a link to TPI 131667. The article informs about OOTB settings for WVS where the representation can be flagged as being out-of-date when lower level child components are checked in. The article also provides for configuring auto republishing for out-of-date representations with a warning about the load on the publisher for this activity.

A BIG thank you to Matt!

Regards, Jim

[BillRyan]

HI Jim, our company is setting up development assemblies to be published as positioning assemblies so engineers can be confident they are seeing the latest content just as they see in Pro-E.(currently WF5). I'll be presenting the topic at PTC Global also. There are advantages such as publisher performance, ability to use the new autoload feature in CV2 M040 along with the ability to select an available Viewable(simplified rep) of a lower level subassembly in the tree structure to name a few. Our goal is to make the navigation/find/turn on components to be identical between Creo View to Pro/E. If we can get simplified reps that use substitution rule published and available in Creo View we'll be golden!

[GregoryPERASSO]

Hello Bill,

few questions as I've no ability to see your presentation at PTCLive ...

when publishing as positionning assemblies:

-is there a little viewable on the info page of the asm (or related WTPart) ?

- do you publish all levels as positionning assemblies, or let certain sub levels as "classic" publishing

-Do you use WTPart BOM or only CADdocs in WC ? If yes , the opened position assembly is the same as the one opened from the WTpart BOM with LATEST configspec

-what about "assembly features" (CAD methodologies forbid that at position level , but authorized in sub levl ?)

-what about your methology for assembly drawing update and publishing ?

Thanks

Gregory

[BillRyan]

Gregory,

• Our assemblies are overloaded BOM's so an image is not much use in WC information pages. The viewable on the information pages include the "pyramid/montor" icon. Ideally, we want to have a "default" image showing in these pages.
• All assemblies "in work" are published as positioning along with our installation assemblies that include a lot of reference information(efficiency for publisher). We have a case open to get positioning assembly published as a "BaseLine" for release. (Note: "As stored" does not mean what it used to mean as you can publish As Stored and a lower level component a couple levels deep will still load a latest version of a component in a positioning assembly structure)
• Our company (every vehicle going down line is a different configuration) is still investigating product structure/option & variants/AnyBom technology, so we have yet to turn on WTParts. We have 10 years of creating structure in an a large assembly Pro-E model tree with simplified reps.
• Assembly cuts are frowned upon! However, we do have a couple use cases(can't take the tool out of the toolbox.) and those are published as standard. Also harnesses and components that have flexible features do not publish as positioning assemlbies in which we publish standard. Note: there are cases created to hopefully solve this issue. Also note: we have identified 5 failure modes in the job publisher...and "fail to convert" is the message in the log for these type of assemblies that we must publish standard.
• Drawing methodology..."in review" or "release" orderable component assemblies published standard..."in work" publish as positioning assembly. This is what we are working towards...we recently updated new assembly template for all of our divisions to include the parameter to drive positioning assembly publishing. We've been publishing vehicle level assemblies for 2 years now as positioning assemblies.

[jellis]

Thanks for the post Bill. I'll be looking for your presenation at User. Hopefully it will fit into my schedule.

KR, Jim