External simplified Rep

[Praveen]

Hi,

I am trying to add the component in the external simplified rep but the added component is not getting updated/visible in the reference assembly.

I am just trying to check if concurrent modeling is possible with external simplified rep.

It will be of great help if any one can solve this problem

[TomD.inPDX]

I am not sure I understand your process. Are you trying to substitute a component in an assembly with another family table member of one of the components? For this, you can use "replace" in the model tree. Be sure all the mating references are available in each family table member.

If this is not what you are trying to achieve, please feel free to post some images and a little more detail on the process and where it fails.

Welcome to the forum. Praveen.

[Praveen]

Sorry for late reply.

I am interested to know if it is possible for multiple engineers to work simultaneously on the large assembly.

Assume each engineer creating the seperate external simp rep and works on it independently and finally checks into the common space then will the changes made ( like component added or change in constrain type) in external simplified rep gets reflected or updated in main/ reference assembly.

Please see the attached document for better understanding.

I am also not sure if this is the intended use of the external simplified rep

[TomD.inPDX]

I am sorry but the term "external" simplified rep is not specifically familiar to me in the 1st place. I use simplified reps for specific display states. I will have to look into this further.

[TomD.inPDX]

Okay, this is an area I have never known about or understood. There is a lot of resource about this in the help pages. If your external rep is not updating with the update command, there is something not being updated in the rep. I trust you are using the Update Representation function to force an update?

[dschenken]

I looked at this a while ago**. At the time the problem was that it only worked outside of a PDM system.

It certainly is attractive based on the description, but PTC Tech Support could never find a way it would work with PDMLink.

**WF5 and PDMLink 9.x

[gkoch]

The idea of external simplified reps is to create an individual simplified environment as an external "model". It is especially designed for the use with a PDM system (I doubt PTC has spent thoughts on concurrent engineering without a PDM system in recent years).

External Simplified Reps can be created in Creo and checked in or they are created directly in Windchill.

Of course the assembly and its components are treated as always: If you modify them you have to check them out and check them in later again. Other users will need to update their local copies.

The benefit is that you can have multiple engineers working on a large assembly, let's say a car. They can all work on specific subassemblies or parts and the external simplified rep allows them to do this in the context of the assembly, i.e. they can show the hood, when they work on the motor or show the chassis, when they work on the interior, etc...

To successfully use concurrent engineering, this will require some coordination and of course clever assembly structuring. Normally users will not work in the top assembly, but in subassemblies. yet it should be possible to modify the top assembly as well.

But I think in your case you added the parts to the external simplified rep instead of the assembly.

Try activating the assembly you want the parts to be assembled to.

[TomD.inPDX]

Great explanation, Gunter. Thanks!

[dschenken]

What I meant was that ESRs did not allow multiple people to work on the same assembly at the same time and that the limitation was at least due to multiple, simultaneous access not working with a PDM system. If there is a frame that has 2000 components at the top level assembly, ESRs don't let a team of people put the parts together in a way that is similar to how the effort would proceed with real parts.

ESR does allow multiple people to work on independent, managed derivatives and/or on independent parts or subassemblies that happen to be in an ESR. It is more like being able to set up fixtures so that people can work on multiple subassemblies with references drawn from some sub-set of what the final assembly will be like.

Still waiting for real-time collaboration. For example - Fred checks in a part and Chuck gets a pop-up that says a part he has in his assembly just changed, would he like to update? Instead Fred has to guess who might be using the part and call them, or Chuck has to check his workspace to see what has changed, which leads to a lot more work and setup.

[TomU]

Still waiting for real-time collaboration. For example - Fred checks in a part and Chuck gets a pop-up that says a part he has in his assembly just changed, would he like to update?

Ha! They actually had that exact functionality in Product Point. Too bad they discontinued that product.

[MosheBaum]

ESRs (External Simplified Reps) are designed for two main purposes:

1. Allow better collaboration in Large Assebmly scenarios.

Users can define a reduced scope of the assembly (just like internal simprep), but instead of providing access to entire top assembly, or keepign simprep definition of each such reduced scope in the top assembly - you can store that definition in a separate file - the ESR - which will point to only to the objects (and level of details) defined to be included and accessible in this scope.

That allows you to distribute different contexts of work to different users ion the team, w/o forcing them to download entire top assmebly, but only the items requireed for their design task. Also - in complex projects with complex IP-related restrictions - it can come handy if, say, external providers need to design some components in the system - they can get a filtered-down ESR that exposes only relevant information yet allow them still to collaborate and feed their designs into the top context.

In addition - you can define/edit its content quickly and efficiently directly from Windchill (10.0+) using the embeddd Creo View visualization and filter down the scope as needed.

In order to make changes that will reflect in the top assembly as well - user must at least have access to shared items he'd like to modify. Im the sample above - the bolts should have been added whuile activating e.g. sub-assembly that is inherited in the ESR from the original top assembly, instead of directly in the ESR itself.

Which leads to next bullet >>>

2. Allow design add-on items that are NOT meant to be included into the original top assembly

One can add additional objects in the context of the ESR directly, outside of the shared scope, w/o making any impact to the top assembly. Like - manufacturing jigs and fixtures. Or maybe a new add-in product that is meant to be assembled to the original one, but not inherent part of its BOM. E.g. a side-storgae for motorcycle: ESR would contain rear portion of the bike, maybe some fairings pieces, etc. - in the area where the box needs to fit on. But this box may not be considered a piece of the original bike but rather and aftermarket item... So it can be designed in a reduced scope ESR, that will load much faster, and not include any unneeded details like the engine internals or so.

Hope that clarifies.

[TomU]

Would it be fair to say that the ESR is nothing more than a "save a copy" of the top level assembly with some stuff removed?

[MosheBaum]

No

ESR *shares* same content with the top assembly for the items that are included thus saves the hassled of duplication (not to mention redundant objects to manage).

ESR is the only way to actualy have a shared dependent selective/partial content w/o having to share entire assembly, and still reflect updates done concurrently in both contexts.

[TomD.inPDX]

You would think a subject this extensive would justify a lot of revealing Learning Exchange videos.

Are there any recommended videos that we should check out to get a great overview of how to use this and what goes on behind the scenes?

[MosheBaum]

Hi Antonius,

Good point.

We'll look to add some more specific training material per this area in future.

For now I can only point to a webinar recording from few months ago - in the begining I described a bit the use of ESRs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSrCAg6dStk

[TomD.inPDX]

Thanks Moshe. Freely available Learning Exchange videos will be a real boon to Creo. Collaborative efforts is one of the huge stumbling blocks for most small enterprises where 2 or 3 people try to develop concurrently.

This single post has been a real eye-opener in capabilities rarely discussed. Thank you Praveen for bringing this subject up. I hope you are understanding what you need to do to make your assembly behave as desired. Part of what I am reading Moshe's post is that you can add things in your external rep that will not automatically become part of your assembly. What specifically designates a sub-component in an external rep to be part of the top level is not clear from the discussion as yet. A specific procedure or short video for what Praveen is asking would be very helpful, Moshe.

[MosheBaum]

Components or sub-assemblies that were selected from the original top assembly to be shared with the ESR - will be updated both in ESR an in the original assembly. Eighet when someone changes them in the top assembly contesxt or in the ESR context.

Items that were added directly in the ESR - below the list of shared items - will not make any change to the original top assembly.

Sample:

Original >>	<<ESR
Top.asm |-P1 <(x) |-P2 <(v) |-A1 <(v) |--P3 <(x) |--P4 <(v) |-P5 <(x) |-A2 <(x) |--P6 <(-x) |--P7 <(-x)	ESR |-Top.asm | |-P2 <shared |-A1 <shared | |--P4 <shared |--*P8 <new+shared - will update in original | |-*A03 <New, NOT shared - won't update original |-*P9 |-*P10

[dschenken]

A sub-component is designated from the assembly to be part of the ESR.

As far as I know, a component added to an ESR is not part of the assembly.

A component added to a sub-assembly of an ESR while in the context of the sub-assembly (while the sub-assembly is Active) will also show up in the assembly, when the assembly is refreshed, just the same as if no ESR was involved.

[TomD.inPDX]

Yes, it is the evolution of *P8 above that is the basis of this discussion.

What does the (-v) stand for?

[MosheBaum]

v= included by rep deinition

x= excluded by rep definition (or it parent assembly)

[TomD.inPDX]

So in the original scenaro, those bolts have to be associated to an assembly in the top level and not in an ESR?

For instance, maybe a subassembly of the bracket that the bolts go into which can be referenced in an ESR.

The way they were added, they are simply a tool and therefore do not report back to the assembly.

[MosheBaum]

Correct.

Some sub assembly that shared from the original top assembly should have been activated when added the bolts - and the bolts will show up there as well as soon as saved/checked-in etc.

[gkoch]

You may simply look at the external simplified rep as the "new" top assembly (the top-plus-one assembly), which initially includes your "old" top-assembly as sole component:

• If you add a new component to the "new" top assembly, it will be only in this external simplified rep
• If you activate a component inside the external simplified rep (e.g. the "old" top-assembly), then you can make changes that affect this model

[TomD.inPDX]

! Now that makes sense. A higher level assembly wouldn't report back to the top level.

Can I structure an ESR as a sublevel in another asembly?

[MosheBaum]

No. ESR cannot be assembled to another assembly.

[ChristopherLewi]

A lot of chat on your question but i think your key line was "I am just trying to check if concurrent modeling is possible with external simplified rep.". Your point being that two users could add simultaneously to a single assembly file. I assume you conclude that without PDM integration workflow this would not be possible now.

[TomU]

Based on what's been described, the answer is no. You can add to subassemblies that are inside the top level assembly, but you can't add to the top level assembly itself.

I don't think this is a limitation of the PDM system but rather that two people can't both work on the exact same file. Fundamentally you are trying to have two people modify the actual top level assembly. That's not happening (unless I'm completely misunderstanding this).

[ChristopherLewi]

Tom,

You can use Windchill/Creo Update and Integrate functionality to keep multiple sets of changes. Thus you can sort of work on the same file at the same time if you're organized.

[Praveen]

Hi Christopher,

Can you please tell me how to set up the "Update and Integarte" functionality.

If this works out then my problem will be solved

I got some useful information about this in this link

http://communities.ptc.com/thread/32952

[ChristopherLewi]

Your link has some pretty lengthy descriptions of update and integrate. I think it's quite easy when you understand the concept. The results are best when you agree a strategy with your teammembers of course.

a) User A makes a base part/assy/drawing? and checks it in.

b) User B opens up object in question

c) User A checks out object and makes a whole bunch more changes

d) User B makes changes to object and chooses [continue] when prompted to check out object

e) User A checks in object

f) User B chooses File\Update and integrate from menu instead of update current

g) [creo/pdmlink] user b's object is converted into a <number_cm0> object, the object is swapped from server and now a page comes up that is like an active 'compare information' page.

h) user B starts down the list of deltas and chooses which ones to keep, which ones to throw away and so on.

i) user B presses execute, <number> ends up having the changes from _cm0 that user b chose to keep applied to it.

j) user B now checks out <number> and checks it back in.

[result] provided logical modelling and approach has taken place multiple users can work on an object at the same time without losing everything.

*Logical Modelling

- deleting and re-creating base features is going to cause problems with references, don't do that

- keep to an area of impact if possible (i'll stick the rounds on while you start the drawing) or let's both build out this top level assembly with the modules we need.