Community Tip - Visit the PTCooler (the community lounge) to get to know your fellow community members and check out some of Dale's Friday Humor posts! X
Hello all,
We have a dozen legacy custom hole charts (Counterbore, countersink, UNF Pattern, UNF Single, etc.) that we would like to replace with three new charts by utilizing the "Setting Thread Note Format Based on Hole Feature Characteristics" as laid out here: Thread Notes. I don't know the history on why they were setup this way, but now we are trying to streamline.
The issue is, if we remove the legacy hole charts, any existing models utilizing those charts will be broken - we would have thousands of models with many holes each that would need to be updated to the new hole charts.
If we retain the legacy charts, it would lead to confusion due to similar chart names.
Is there any way to get around this issue? Maybe retaining the charts within the system, but somehow hiding them in the standard hole tool? Or perhaps setting up a relationship between legacy charts names and new charts to automatically convert old models? Surely other companies must be running into this issue also...?
I also came across the option for embedded hole files, but unfortunately it is a little too late for that to help here.
I recently fought this same battle. Unfortunately there is no way to keep existing hole features happy if the old hole files are no longer available. Any redefinition of an existing hole feature will instead default to the first thread type and screw size available.
It would be great if PTC could add some method to hide obsolete hole files from the user interface while still allowing existing hole features to access them. The embedded option doesn't work because it would need to have been enabled all along, but that causes other issues if you ever need to make any changes since the embedded hole files will ignore changes to the non-embedded versions.
I ended up doing three things:
Thanks for the response Tom.
I agree that the option to hide obsolete hole files would be the ideal solution.
For now, we will likely end up with a similar setup as what you have done. Good thought on the SmartAssembly tool - I've never used it, but I need to look into it now!
Bumping this conversation as we are still struggling with the issue. Does anyone have a solution?