MFG assembly extensions. PTC Bring it back!

[ptc-3262358]

Seriously, what were you guys thinking? I don't understand the logic. Am I missing something?

First, by getting rid of the separate MFG ext asm you have made it difficult to quickly determine whether a MFG file has been created by simply looking thru windows explorer.

Second, and more important, with the new change if you happen to bring in an assembly with the same naming structure, but who’s models have been altered, it over rides the old .asm and botches up the manufacturing work within it!

Bring back the old way of doing it. The MFG file should be separated from the ASM file.

Leo Iezzi

Supervisor, Mfg Eng/CnC prg. Dept.

Aircraft Systems Group

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.

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.

[SteveLucas]

Leo,

The way we differentiate between assemblies and mfg assemblies is to put a M in front of the manufacturing assembly name when creating the manufacturing file. Itreally isn't that big of a thing to deal with at least I don't think so. We have been doing that long before the switch from the old .mfg extension.

Steve

[ptc-3262358]

We saw the change from Wildfire 4.0 to Creo 2.0.

Perhaps its a personal thing, but I don't care for creating extra steps when the original way of doing it was more efficient.

Having to name something with an M, vs, not having to do it at all seems pretty straight forward. Why create more work AND the off chance of a programmer forget and screw things up? Seriously, Pro-man and Pro-e is already the king of clicks and steps......why add more? Doesn't make sense. Here's a pic of the old way on the right and the new way on the left. (arbitrary parts since I cannot disclose actual work part names and numbers)

[Inoram]

Did you try...

[ptc-3262358]

Yes, but it only changes the Icon graphic, not the actual assy type.

[Inoram]

Did you try...

MFG_ASSEM_SETUP

or maybe, but probably not.

NEW_MFG_DIALOG

[ptc-3262358]

Those two I wasn't aware of Matt. I did try it however, and they did not change the assy type.

I don't understand. Every other module PTC supports has an extension even Pro-Mannequin! Why did they get rid of our .MFG?

In my 15 years of using Pro-man I have never ran into issues related to this topic. It's beyond me why PTC has decided we should merge our .asm with our .mfg.

[dschenken]

Here is an earlier discussion:

http://communities.ptc.com/message/229923#229923

Doesn't look like a satisfying a reason to create a collision course. Perhaps they should force out .asm and only use .prt for everything.

[ptc-3262358]

Thank you David, I just read the thread you linked.

What an absolutely stupid reason. Seriously, none of those points have ever been issues.

PS. Don't make that suggestion out loud David.....they problably would.......

[Inoram]

If you look at Olaf's config.pro list on his website, there are a bunch of hidden ones related to MFG. those are just the ones that stuck out to me.

Myself, I am fine with the MFG being gone. But I realize different people want to use the software different ways, which seems to be why they leave that kind of stuff in config.pro options.

[ptc-3262358]

Thanks Matt, I'll look in the config pro, although they seem to have made it pretty clear on the link David posted.