cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Security Alert Log4j Security Vulnerability. Click here to know more.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Automation to migrate library tools to the WF3 XML format?- Summary

MikeO'Brien
1-Newbie

Automation to migrate library tools to the WF3 XML format?- Summary

Nobody had an easy solution for this. I think this is something that a lot of people just haven't run into yet or some may not yet have noticed the full extent of the problem. I would expect that if this isn't resolved by PTC it will eventually bite anyone with cut data established prior to WF3. I'll forward a description of my "homebrew" automation upon request. Thanks to Peter Brown for the tidbit that ultimately sprung this solution through the Mfg Setup menu. My environment seems to be stable now, but I still see this as a hokey workaround caused by poor planning and implementation on PTC's part.


New info from last week's conference:
PTC (Francois) will look into whether opening of a legacy tool can retrieve data for all materials and maintain that data when the new XML file is saved. This would be a huge benefit, as it would allow "on-the-fly" conversion of the library. This peaceful coexistence of both filetypes would remove any need to do a bulk migration of data. No promises from PTC other than the acknowledgement that it may currently be a problem and some vague commitment to look into it more. Stay tuned...


At least one vendor expressed interest in possibly developing a solution to help with this migration. Too late for us, but it sounds like at least a few of you might still have need/input for this type of solution. Below are their questions related to how/if to structure that business. If interested, send me the feedback and I'll forward it directly so you won’t have to open yourself up to exploder-based SPAM. Let me know whether to include your contact info.

*How many tools (Parameter / Solid/ Sketched) do you have?
*How many materials do you cut?
*Do you maintain both Inch and Metric tool sets?
*Do you maintain speed/feed data for all possible combinations?
*With respect to converting your tooling library (/Tools/Materials directory structure), which option would you prefer?
a) Use a service that would process a zip file of the directory structure, and return an XML file on a fee for service basis.
b) Purchase an application that would allow you to process your directory structure locally.


Thanks for the time/concern re: my project, and good luck with your own!

-Mike O'Brien
Medtronic, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN

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.
2 REPLIES 2

Mike,

What you say is not completely accurate regarding the conversion of the cut
data (being only for a single material).

If you are in a sequence and add a tool to the Tool Manager, then yes, it
only reads the data from the material defined in the Operation.

However, if you load the tools from outside a sequence you can read in each
material's cut data from the pull-down menu in succession and then do a
File>Save from the Tool Manager and the XML file will be created with the
cut data for all the materials. A bit cumbersome, I know, but you do get
all your data. A mapkey would be handy here. Also, when you read this XML
file into another .mfg file, all the material cut data gets loaded without
having to cycle through each material.

Note though, that once you have written the XML file, Pro will no longer
look at the 'old' .tpm file for that tool. Therefore, when converting your
cut data you need to read in all the various materials the very first time
you access the tool or you will - essentially - lose the cut data for all
the other materials. It's not really lost, the .tpm still exists, so you
could delete the (incomplete) XML file and re-read the .tpm file again if
you wish.

Another issue is the mfg_param_auto_copy_from_tool config option. I find
that there is no sense as to how PTC decided to use rough and finish data.
It was very arbitrary. Don't quote me, but I think Volume, Rough, Re-rough
used 'rough' values and everything else used 'finish' values. Who is to say
that a drilling operation is rough or finish? What about a trajectory?
Anyway, we rarely use the same tool for roughing and finishing, we have
different tools for each type of operation (insert mill for rough, solid
carbide for finishing). All of our cut data resided as 'rough' (even for
finishing tools) just because that is the first menu pick. To use the new
config option would invalidate almost all of my cut data anyway.

Regards,

Peter Brown
NC Programming Manager
Jarvis Products Corporation

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:34 PM
To: PTC/USER Pro/MANUFACTURE Discussion
Subject: Automation to migrate library tools to the WF3 XML format?-
Summary

Nobody had an easy solution for this. I think this is something that a
lot of people just haven't run into yet or some may not yet have noticed
the full extent of the problem. I would expect that if this isn't
resolved by PTC it will eventually bite anyone with cut data established
prior to WF3. I'll forward a description of my "homebrew" automation
upon request. Thanks to Peter Brown for the tidbit that ultimately
sprung this solution through the Mfg Setup menu. My environment seems
to be stable now, but I still see this as a hokey workaround caused by
poor planning and implementation on PTC's part.


New info from last week's conference:
PTC (Francois) will look into whether opening of a legacy tool can
retrieve data for all materials and maintain that data when the new XML
file is saved. This would be a huge benefit, as it would allow
"on-the-fly" conversion of the library. This peaceful coexistence of
both filetypes would remove any need to do a bulk migration of data. No
promises from PTC other than the acknowledgement that it may currently
be a problem and some vague commitment to look into it more. Stay
tuned...


At least one vendor expressed interest in possibly developing a solution
to help with this migration. Too late for us, but it sounds like at
least a few of you might still have need/input for this type of
solution. Below are their questions related to how/if to structure that
business. If interested, send me the feedback and I'll forward it
directly so you won't have to open yourself up to exploder-based SPAM.
Let me know whether to include your contact info.

*How many tools (Parameter / Solid/ Sketched) do you have?
*How many materials do you cut?
*Do you maintain both Inch and Metric tool sets?
*Do you maintain speed/feed data for all possible combinations?
*With respect to converting your tooling library (/Tools/Materials
directory structure), which option would you prefer?
a) Use a service that would process a zip file of the directory
structure, and return an XML file on a fee for service basis.
b) Purchase an application that would allow you to process your
directory structure locally.


Thanks for the time/concern re: my project, and good luck with your own!

-Mike O'Brien
Medtronic, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN


Announcements