cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X

Why does Save to Workspace no longer auto-assign a new Windchill Number? (uses filename)

jdavis-2
1-Visitor

Why does Save to Workspace no longer auto-assign a new Windchill Number? (uses filename)

In 10.1 we could easily import Solidworks CAD assemblies created outside Windchill using the Save to Workspace command (or import to workspace). All the records imported to the Workspace would be assigned a new, unique Windchill number automatically.

After updating to 10.2, we were told this was a "bug" and was removed. Now the current filename of the CAD file is passed to the Windchill Number of the new record in the workspace. The filename property is of course created from the filename too. The Name and Filename can be renamed, but not the Windchill Number.

So we are left with a Windchill record that has an incorrect Windchill Number that cannot be changed. Since it can't be used, another record must be created through a much more cumbersome method.

Currently the workarounds we have available are:

  1. perform a Windchill SaveAs action to create a new record. The Number is generated automatically. The external CAD file is saved to the Workspace manually, using the filename of the new record to associate it over any potential previous CAD content on that record.
  2. in Solidworks, choose New > {part}/{assembly}, which will "pull" a new Number. Record this number; close this document without saving. Open the external document. Solidworks SaveAs targeting the Workspace and using the pulled Number for the filename.

Consider again having to do this for every component in a large assembly (or even once) and it is incredible that the previous functionality is no longer an option.

There are undoubtedly other workflows with other users setups where this is not a concern, but I believe should be accommodated and allowed for.

Do you agree? Are there other options? Should this be reinstated?

0 REPLIES 0
Announcements

Top Tags