I would like the ability to link a WTPart to another WTPart such that structure updates in the first will build in the second.
The use case would be a "same, but different" assembly design where the structure should match an existing assembly, with only a few changes. The first WTPart could be CAD driven, or directly updated. When it is iterated, any structure changes should then build into the second WTPart.
The second WTPart would maintain it's modifications (part adds or removes). This would work exactly the same way a WTPart can have manual edits even when it is CAD driven.
Hi @jvonzastrow1 ,
Thanks for the idea. I spent some time looking into it this morning. It seems like the update from the upstream to the downstream is all or nothing. I really want a scenario where the downstream remembers the modifications I've already made so I don't have to manually make all edits again. CAD driven WTParts work this way.
CAD model has 5 parts. WTPart structure is automatically built with all 5 parts. User edits WTPart structure to remove part 5.
Later, CAD is updated to add a 6th part. WTPart structure automatically builds to add the 6th part, and the 5th part is still removed.
I don't see how to get downstream WTPart to work in the same way. I want it to remember that part 5 was removed. Is there a way to do that?
@joe_morton As you have CAD structure you could use Multiple Owner Associations. One cad structure can have owner association to many wtpart structures. Look at preference "Allow CAD Document To Build Multiple Parts"
@jvonzastrow1 , I thought of that. Unfortunately, the assemblies we want to use this on are not CAD-driven. Thanks for the idea though!
@joe_morton - this seems to have elements of configurable structures. Have you considered using a configurable structure to then generate the variants?
Thanks so much for the suggestion. It looks like Options and Variants would be way overkill for this use case. We want engineering to be able to define a variant, while the main design is still being developed. Both designs are related - they must stay synchronized except for a few distinct changes. It looks like Options and Variants requires a huge top-down approach of fully defining every variation for a Product. We're looking at a variant for just a subassembly.
Not sure if this problem is already resolved. But here is my suggestion (similar to BOM Transformation that was discussed above).
- Let's say create a new BOM View - Design Variant
In the BOM transformer,
- create a new variant of the top level Part (I think you can create an entirely new part with new view version)
- under the new variant add all children from the original design view (except the part 5 in your example)
- now the differentiator here could be the equivalence link.So create an equivalence link between your design part and design variant part.
- Let's assume you revise the design view part with a new child object
- Now in BOM transformer, you identify discrepancies - This will show only the changes that were made between the current revision and the previous revision of design view. And you should see there Added Usages. And you can only select added child object as the discrepancy to be resolved. So you can revise the downstream design variant parent object and resolve the added usage discrepancy.
This my understanding of the BOM Transformation and this should solve the problem.
But as @JeffZemsky mentioned, this could create other issues like how do you like to view this design variant view in your complete assembly. If designers would like to filter their structures after the variant, then you cannot create a new downstream part but instead you have to try creating a new view version (it is important that you chose not to reuse the structure when creating the new downstream view).
Hope this helps. Also looking forward to hear, how your team addressed this issue.
Hi @CP_10167516 ,
Thanks for your response! I haven't seen the ability to create a new part with a new view version. We wouldn't want to have a variant with the same part number as the original file. Otherwise, that would be a great solution I think.
Please refer to the following link. As far as I can see, it should be possible to create a new downstream part with downstream view.
I did not played around with numbering constraints.
We are archiving your idea as part of a general review. This action is based on the age of your idea and the total number of votes received, as per this announcement.
You can always post a new idea with all the details required in the form.
Thank you for your participation.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.