Creating BOM out of Creo with other quantity unit than "each"

[ugraf]

Components of Creo Parametric assemblies are represented in Windchill by CAD usage links which have attribute quantity.unit set to each. In some cases it is useful to have another quanitiy.unit, for example meter (for bars, rails, ...). It would be nice if we could to set designated parameters in Creo components, which are mapped in Windchill to quantity.amount and quantity.unit of CAD usage link. At the moment, such a mapping is not recognized by Windchill. It would also be helpful if these attributes are then mapped to the corresponding attributes of the part usage link through the build of WTParts.

Otherwise, the BOM of the WTPart must be corrected manually by deleting and reinserting such a component. Then, this BOM component is no longer associative to the CAD model, and always needs to be updated manually. No one wants to have this behavior.

The attached document explains the desired technique with some screen shots.

A similar behavor is already implemented for find number and line number as IBAs of CAD usage link, which are then mapped to attributes of the corresponding part usage link via preferences build.find.number.attribute and build.line.number.attribute. [Zemsky, Jeff: PTC Live Global: BOM and Configuration Management Best Practices, 2014-11-19]

[slapha]

Related idea with a similar problem, use of As Required/As Needed for bulk items. We also have some things like clamps with quantities "as required".

Bulk Item vs Regular Parts and integration with PDMLink

and similar: Better Unit of Measure and Quantity support between Creo and Windchill

[ThomasBittner]

We also have this requriement and it would be helpful to manage such units in Creo-BOM's

[jschramm]

It would be great to havre this functionality also for any kind of attribute like wearing flags, etc...

Not only for quantity.unit.

[DavidCobb]

We have recently implemented Windchill 11.0 M030 using the out-of-the-box CAD to Part structure synchronization and when this issue surfaced I was surprised to find that it still requires a manual workaround from reading this idea and the other similar ones referenced in the comments. I have voted yes for this and the similar ideas and definitely agree with the earlier comments, the manual workarounds are clunky and highly undesirable.

[jvonzastrow1]

This feature is also needed by many customers using 3rd party CAD (Solidworks, Inventor...)