1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders.
2. What version of Windchill are you currently running?
3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video.
When creating or changing Option & Variant structures (models) :
In Windchill 11 (in Product Structure Explorer) it was possible, at top level of a structure, to decide that a parameter should be known at all underlying levels of the O&V structure, just by declaring Equivalency to all Descendants, then this parameter name and value was known in all underlying levels in the structure.
In Windchill 12 it is necessary first to go to underlying level and create parameter name, then back one level up, and edit parameter and also specify parameter name on lower level.
And in structures with many levels (as we have), it is necessary to repeat this for all leves where the parameter is needed.
The funny part is that O&V models created in Windchill 11and then upgraded to Windchill 12 works and can generate variants, but as soon the models change also the enheritance must be specified according to Windchill 12.
Please provide a possibility to specify enheritence similar to Windchill 11
4. What is the use case for your organization?
This changed functionality means extra time spent on creating and changing O&V models.
We have in the area of 70 models at the moment, and are constantly changing these or adding new.
5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization?
That we now have to specify on all levels in structures is estimated to cost approx. 150 work hours per year
I can add the information that 70 Models means 70 End Item Configurable Modules, the total number of configurable modules is much higher, 944 at the moment, as we have deep structures in most our models, and both numbers are increasing increasing.
Please let me know if you have TS call number. This is an issue that needs to be fixed and not an idea. Please PM me your TS call
This issue was reported was reported to PTC support by our consultant (PTC partner)
Sorry the previous comment about case number is wrong
The case number for this issue is C16163047 and the PTC Tech support came back with this answer
"I have got a feedback from the R&D on this topic .
After discussion with the product Management, developer have confirmed that the difference is gap in the current release but it is not Bug .
PSE support was stopped in the older release, but we are not planning to make a symmetry in recent future.
I encourage you to submit an enhancement request. "
Thats why i submitted this as a Windchill Idea, but very fine for me if PTC reconsider and treat this as an error to be fixed.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.