Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Search instead for
Did you mean:
The Community Team is working with PTC Product Management to provide status updates to ideas in all the PTC Community Idea boards.
To learn about status descriptions, please visit Community Welcome & How-To's
While installing Windchill 11.1 M020 CPS05 earlier today, I received an error in the logs, telling me that the install had failed because the file name or extension was too long. After the failed install I am unable to start the methodserver.
The PSI allowed me to install Windchill 11.1 M020 with the longer path (base path was c:\PTC\Windchill11.1_Application) and completed successfully. It was only when I attempted to install a new module (ERP connector) that this problem surfaced.
It appears that Java cannot parse a particular path in an XML file during the install, due to it exceeding a maximum length.
My suggestion, therefore, would be to have a warning or a check in the PSI, when installing windchill, to prevent the path length from exceeding a certain value.
... View more
From WC11.1 M020, an admin can go into a user account and do a limited set of actions (rename, remove, undo checkout, and checkin). We tested this feature and its effectivly working well. But they are some few problems in the interface :
When performing checkin from a user WS, no checkin option is proposed (the CAD object is put on the root of the target context), and no message can be seen on the screen as if the action succeded or not
No refresh button on the interface of the user Workspace, so if the admin needs to see new CAD parts, he has to re-enter the workspace of refresh manually with an F5 button.
The CAD part checked-in via this new feature appears as "Modified by" the user himself..., no mention that an admin forced the action. I dont know if that cannot lead to confusion, for example : one good thing with the "set state" feature is that it leaves a mark in the history tab of the CAD object...
Can you please make the necessary adjustements?
Thanks in advance
... View more
In Windchill (v9.1 and v10.2 at least, possibly earlier), in the Preference Manager, under the Revise category, there is an option for "Allow Override on Revise". This allows the user to specify any revision (after the current revision, one cannot go backwards) when revising an object. For example, If you are revising a Revision B, you could not go back to A, but you could jump directly to M, N, or O. If you are currently using a file-based or state-based versioning schema where some of your revisions are flagged for 'legacy="true"', this option will also allow you to manually set the revision to a legacy revision. This has been described as "working as intended". In our situation, we sometimes have to migrate data in without a through clean-up being possible. This means that our schema must contain I, O, Q, S, X, and Z in the schema, but we do not want users to be able to select them after the initial migration of objects into Windchill. We set those revisions in our schema as legacy revisions by using the legacy="true" flag. Our suggestion is to add an overrideable warning that would occur if the following are true: The Preference Manager > Revise > Allow Override on Revise = Yes File-based or State-based versioning is being used Users attempt to revise an object and manually input a state where the legacy="true" flag is set in the versioning schema The warning would warn the user that the version that they have selected is intended for legacy purposes only, and would then presumably ask them if they want to reset the revision: If the user answers "yes" (they want to change the revision), they will be brought back to the Revise window. If they fail to change the revision, or they change it to another legacy revision, the warning will repeat. If the user answers "no" (they do not want to change the revision), the object will be revised to the legacy revision.
... View more
Rehost utilies have bad performance while doing a rehost of an Oracle's base larger than 500 GB.
When using the parameters "ChangeHome", it can take a lot of time performing SQL Request, so we suggest that :
-Can we bind thoses request to have better performance?
-Is it possible to have "auto-commit" mode ? for exemple after 10000 requests.
-Is it possible to put "out of the box" the update of the table "ApplicationData" from the ChangeHome part of the rehost? (if we want to update this table after the rehost)
... View more
The feature "forceContentToVault=true" is very usefull for external vaulting and specialy for CAD objects which are big in general. But when you used this feature you are oblige to have only ONE master vault as default target. Ok why not !
Now take an "old" system which is working since several years and pass through several Windchill version where the "automatic folder creation" did not exist. This system have the capability to used the "forceContentToVault=true" without any issue BUT CAN NOT used the "automatic folder creation" due to unique "master vault", Why this restriction ?
It is unrealistic to do a revaulting when you have more than 20 TB of data split in more than 50 billions of files. So the capability to design a new root folder with is our master vault as a new default target could be possible. Of course all previous master vault and folders pass to readonly mode.
What we need is to avoid to usage of a "cache vault" which is not need. We want to go directly to the new target master vault without any rules.
When you start from scratch, you have the capability to have several "root folders" when the capability of the previous one is full, you move to another one and so on...
Why we can not have the same but old one Master Vault used "manual folder creation" and then a new Master Vault with "Root folders" ? Hope it is enough clear.
For the moment we are oblige to manage the folder creation to avoid big issue. That's why "Root folders" have been created !
... View more