Creating New View version from older Design version

[avillanueva]

I just rant a test to see if this was possible and I cannot understand why this is even allowed. 

I created a Part and revised it up to B. From there I created a New View version off of B to create B.1 Manufacturing. Actually it was -.1 but I altered it to match. Next I went back to -.1 Design and created New View Version again which created C.1 Manufacturing. You can see the history in the predecessor column.

I was aware that repeated invocations of New View Version would advance the Manufacturing version forward.  I am struggling to find a use case where this would be good thing or what the user would want? Perhaps there is something in MPMLink that has this make sense. Thoughts? I am considering blocking it by a filter.

[avillanueva]

Remembering when "Insert Part" with version override allowed you to insert versions in the past, that might have been skipped. Only option is to move forward.

[HelesicPetr]

Hello @avillanueva 

From my point of view you described a standard behavior of the system. 

That works this way all the time I work with MPMLink, where you use the new revision schema with the A.1(design) - A.1(mfg). 

Based on your experience the behavior could be different in your old revision schema A.1(design) - A.A.1(mfg) /  B.1(design) - B.A.1(mfg) 

So what is your question? Why it is possible? Or exists a real use case for this behavior?

It is possible because the system works that way.

Real use case?

I don't know, but I can imagine many things 😄

I understand that you would like to create the same mfg revision as the design one even though the newer revision exists, wouldn't you?

PetrH

[avillanueva]

Yeah, what would be the real use case for this behavior? I agree this is standard behavior. The system does what the user says. Boss says to create a new version so I do what he says. Perhaps I am crazy but I would prefer to their to be alignment between the revisions. For every A Design there is an A Manufacturing and so on. I would prefer to prevent one getting ahead of another or out of sync. I understand there are concepts where they can revise and be managed independent of each other. That's no the case for my company but would be curious how that works in practice.

[HelesicPetr · Accepted solution]

Hi @avillanueva 

I have one example.

You have two user's groups.

One is responsible for the CAD and Design BOM

Second is responsible for the Manufacturing BOM.

There can be so many changes in the Manufacturing BOM without involve the Design BOM. 

So this can be one of the reason, separate the design/manufacturing changes. 

PetrH