cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

We are happy to announce the new Windchill Customization board! Learn more.

Design A vs Design B in Pro/INTRALINK 9.1

ptc-113113
1-Newbie

Design A vs Design B in Pro/INTRALINK 9.1

Last week we made a very unpleasant discovery of a loss of functionality in Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 when compared with 3.x
The scenario is something like this:

The scenario of concern is something like this.
Scenario "Will design A or B be best?"

I want to create and/or modify a design (part or assembly), and I have thought of two or more ways to solve the design issue. I want to commit my thoughts to working geometry in Pro/E AND I want to follow best practices for Product Data Management.

Today, in 3.4, I check out the object into two (or more)separate workspaces, and create/modify the design variations independently.
When I choose which design to keep (A or B) I check A or B back in from the respective workspace. I can then delete the other workspace(the "un-chosen design").

Our understanding today is, Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 will only allow you to modify an specific item in one and only workspace. This means you cannot check out the same part or the same assembly to two different workspaces.

So what alternatives do we have to create and analyze design A vs. design B in Pro/ENGINEER?


Can you please share your expert knowledge of how you accomplish this today and let us together explore solutions to this issue.


Prerequisite knowledge:
Pro/INTRALINK 3.4 function "Check-out" is divided into two functions in Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 (download and check-out)
In Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 there is download and there is check-out. Download is the process of copying files to your workspace from the server (commonspace). Check-out now becomes a reservation for you and only you to modify the file. To state it another way, one and only one Midmark teammate can "check-out" a drawing at a time to modify it at Midmark, but everyone can download the file to any workspace. This is a very good best practice for design control, but it has effects on our workflow.


Best Regards,

Andrew Amsden
CAD\PDM Administrator
Midmark Corporation
937-526-8770



11 REPLIES 11

I think it’s a good question do Windchill and ProIntralink 9.1 support concurrent engineering and how.

Anywaythis issue can be resolved by creating several iterations of the same EPMDocument rev and working on those iterations in individual workspaces.

D

Have you tried to use Download, make the modifications in Pro/E, when
Pro/E informs you that you don't have it Checked Out, Select the
Continue option. You can then locally modify the objects. You should
be able to do this in both workspaces, although I've never verified
that.

Once you determine which design you like, Check Out that object, the
default is to not Download the model, so you won't lose your changes.
Then you can Check In the design that you preferred.

Steve D.


Quoting Andrew Amsden <->:

> Last week we made a very unpleasant discovery of a loss of
> functionality in Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 when compared with 3.x
> The scenario is something like this:
>
> The scenario of concern is something like this.
> Scenario "Will design A or B be best?"
>
> I want to create and/or modify a design (part or assembly), and I
> have thought of two or more ways to solve the design issue. I want
> to commit my thoughts to working geometry in Pro/E AND I want to
> follow best practices for Product Data Management.
>
> Today, in 3.4, I check out the object into two (or more)separate
> workspaces, and create/modify the design variations independently.
> When I choose which design to keep (A or B) I check A or B back in
> from the respective workspace. I can then delete the other
> workspace(the "un-chosen design").
>
> Our understanding today is, Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 will only allow you to
> modify an specific item in one and only workspace. This means you
> cannot check out the same part or the same assembly to two different
> workspaces.
>
> So what alternatives do we have to create and analyze design A vs.
> design B in Pro/ENGINEER?
>
>
> Can you please share your expert knowledge of how you accomplish
> this today and let us together explore solutions to this issue.
>
>
> Prerequisite knowledge:
> Pro/INTRALINK 3.4 function "Check-out" is divided into two functions
> in Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 (download and check-out)
> In Pro/INTRALINK 9.1 there is download and there is check-out.
> Download is the process of copying files to your workspace from the
> server (commonspace). Check-out now becomes a reservation for you
> and only you to modify the file. To state it another way, one and
> only one Midmark teammate can "check-out" a drawing at a time to
> modify it at Midmark, but everyone can download the file to any
> workspace. This is a very good best practice for design control, but
> it has effects on our workflow.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andrew Amsden
> CAD\PDM Administrator
> Midmark Corporation
> 937-526-8770
>
>
>
>

Thank you Dmitry
Iterations or Revisions?
My understanding of PDMLink and Pro/INTRALINK is that a user may check out one and only one iteration per revision, but perhaps you can check out two different revisions at the same time? I do not think you can check out multiple iterations.
Andrew

Supposedly, branching is the preferred method to deal with this issue in Intralink 3.x.
However, we never use it because we too find it easy to simply check-out the file(s) into multiple workspaces.
Does PDMLink/Intralink 9.x support branching?

Gerry

Can check out Revisions or New View Versions which can be created for each Revision or Version (Version = Revision. Iteration)

Have not tried to use ProIntralink 9.1 only Windchill 9.1

Concerning iterations - guess make sense to ask PTC tech support areany preferences, which can allow checking out several iterations.I am pretty sure should be somework around (branching using New View Versions)

We are in process of migration from Intralink to Windchill so this is very interesting question for us as well. Unfortunately did not have a chance to explore this issue in details.



D

Stay away from branching! Only stuff on the main branch gets migrated.




From the 9.1 M010 Windchill migration guide "What Gets Migrated?

The following items get migrated by the Pro/INTRALINK Data Migrator

9.1 Tool: Users, Folders, User Defined Attributes, and Object Data,

including Revision History (on Main Branch only)."



Joshua Houser

MCAD Tools Admin

Pelco - by Schneider Electric

800-289-9100 ext. 3490

559-274-2845 (Cell)

We had the same question about concurrent design here at Steelcase. Steve, your suggestion is the conclusion that we came up with. We even tested it.

Patrick Williams | Engineering Systems | Sr. Applications Engineer | Steelcase Inc. | 616.698.4078


The common answer appears to be

1. check-out the objects to a workspace

2. create and use one or more other workspaces

3. download the same objects to these secondary workspaces

4. modify in Pro/E. Pro/E warns you that you are going to modify an object that has NOT been checked-out

5. In Pro/E, select "Continue"

6. finish design alternatives

7. select the best design alternative

8. cancel the check-out from the original workspace above

9. perform a check-out on the modified objects in the workspace with the chosen design (keep in mind, check-in is now independent from download)

10. check-in the best design alternative
Many thanks to the community!
We give this a spin in our "sandbox" install of Pro/INTRALINK 9.1

Best Regards to everyone,
Andrew

There is still a business case not covered.

Suppose there are several models modified locally in both workspaces.
Design B is decided to be the best, but also is decided that some models
have to be copied, while other models have to be revised.

No problem for the revise, but making a copy in Windchill of models
modified locally isn't possible (it was in Intralink 3.x !).

Our work-around is to allow rename in ProE session (see config option
let_proe_rename_pdm_objects). A little dangerous unless people are
aware of the pitfalls. The biggest contra is that Windchill doesn't
track the copy history in this scenario.

Regards, Hugo.

I was very disappointed when I found that out. One thing that can be
done is inside of Pro/E you can do a Replace by Copy. I can't remember
if that copies the drawing (i think you have to have a config option
set). It may not work for assemblies, it was a while ago that i did
this. It was also something I used in 8.0.

Steve D.


Quoting Hermans Hugo <->:

> There is still a business case not covered.
>
> Suppose there are several models modified locally in both workspaces.
> Design B is decided to be the best, but also is decided that some models
> have to be copied, while other models have to be revised.
>
> No problem for the revise, but making a copy in Windchill of models
> modified locally isn't possible (it was in Intralink 3.x !).
>
> Our work-around is to allow rename in ProE session (see config option
> let_proe_rename_pdm_objects). A little dangerous unless people are
> aware of the pitfalls. The biggest contra is that Windchill doesn't
> track the copy history in this scenario.
>
> Regards, Hugo.
>


How Variant design and Generation is adopted in the PTC concept of supporting concurrent design using Windchill 9.1 and WF4.0-5.0 (or overall the concept of concurrent engineering for ECAD/MCAD/Software collaboration)? Are any best practices, advices or roadmaps defined?


D

Top Tags