Community Tip - Visit the PTCooler (the community lounge) to get to know your fellow community members and check out some of Dale's Friday Humor posts! X
In my experience as an aircraft engineer in Bombardier and implementing Windchill for the past 17 years, CAD models and drawings do not need to have the same revision. Actually it is best practices not to have the same revision. Instead place the revision of the CAD model in the drawing. Aslo, CAD models are 3D documents. 3D CAD models should not be treated as parts. Non-geometric or cosmetic changes (i.e. Layers, addtional points, colours) in models should not result in a change in drawing and visa-versa. A text change that is not functional (i.e. spelling mistake) should not result in a revision in the CAD model.
Icompletely agree with Mike Lockwood, that 1 model to 1 drawing.I believe that is the best process. Not may would agree, but there is so much less drastic effect in a change notice and the rest of the business cyccle beyond engineering.
What you don't want to occur is mass cascading changes. I agree that engineering always use latest, but the understanding is that engineering works to the latest design. On the other hand, manufacturing and the rest of supply chain works to a specific effectivity of both parts and documentation. Even documentation have different effectivities than parts because there is a lag when drawing could actually reach the manufacturing shop floor locally and in global subsidaries.
What you don't want is the change notice business process to be burden with releasing tons of CAD models and drawings for just one CAD model or drawing change. Due to sychronizing CAD models and drawings results change notice process becomes CAD methodology centric. If CAD methodology centric, most business avoid using WTPart, change management and implementing other CAD tools (ECAD, arbortext and so on) in one solution. Windchill is just used as a Pro/I replacement and not an enterprise solution.
That's what I've seen the past 17 years,
Patrick
Our current business model supports 1 to many tabulated parts on a drawing. We currently separate the wtpart revision from the drawing revision. We also allow individual part revisions within thetabulated series of parts. The part revisions and drawing revision typically are not in sync, no requirement for that.
We also have to customize our BOM information from the wtpart bom, with the item balloon information automatically created in our drawings, trying to leverage core proe functionality ballooning/bom capability....