Community Tip - Learn all about PTC Community Badges. Engage with PTC and see how many you can earn! X
One of our designers had a problem modifying a Family Table that he created so instead of asking for help, went and created 3 independent part files with the sme number scheme.
Now I want to merge them into the family as instances.
Is this possible to do with Windchill 10.0 m040? I know I could do it with Intralink 3.3.
Is there a PTC document that explains the process or has someone got a cheat sheet for the steps involved.
Thanks.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Ben,
I took this from my directions to take a single object and rename it to make a generic and add instances. Since you have all the objects already there, you will need just these. Make sure that you only put your current generic and instances in the workspace to begin and not the one you want to add.
Ben,
I took this from my directions to take a single object and rename it to make a generic and add instances. Since you have all the objects already there, you will need just these. Make sure that you only put your current generic and instances in the workspace to begin and not the one you want to add.
Dear BrianToussaint
thank you very much.
the imcompatible issue offen make me job very hard, I checked all PTC online help, howerver can not clearly understand the main points, up to here I see your example. there two time undertable replace, change name and keep content.
I am in elevator industrial, there are a lot of similar part which is organized by family table, which is managed by Windchill, however, we time to timely modify some intent and forget download whole family, so imcompatible will happen, and I do NOT want redo all modification, your way is only way to keep my mofication and successfully check in.
thank you!
Best regards, Hongjie
Dear Brian,
My company is using a lot fo family table models in our product, we often met could NOT checking in issue in Windchill after forgetting revise whole fmaily table before. Several time I had worked one week on one assembly and found the kind issue when I started to check in. the windchill lock sides, on commonspace, they said in working assembly have more instance so you can not revise to from released to in work, in workspace side, they said you can not check in for in commspace the family table NOT in work stage.
I have checked whole PTC help cneter, your article is only easly way for me to following and do NOT need to rework. even my case a littler differece, the main strategy same," two times cheat system".
thank you agagin.
Best reards, HHJ
Hi, You mention users forget to revise FT at times or download to WS. This can be solved by setting preferences to always pull in the content required. You should experiment with these settings to get familiar. I have had same issue recently that user revised Cad part but not WTPart.
You want to look at preferences for revise and add to ws collectors. Also worth training to familiarize users with the process you may want them to revise generic and some instances but exclude others that remain unchanged. This is often an issue as some users just crash everything into ws and revise all.
I'm trying to do this, and I'm stuck on step 4.
First, the "Erase Object(s) from CAD application" check box is not present in the "Remove from Workspace" dialog box for me. Everything else looks the same.
When I hit "OK" I get the warning "Some objects in the list are checked out. Removing these objects will also cancel the checkout. Do you want to proceed?" then I hit "Cancel" because I don't want to cancel the checkout. The whole point is I want to check in the new version that's part of a family table.
I realized the difference was because I had the workspace open in a separate browser. When I open the workspace in "CREO" it looks the same. I unchecked the box... but got the same warning. I do see your graphic shows the same warning triangle, so I'm guessing it generated the same warning for you. It still bothers me, though, if the checkout of the original part is undone, won't this cause an issue?
This is my write up on taking a standalone part into an existing family table based on Brian's reply to my original post.
Adding a standalone part to a Family Table