OIR for New Version

[hvaradharajan-2]

Hi all,

When I create a New View Version for a Part, I want to set it to follow a different LC Template (preset in OIR) , Now this seems not possible. It takes the LC template from the OIR of the Parts default View (Design).

What I want to achieve is to have one  LC template for the Design View and whole another LC template for Manufacturing View.

Isn´t this a fairly easy requirement and that's easy to achieve by OIR? Or is there any other means?

Thanks & Regards

Hari

[doehr]

I actually had a lengthy support ticket with PTC on this one because we're in the same boat, we want to control which State the new view version shows up. Here's a summary of what we discovered:

• Different View Versions are still guaranteed to be Parts, i.e. with the same lifecycle template. The only viable option they suggested would be to define part Sub-Types for each desired view as completely new entities, you could then give them unique OIRs (which is a bit of an overkill suggestion)
• The New View Version function uses the Revise transaction on the Lifecycle Template of the original part in its current state to determine which State the new view starts in
• I got the tech support guy to really dig into the server to find the specific place it is defined in the code for New View Version to use Revise. He did find it, it is extremely deep level and interconnected to a bunch of stuff, it would be possible for them to customize it for us (at a heavy cost) but PTC would not officially support any heavy customizations like this. So if stuff broke, we'd be on our own.

With all of the above we decided not to bother doing the customizations and just bit the bullet on it.

[KK_9397176]

did not try using one of the post event listner for wtpart.to set the state after its created or a prestore listner to set it before its stored.

[Pascal_Brunet]

Hello @hvaradharajan-2 

yes it is documented here: https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS196398

BR,

Pascal

[KK_9397176]

ok great to know that...

I thought OIRs were not being applied for new view (release 11.1) based on other articles https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS196398 & https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS57621

but looks like the it evaluates based on your article..  Thanks.

while setting state is not my requirement, I was looking for info if OIRs applies or not before deciding to go the listener routes.

I was looking to set the revision label value.

[Pascal_Brunet]

Hello @KK_9397176 

I advise you to try the OIR solution. We implemented it in my former company and it worked fine. 

I advise you to avoid multiple listeners because it requires Java code.

Java code is a source of problems: additional workload, money cost if you need external partner, bugs, side effects, regressions, user complaints, deprecation of the code,.. Use standard solutions as much as possible.

PTC strategy is to migrate Windchill in SaaS platform. If you have too much Java code, your system is not SaaS ready and "decustomization" is required.  https://www.ptc.com/en/blogs/plm/can-you-customize-saas-plm 

BR,

Pascal

[KK_9397176]

Hello pascal, 

Yes I agree and aware of it. Hence was looking for OIR solution first.. and make sure OIRs apply in first place and then create custom OIR algorithms ...

so if OIRs apply would definitely use it over other solutions.

On a side note, I feel many a times, the over all capability stack in some area is not complete from PTC while the functions itself may seem promising.. leaving some times significant gaps and hence leaving clients to resort to other means such as resource heavy customization. At the end of the day when we begin with something conceptual and implemented things around it, cannot leave it half way say for e.g, because of OIRs not supporting. we ought to finish it even if OIR is not addressing the need by using some other means. I know this renders less readiness for SaaS. but the systems should be for business and not other way round just to make sure system is SaaS ready.

Cant carry around a car with three wheel to make sure it stays manufacturer compliant rather then other way around of driving it with four wheels.  Of course the wheel example would have been easily detected by customer before buying, but not all missing aspects are detectable in PLM tool like Windchill before stepping down to driving the implementation. 

[KK_9397176]

saw an typo in URLs pasted.

correct one is 

https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS25764

instead of 

https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS196398