Skip to main content
D
dschenken1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 1, 2016
Question

Family table instance management on Check-in

  • May 1, 2016
  • 3 replies
  • 6353 views

Is there a way to prevent Windchill from accepting a check-in if the list of instances in the Generic being checked in does not include all the instances that were in the latest version?

Is there a way to generate a message to the Admin when a check-in or check-in attempt of the Generic list of instances is missing instances there were in the latest version?

    3 replies

    B
    BillRyan16-Pearl
    16-Pearl
    May 9, 2016

    You are getting the same response I usually get when looking for solutions with Family Tables...crickets.   Keep in mind there is a contingent out there that wants to be able to modify certain instances without touching the generic or other instances even though PTC's recommended practice is to treat the entire table as one when checking in.  You would think it would be pretty easy for PTC to create a config option that hides the delete option in the menu of Creo parametric for family table rows. This is the source of the problem where the issue could be mitigated if removed.  

    family-table.jpg

      D
      dschenken1-VisitorAuthor
      1-Visitor
      May 10, 2016

      I looked at Marco's list and it looks like the tools are there to manage the task, so I am not understanding why they aren't used.

      Getting rid of Delete would help, but there are still users who type new names over existing names, which produces the same result. There is also the case where clever tykes will create an entirely different table outside of WC and import a Generic using that, stomping the existing table or just a plain item with the same name wiping it all out.

        A
        asingh-91-Visitor
        1-Visitor
        May 10, 2016

        There should also be a check box to say that I don't want to revise (and release) some of the instances. Because every time I need to revise one instance, I need to revise all the instances (and related WTparts) > which in-turn gets released to ERP and confuse the planning department who think that there is some change and hence the parts are being revised and released!

          D
          dschenken1-VisitorAuthor
          1-Visitor
          May 11, 2016

          No - there should not be a box that does that. It's like trying to maintain a revision of a page in a document file, such as in Word. Since there is only one file, the generic, it should be in lock-step with all the instances. Look at MIL-SPEC part drawings - there aren't separate revisions of the parts that are on those drawings; all the parts will be in accordance with the latest drawing revision, even parts that were added since the last revision.

          If you need to control per-instance, create an instance level parameter called 'revision' and manage that instead and your ERP system will have something to work with.

            A
            asingh-91-Visitor
            1-Visitor
            May 11, 2016

            Thanks for the reply David Schenken

            @"create an instance level parameter called 'revision' and manage that instead and your ERP system will have something to work with" - Are you saying that the user will have the ability to set the revision? I am afraid the organization policy wouldn't let that happen. What benefit do we have by revising all the instance even though I want to touch (and work) only on one instance?

              M
              mdebower18-Opal
              18-Opal
              May 11, 2016

              I don't know of a way to do what you ask, David.   I wish there was though.   We regularly have a mess to clean up because someone messed with a family table who shouldn't have...

                D
                dschenken1-VisitorAuthor
                1-Visitor
                May 12, 2016

                I have enough problems with users messing up ordinary assemblies and parts - often deleting things they don't understand to make it easier for themselves, without regard to any other dependencies. The top of that list is layer discipline, but has included suppressing lower part features to make part drawings look good, while knee-capping upper level assemblies. Bad users = bad results.

                I look at family tables as a litmus test - those who mess them up are probably doing more damage in ways that are harder to detect and should not be allowed to touch CAD anymore.

                Maybe PTC will add guard-rails to Windchill to keep the bad users from driving off the road.

                  M
                  mdebower18-Opal
                  18-Opal
                  May 12, 2016

                  Isn't that what SolidWorks is for? 

                    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement