Skip to main content
A
AG_105596073-Newcomer
3-Newcomer
April 11, 2024
Question

Instance and Generic are Incompatible - Solidworks with Windchill

  • April 11, 2024
  • 3 replies
  • 1111 views

Hello PTC Community, 

 

I will start out by noting that I am fairly new to Windchill and Workgroup Manager.

 

My issue today concerns Solidworks, Windchill and Workgroup Manager.

I am working on an assembly that has only one configuration. The PTC knowledge base defines this as a generic assembly with one instance. I will explain the issue I am having after describing the steps I took:

 

  1. In Workgroup Manager I selected  "Add to Workspace" for configuration assembly "12345@12345.SLDASM".
  2. A new window called "Add to Workspace" popped up. Under settings "Dependencies" and "Collect Related Business Objects", I set the following conditions:
    • "Dependent" = "Yes"
    • "Drawings" = "Yes"
    • "Family Table" = "Yes"
    • "Generics" = "Yes"
    • "CAD / Dynamic Documents" = "Yes"
  3. The above conditions correctly added the following objects that I expected:
  4. I proceeded to open object 12345@12345.SLDASM in Solidworks and make my design changes.
  5. When I was done with my changes I selected "Save" in Solidworks.
  6. As expected, Workgroup Manager then gave a pop-up window called "Conflicts". It gave the following text:
    • "Family Table member(s) were modified; but are not checked out in the workspace . The item(s) must be checked out to the workspace."
  7. In the table of this pop-up, the object 12345.SLDASM was found with column "Action" set to "Check Out entire family". I selected "OK" because I did want both 12345.SLDASM and 12345@12345@SLDASM to be checked out at the same time to allow them to be in 'sync'.
  8. This was the point where I started to see the issue. After selecting "OK" on the "Conflicts" pop-up, both 12345.SLDASM and 12345@12345.SLDASM got checked out BUT object 12345@12345.SLDASM was removed from my Workspace! I did not expect this since it has never happened before.
  9. I thought maybe it was a fluke so I tried checking in 12345.SLDASM expecting that Workgroup Manager will try to get me to also check in 12345@12345.SLDASM.
  10. This did not happen. Now I worry that both objects are out of sync, which should not be happening because the generic only has one instance!

 

After explaining the above, can someone help me understand why Workgroup Manager checked out both the generic and the instance but removed the instance from the Workspace?

3 replies

H
Hemant_Chaugule12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
April 12, 2024

Hi @AG_10559607 ,

When it comes to the Family table relations, it may complex things because of the one to many relationship. But if you try to understand the history of the Family table modifications it may give you clear understanding. 

From the use case which you have explained looks like your Family table instance (Configuration Instance) 12345@12345.SLDASM may be associated with the Old Iteration of the generic 12345.SLDASM. You can verify this from the windchill. If this is the case then whenever you are trying to modify 12345@12345.SLDASM, Windchill tries to pull generic but may be because of the Windchilll preference setting it pulls latest iteration of generic 12345.SLDASM. And that's where problem starts. 

 

If your instance is not a part for the latest iteration of the generic i.e. 12345.SLDASM then you can follow article, https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS128366 and turn on preference Revise > Allow revise of non-latest revisions = Yes and try again. Do not forget to set this preference to No after successful check in operation.

Thanks,

Hemant.


 

H
Hari_Vara16-Pearl
16-Pearl
April 12, 2024

Hi,

In Step 4, you have essentially decoupled that instance from the Generic by modifying without the Generic's context. 

Thus, The Generic wants to kick out the instance and hence that instance now is a stand alone CAD object. Thats why all the behaviour.

The best practice is to never work on the instance directly. Go to the Generic, check out the generic and modify the instance of interest and check in back the generic and new instance or modified instances.

This is the best that I could recall.

 

Cheers

Hari

    A
    achirila5-Regular Member
    5-Regular Member
    April 17, 2024
    Hi @AG_10559607 
    It looks like you have some responses from some community members. If any of these replies helped you solve your question please mark the appropriate reply as the Accepted Solution. 
    Of course, if you have more to share on your issue, please let the Community know so other community members can continue to help you.
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement