replace component in tc

[Utente NX]

Hi.
I should replace a bombed screw with a cylindrical head in 30 axioms.
instead of opening each single together and using the 'replace component', there is a command in tc that performs a massive substitution, how could it happen with our management?

 

[The_Matrix]

Hi.
I should replace a bombed screw with a cylindrical head in 30 axioms.
instead of opening each single together and using the 'replace component', there is a command in tc that performs a massive substitution, how could it happen with our management?

No, you can't.
To tell the truth, it seems really makes no sense.
It would require a high development effor for a functionality that in a company a minimum structure would not make sense.
there are a lot of problems:
1) you should start the revision of all assembly and sub-assembly in which the screw is used
2) Should you have written permission on all assembly (and with the fact that they are released as we put it? )
3) together with assembly you would have all the associated documents (2d, raster, etc) that you should regenerate during the review shot.
4) ...

 

[cacciatorino]

1) you should start the revision of all assembly and sub-assembly in which the screw is used

I apologize for the ignorant question (I don't understand anything about pdm), but I thought one of the advantages of using a pdm was just this, that if by chance I do the revision 1 of a piece in the context of a set, then the pdm thinks him to do the research on all the assemblies in which the revised part is contained and replaces it. If then the assembly should be revised also depends a little on the methodlgia company, there are companies that for a rev. on one particular do not make rev.1 of the assieme, which is made only in case of more fuller changes.

Actually, when they installed me dbworks, they told me that he wasn't able to do this, and it seemed pretty strange to me.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I apologize for the ignorant question (I don't understand anything about pdm), but I thought one of the advantages of using a pdm was just this, that if by chance I do the revision 1 of a piece in the context of a set, then the pdm thinks him to do the research on all the assemblies in which the revised part is contained and replaces it. If then the assembly should be revised also depends a little on the methodlgia company, there are companies that for a rev. on one particular do not make rev.1 of the assieme, which is made only in case of more fuller changes.

Actually, when they installed me dbworks, they told me that he wasn't able to do this, and it seemed pretty strange to me.

It actually works like this and is one of the advantages, the where used function automatically highlights where this component is used, otherwise you should look for it yourself in every single design or together and I think you can get an ulcer even before you start.
But then it is up to you to review or not and tell him what together or sub-assiem to apply it, clearly again conducting the editing process for all until release.
Otherwise it would not make sense to exist a pdm, in this context a replace all is impossible.

 

[cacciatorino]

It actually works like this and is one of the advantages, the where used function automatically highlights where this component is used, otherwise you should look for it yourself in every single design or together and I think you can get an ulcer even before you start.
But then it is up to you to review or not and tell him what together or sub-assiem to apply it, clearly again conducting the editing process for all until release.
Otherwise it would not make sense to exist a pdm, in this context a replace all is impossible.

There must be something I miss. If my part is used in multiple assemblies and revision, replacement should be automatic and transparent to the user.
If instead I want to review the part only in a set I will make a new code, not a revision, otherwise then in archive I will find a set with the updated part and one with the old, overpassed or wrong part, so maybe my colleague launches the commission in production with obsolete components.

but when I go to load an unupdated assembly the pdm makes me a warning to tell me that there is an updated version of a certain component contained in the assembly? or do I have to do the where used a carpet in advance?

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

There must be something I miss. If my part is used in multiple assemblies and revision, replacement should be automatic and transparent to the user.

no attention this is another thing, the revision of the part will clearly affect all the axioms present, depending on how a pdm is set automatically or not, depends on the customization you want to have.

If instead I want to review the part only in a set I will make a new code, not a revision, otherwise then in archive I will find a set with the updated part and one with the old, overpassed or wrong part, so maybe my colleague launches the commission in production with obsolete components.

Sure correct, but this is always a component revision not a replacement, replacing a component in a set is not a component revision, eye not to confuse the two things.

but when I go to load an unupdated assembly the pdm makes me a warning to tell me that there is an updated version of a certain component contained in the assembly? or do I have to do the where used a carpet in advance?

no even here depends on how it was configured, you can have warning as you can simply decide whether to connect the new revision or not directly from the separate base of the pdm itself.
For example, you may see an icon in the template tree that identifies you if the revision you are using is the last or not.
There are so many ways.
then there are the "cosmetic" changes that do not affect the design of the component, that I know a description, a note, a different manufacturing process, this does not mean that the component must by force rise of revision and charges a massive modification to all the assemblies that incorporate it. . .

 

[Utente NX]

No, you can't.
To tell the truth, it seems really makes no sense.
It would require a high development effor for a functionality that in a company a minimum structure would not make sense.
there are a lot of problems:
1) you should start the revision of all assembly and sub-assembly in which the screw is used
2) Should you have written permission on all assembly (and with the fact that they are released as we put it? )
3) together with assembly you would have all the associated documents (2d, raster, etc) that you should regenerate during the review shot.
4) ...

It's true what you say, if everything was necessary to handle it as a revision, but I thought you could do it, as it happens with the management.
replacing a screw with another maintaining 100% compatibility, from us is not handled with revisions.

Thanks anyway for giving me the answer.

 

[The_Matrix]

It's true what you say, if everything was necessary to handle it as a revision, but I thought you could do it, as it happens with the management.
replacing a screw with another maintaining 100% compatibility, from us is not handled with revisions.

Thanks anyway for giving me the answer.

with the where used you can see all assembly that refer to your component.
you might think of setting a "global alternative" as a workaround, but it would always remain the problem of going to each assembly (although via pse) to tell him that that is the new "preferred".

ps: there is a request for enhancement on this theme opened by a big Italian customer.
Maybe (who knows) in one of the next update of tc implement it. . .

 

[Utente NX]

with the where used you can see all assembly that refer to your component.
you might think of setting a "global alternative" as a workaround, but it would always remain the problem of going to each assembly (although via pse) to tell him that that is the new "preferred".

ps: there is a request for enhancement on this theme opened by a big Italian customer.
Maybe (who knows) in one of the next update of tc implement it. . .

Thank you... for the delucidations.