catalog correctly and find drawing files: how do you do?

[reggio]

hi to everyone, we have been using for 4 years 3d and for 3 years pdm.
Obviously we have not understood the philosophy of both because we find ourselves more messed up and lost than before, so I decided to post here our doubts in the hope of finding a suggestion/help to unravel the masses.

advance that we use solidworks 2012 sp.3 and ready2w 2011->2012 and that in the past we used and then abandoned dbcent.
I also press that, at this point, the ideas are few but very confused, so I ask you patience from now on if I will not be able to follow a logical thread jumping of pole in bait with reasonings to voice high.. .

our biggest unresolved problems are:
1) memorize (components, subaxis, assemblies) with correct name and in the correct place, completely define the characteristics, so to find them definitely and quickly, in order to avoid doubles, increase standardization, reuse them several times:
example for parts: a round piece diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 by both sides for us could call:
- tree (if used in the machine mod.a)
-through (if used in the machine mod.b)
- spacer (if used in the machine mod.c)
- spike (if used in the machine mod.d)
-tray (if used in the machine mod.e)

if first, with the 2d in each machine folder (a,b,c,...) could contain the same design or a design encoded in a different way but basically with the same shape risking having to update 7 designs for each modification and maybe find yourself with some not updated drawings, now with the 3d, having a single shared file, we would have to solve the problem of updates, but precisely we find ourselves with the problem of not knowing how to call and where to store this to the same to 20x300
trees
transverse
space
dots
tyrants
machines to,machines b,machines c,machines ...So, how do I call him and where do I put him?Besides, whenever we use this piece to create a new one, we have the problem of describing it so unique,Order e Clear per All users who will look for it!!! and as we have suggested not to use descriptions related to the machine in which it is used neither to its application because if we use it also in another machine or application, finding it could become difficult, it seems that the only possible way is to describe the part in a meticulous and complete way as for example:
cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.2 round diameter 25 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.3 round diameter 15 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.4 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 2 internal seeger seats 200.
cod.5 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 2 internal seeger seats 210.
cod.6 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
cod.7 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
... but also in this way it appears immediately clear that, if for such a simple piece the description is so long, for more complex pieces the description would become very long and complex to load and then search (the cod.6 has the seeger seat at 15mm from the edge while the cod.7 would have 32mm from the edge, to differentiate them I would have therefore to add other description. . . )So how would you describe it? or better, how do you think? What system do you adopt?...for sub-sub-sub-assistances, sub-assistances and assemblies, reasoning is identical, but things are complicated exponentially. . .
you have present the types of "street custom" that customize cars, take a mercedes class to with various standard accessories (which already would be difficult to describe in a line) and add and change other parts ... here, we do similar things with our machines.. .in this case how do you think? What system do you adopt?2) manage updates/modifications/historical of a piece and the improvements applied. . .
example: we created the cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides, and we used it until now in 12 similar but not equal machines, now we are creating the 13th and we realize that, it would be better and from the beginning use the m10 fillets instead of m8 so we would like:
- maintain memory of how the first 12 machines were built for future spare parts.
- signal that that part (cod.1), from now on will have to be replaced with the cod.8 that will have m10 so that even if we take the 4th car as a base to make the 14th, we remember not to use the cod.1 but instead cod.8 (even if for the car 4 will continue to exist only cod.1).
the ns pdm currently compels us to create cod.8 from cod.1 and replaces cod.1 with cod.8 in all the assemblies that contained cod.1 (then distorting the original past) and keeps only memory that cod.8 before was cod.1 .... :how do you do these things?3) find all the "things" inherent to the model machines series a: some parts will be stored in family traverses, others in dyes, other in commercial, others still in group motorization and so on... we often need to check if we have already drawn a certain part or a certain subaxieme for this or that family of machines: first, with the 2d we would go to the folder of the machine that contained all the drawings related to the machine or the family of machines, now instead we find ourselves with the pieces "disappeared" in dozens of families and groups:come fate voi?...continue. . .

 

[re_solidworks]

hi to everyone, we have been using for 4 years 3d and for 3 years pdm.
Obviously we have not understood the philosophy of both because we find ourselves more messed up and lost than before, so I decided to post here our doubts in the hope of finding a suggestion/help to unravel the masses.

advance that we use solidworks 2012 sp.3 and ready2w 2011->2012 and that in the past we used and then abandoned dbcent.
I also press that, at this point, the ideas are few but very confused, so I ask you patience from now on if I will not be able to follow a logical thread jumping of pole in bait with reasonings to voice high.. .

our biggest unresolved problems are:
1) memorize (components, subaxis, assemblies) with correct name and in the correct place, completely define the characteristics, so to find them definitely and quickly, in order to avoid doubles, increase standardization, reuse them several times:
example for parts: a round piece diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 by both sides for us could call:
- tree (if used in the machine mod.a)
-through (if used in the machine mod.b)
- spacer (if used in the machine mod.c)
- spike (if used in the machine mod.d)
-tray (if used in the machine mod.e)

if first, with the 2d in each machine folder (a,b,c,...) could contain the same design or a design encoded in a different way but basically with the same shape risking having to update 7 designs for each modification and maybe find yourself with some not updated drawings, now with the 3d, having a single shared file, we would have to solve the problem of updates, but precisely we find ourselves with the problem of not knowing how to call and where to store this to the same to 20x300
trees
transverse
space
dots
tyrants
machines to,machines b,machines c,machines ...So, how do I call him and where do I put him?Besides, whenever we use this piece to create a new one, we have the problem of describing it so unique,Order e Clear per All users who will look for it!!! and as we have suggested not to use descriptions related to the machine in which it is used neither to its application because if we use it also in another machine or application, finding it could become difficult, it seems that the only possible way is to describe the part in a meticulous and complete way as for example:
cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.2 round diameter 25 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.3 round diameter 15 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.4 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 2 internal seeger seats 200.
cod.5 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 2 internal seeger seats 210.
cod.6 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
cod.7 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
... but also in this way it appears immediately clear that, if for such a simple piece the description is so long, for more complex pieces the description would become very long and complex to load and then search (the cod.6 has the seeger seat at 15mm from the edge while the cod.7 would have 32mm from the edge, to differentiate them I would have therefore to add other description. . . )So how would you describe it? or better, how do you think? What system do you adopt?...for sub-sub-sub-assistances, sub-assistances and assemblies, reasoning is identical, but things are complicated exponentially. . .
you have present the types of "street custom" that customize cars, take a mercedes class to with various standard accessories (which already would be difficult to describe in a line) and add and change other parts ... here, we do similar things with our machines.. .in this case how do you think? What system do you adopt?2) manage updates/modifications/historical of a piece and the improvements applied. . .
example: we created the cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides, and we used it until now in 12 similar but not equal machines, now we are creating the 13th and we realize that, it would be better and from the beginning use the m10 fillets instead of m8 so we would like:
- maintain memory of how the first 12 machines were built for future spare parts.
- signal that that part (cod.1), from now on will have to be replaced with the cod.8 that will have m10 so that even if we take the 4th car as a base to make the 14th, we remember not to use the cod.1 but instead cod.8 (even if for the car 4 will continue to exist only cod.1).
the ns pdm currently compels us to create cod.8 from cod.1 and replaces cod.1 with cod.8 in all the assemblies that contained cod.1 (then distorting the original past) and keeps only memory that cod.8 before was cod.1 .... :how do you do these things?3) find all the "things" inherent to the model machines series a: some parts will be stored in family traverses, others in dyes, other in commercial, others still in group motorization and so on... we often need to check if we have already drawn a certain part or a certain subaxieme for this or that family of machines: first, with the 2d we would go to the folder of the machine that contained all the drawings related to the machine or the family of machines, now instead we find ourselves with the pieces "disappeared" in dozens of families and groups:come fate voi?...continue. . .

hi reggio and good year! I, as an external consultant, see several realities, many of which use ready. I believe that the solution is there but needs a minimum change of mindset, especially for the product you make. the solutions could be 2: use a speaking family code similar to the standard ready, but customised on your product and this would make you arrive directly to the "contain" of the cad file.
another could be having a non-speaking code and using merceologic groups to easily find objects.
In both cases I consider indispensable the use of the normalizer, I found myself working in a very large database (of ready) that I did not know at all and I was immediately able to find a screw or rivet with 5 clicks.
needs some work to instruct the technical field management database, but it's not difficult.
I have a job too varied and I can't standardize so much, but for example I'm importing in ready-to-time lost commercials and since I put them in I can assure you that we spend much less time for finding and all the graphics are always ok.
the advantage of the use of the merceological group is the ability to change without cloning/rename the document. basically use a "ownership" controlled by the pdm instead of the code, but not being the property that from the name to the file it is possible to change it like any other custom.
to complete the whole would serve some (2-3) custom with additional descriptions.

If you want to "invest" you can configure the dictionary to ensure that the descriptions are blocked (you cannot fill in by hand) and are populated automatically according to the code or merceological group and the technical data of the normalizer. descriptions can be inserted already multilingual in different fields to allow rapid migration of designs from Italian to a different language without errors.

for discourse versions you should use revisions, in this way once "approved" a document can no longer be changed and you have to pass for the workflow and then new revision/control/modification/approval/ecc.....

 

[Jarno]

2) manage updates/modifications/historical of a piece and the improvements applied. . .
example: we created the cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides, and we used it until now in 12 similar but not equal machines, now we are creating the 13th and we realize that, it would be better and from the beginning use the m10 fillets instead of m8 so we would like:
- maintain memory of how the first 12 machines were built for future spare parts.
- signal that that part (cod.1), from now on will have to be replaced with the cod.8 that will have m10 so that even if we take the 4th car as a base to make the 14th, we remember not to use the cod.1 but instead cod.8 (even if for the car 4 will continue to exist only cod.1).
the ns pdm currently compels us to create cod.8 from cod.1 and replaces cod.1 with cod.8 in all the assemblies that contained cod.1 (then distorting the original past) and keeps only memory that cod.8 before was cod.1 .... :how do you do these things?

I can try to say my only on this point, all the others are related only to the pdm that I do not know.
your #2 problma on swx without pdm faces iho in an elegant + way that in all the other cads I know.
using part configurations within which you can also put cod. 8 as property.
i.e. the part files remains the original one, all old machines remain tied to the default configuration that corresponds to the cod.1 because basic swx does so, but you always have the possibility to take copy the macch. to that the piece in object has available the cod.8 (you have to change it by hand)
Now: I would not do absolutely a cod.8, but as re_solidworks also says I would work of revisions (you know how I do, use the letters and automatically know that by letter + large corresponds the last rev.) and of merceologici so that when I need to know what release came cod. 1 I can always see it smoothly.
then I often get out of drawings with boms that call the cod. nps400_001 while the last revision is the letter "d" but at this point we manage it at the teaching level purchase that always starts from the last machines and cmq is controlled to what revision arrived nps400_001.
Now maybe then ready doesn't allow you to use side confs for the auditions and then I spoke for nothing!:biggrin:

 

[tartufon80]

Good morning, everyone!
I press that I do not know swx and much less the pdm you used.

(1)
In my opinion, if the component is not exactly the same, that is, it has a different "role" in each machine, it is right to have different components. Therefore each component will end up in the folder of the machine it belongs to.
for the name I would use something synthetic, which maybe indicates year, and maybe an identifier of the machine, and then a progressive. . .
while for the description I would leave this task to some parameter created ad hoc.
same thing for the assemblies and sub-assiems.

(2)
the memory of how the first 12 machines were built I think you definitely have it (it should be one of the pdm tasks).

I don't understand these phrases.

(although only cod.1) will continue to exist for machine 4.

if the component with the m8 holes must be replaced by that with the holes
m10, I do not understand why for machine 4 will continue to exist only cod.1 (fori m8): Surely on the working machine will be mounted the cod.1, but in case of fault it seems to me to understand that the above cod.1 will be replaced by cod.8....correggimi se mistaken obviously.

the ns pdm currently compels us to create cod.8 from cod.1 and replaces cod.1 with cod.8 in all the assemblies that contained cod.1 (so distorting the original past) and keeps only memory that cod.8 before was cod.1

Why do you force? and why replace all cod.1 with cod.8?


point 3)
from here was born our need to insert a machine identifier within the file name.
Since you use machine families, I in the file name would enter an identification of the machine family and then the specific machine.
for the position, I would do like this:
family of machines a, I create a folder a; in save all the components really shared by all the machines of the family, that is those that design once and reuse on the whole family of machines; in a form of subfolders a1, a2, a3, etc. in which except the individual machines and components relating exclusively to the same....

remaining that with the pdm, and a compilation of the parameters of the correct individual files, you will find any component you want.

all this, said by a moooooooolto-level pdm user base. I know that pdms can do much more, especially if work is shared daily, which is quite rare from us... .

I hope I haven't confused your ideas!!!

Hi.

 

[Jarno]

Good morning, everyone!

(1)
In my opinion, if the component is not exactly the same, that is, it has a different "role" in each machine, it is right to have different components.

excuse: are you saying that while being identical 2 pieces have 2 different codes? I understand that you simplify things enormously, but collide a little with the warehouse needs. . .
The real node I have is that as a rule you create a piece that you do not know that then you will use. in such case I share it as you say with code that refers to machine to, and if re-use equals I leave it with that code thinking of linking it to the folder of the machine b and also the opposite (very + important)
predict a parameter that tells us "from which piece comes/replaces" often allows to avoid large cases

point 3)
from here was born our need to insert a machine identifier within the file name.
Since you use machine families, I in the file name would enter an identification of the machine family and then the specific machine.
for the position, I would do like this:
family of machines a, I create a folder a; in save all the components really shared by all the machines of the family, that is those that design once and reuse on the whole family of machines; in a form of subfolders a1, a2, a3, etc. in which except the individual machines and components relating exclusively to the same....
Hi.

the truth that reggio also works very thick with standard machines but customized, so some components are of "committee" and this obviously complitca further. . .

 

[tartufon80]

excuse: are you saying that while being identical 2 pieces have 2 different codes? I understand that you simplify things enormously, but collide a little with the warehouse needs. . .
The real node I have is that as a rule you create a piece that you do not know that then you will use. in such case I share it as you say with code that refers to machine to, and if re-use equals I leave it with that code thinking of linking it to the folder of the machine b and also the opposite (very + important)
predict a parameter that tells us "from which piece comes/replaces" often allows to avoid large cases

Good morning!

In practice, even if indeed, as you point out, in the management of a spare parts warehouse the thing is complicated and not little :frown: (it is an aspect that we do not manage, since the machines we produce are all prototypes and almost always of only one unit).
certainly the use of pdm allows you to see all the "links" of the individual component, and then your argument of the parameter row without problems. Unfortunately (pass me the capital) my "cari" colleagues/superiors have problems with very simple operations of export/import, and therefore instead of raising the level of all, it has decided to lower it (decision of the management company ): from there the choice of simplifying things (remaining the different needs compared to reggio).

the truth that reggio also works very thick with standard machines but customized, so some components are of "committee" and this obviously complitca further. . .

Well, I think that's not a problem. if the component is dedicated to a customization date, it will take the appropriate coding. Perhaps you might think of using an extra parameter, simply to know immediately if the component is "dedicated" or "standard". but this is an idea, linked to my little experience in this matter. I don't know that I'm missing something like above. .

In any case, in light of what is written, the need for a machine identifier in the file code/name (for us they coincide) could be superfluous. maybe you might think about inserting an index that identifies the type of machine: s= welding machine, t=machine to cut.. . They're just examples to get what I mean.


Have a good day! :smile:

 

[Jarno]

Well, I think that's not a problem. if the component is dedicated to a customization date, it will take the appropriate coding. Perhaps you might think of using an extra parameter, simply to know immediately if the component is "dedicated" or "standard". but this is an idea, linked to my little experience in this matter. I don't know that I'm missing something like above. .

Good morning to you.
you miss that our friend would then want a tomorrow to find all the pieces (committee or not) that respond to the function of "racing spacer"
fundamentally it is a problem not to replicate and redesign pieces.

In any case, in light of what is written, the need for a machine identifier in the file code/name (for us they coincide) could be superfluous. maybe you might think about inserting an index that identifies the type of machine: s= welding machine, t=machine to cut.. . They're just examples to get what I mean.
Have a good day! :smile:

Well, no.
you work x contractor, me and reggio both x contractor and by car.
I share with a speaking code:
machine + progressive number
or
contract + progressive number
the problem is that a priori you never know if the machine to which they ask changes, will become standard with the modification to or b or c etc etc and vice versa
Hi.

 

[tartufon80]

Good morning to you.
you miss that our friend would then want a tomorrow to find all the pieces (committee or not) that respond to the function of "racing spacer"
fundamentally it is a problem not to replicate and redesign pieces.

we for this need have inserted two parameters in the start part: grp (special research group) and grc (complex research group). each parameter will refer to a list containing macrofamilies. for example for details we will have the following list

grp01 tree
grp02 buccola
grp03 washer
grp04 carpentry
grp05 spacer
grp07 punches and matrices
grp08 joint
grp09 flange
grp10 plates and plates
grp11 various
grp12 commercial
grp13
grp14 screws
grp15 centering
grp16 support
grp17 pinion
grp18 sheet
grp19 sheet metal
grp20 tube
grp21 ring ring

This way if I want to search for spacers, filter my search with the grp05 parameter.

I don't want to convince you of the goodness of this method. It's just to tell you how we've been thinking about solving these problems (and it's not said that we've succeeded :smile.

Well, no.
you work x contractor, me and reggio both x contractor and by car.
I share with a speaking code:
machine + progressive number
or
contract + progressive number
the problem is that a priori you never know if the machine to which they ask changes, will become standard with the modification to or b or c etc etc and vice versa
Hi.

You're right.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I give you a banal example
a parity-code bearing can have different uses, I don't know how to handle it in ready but in winchill there are, precisely for this type of problem. :wink:

 

[re_solidworks]

ready can be implemented in various ways (like all pdms) and with various encoding systems (palating and not). this depends on the initial choices made for implementation.
as mentioned above with the normalizer that uses speaking fields (coding and/or merceological group) + technical data you get to find the plate with certain measures within the entire database.
With regard to the possibility of finding spare parts or the complete distinction of a machine made 10 years before I see no problem, simply in my opinion reggio is not using the revisions and keeps all codes in new state without approving them before going into production.
this on one side from one side because you should not waste time with checkin and checkout, but on the other side you risk changing details that cannot be changed.
before changing a particular you should check where it is used (1 click on a tab in ready) and see if in all these assemblies the change can be accepted. If so, the code must be cloned if negative and a slightly different one must be created for the project in which it should be modified.

I give you a banal example
a parity-code bearing can have different uses, I don't know how to handle it in ready but in winchill there are, precisely for this type of problem. :wink:

I don't understand what you mean, what do you have to handle?

 

[tartufon80]

...before changing a particular you should check where it is used (1 click on a tab in ready) and see if in all these assemblies the change can be accepted. If so, the code must be cloned if negative and a slightly different one must be created for the project in which it should be modified. . .

That's what I meant when I wrote:

...certainly the use of the pdm allows you to see all the "links" of the individual component, and then your speech of the parameter row without problems.... .

I didn't even know what he meant to say ozzy....

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I was referring to the quote that a component should not have a different code if its function is different here.

 

[re_solidworks]

I was referring to the quote that a component should not have a different code if its function is different here.

In theory it should be so and you reach the result when the working environment (with pdm or without ) is well structured.
Sure with a pdm it is all easier, especially the generation of distinct.

 

[reggio]

Oh, come back, excuse me if I didn't intervene immediately, thank you for the answers and I'm going to comment.

I believe the solution is there but it needs a change of mindset.

to the change of mentality I can be arranged, provided that it leads to a single method of work and does not force to different approaches to every problem....but exactly what do you mean by "minded change"?

the solutions could be: use a speaking family code similar to the standard one of ready, but customised on your product and this would make you arrive directly to the "contain" of the cad file.
...have a non-speaking code and use the merceologic groups to easily find objects.

uhmmm(?) we currently use the method that we have suggested, which then I think is the classic of ready2work, that is:
c1.026.23.001 or
"c1=components." "026=cuscinetti skf"."23=to spheres."
c1.026.24.001 or
"c1=components." "026=pants ntn." "23=to rollers."
and then g1.xxx.xx.xxx for groups (e.g. motorization group; group frames; ..
and finally p1.xxx.xx.xxx for products (intended as complete machines), the problem is that in this way, ready alloy indissolubly and solely (very stupidly according to me) the "Skf ø22.5xø11,16x1.2 2rs" code c1.026.23.001 (code and bond to the family that can never be changed, that for a commercial could also be accepted) while for ns. example"cod.1 [Bleep] diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides. " (in reality it will be cod."c1.050.01.001"=component.tornitura.alberi.001)
that at the same time should belong to the family [Bleep] trees, transverses, spacers, dots, tyrants, machines to,machines b,machines c,machines ... can not be accepted!Why? because as I tried to explain in my example, the same piece I can use it in various ways (such as trees, beams, spacers, studs, etc.) so if I don't want to miss I should be able to find cod.1 or cod.1.050.01.001 whether I do a search between trees or beams or spacers or studs. . and this ready does not allow me (or at least I am not able to do it) while jarno that does not use any pdm, this problem has solved it (prob. he remains the problem of finding all the machines that have assembled that piece)

If I re-use it equals I leave it with that code thinking about linking it to the folder of the machine b and also the opposite.

1.1)this is the first part of the 1st problem place that I cannot solve with ready, so I ask above all to re_solidworks (because he uses as we ready) and to you how would you do the same thing that gets jarno, that is to find the same code whether I look for "hotels" or "traversi" or ...?ps->jarno is not. .

1.2)the second part of the 1st problem was: to describe a part completely and if possible a set so as to highlight the small or large differences between similar designs.
I thought I had to create cod.6 cod.7 (the cod.6 has the seeger seat at 15mm from the edge while the cod.7 would have 32mm from the edge).
cod.6 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
cod.7 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
If I leave as above, you will not be able to appreciate any difference and even ready preview will not help me to locate them (I would have to open them and compare them.. and for a part sometimes it goes well, but if I have 10 similar assemblies even only from 50 components and under assemblies?) to differentiate them I should add other description that however would become very long and complex to load and then search (also from ready they recommend a max of 100 characters)
so again I ask to re_solidworks (because he uses as we ready) and to you How would you distinguish them?I think you were trying to respond with this so I try to comment

I consider indispensable the use of the normalizer, I found myself working in a very large database (of ready) that I did not know at all and I was immediately able to find a screw or rivet with 5 clicks.
needs some work to instruct the technical field management database.

[Normalizzatore=tabella personalizzabile, [B]firmly linked to the family[/B] (so different and customizable for each family), it allows to predict, insert and search the various parameters/characteristics of the part/assieme]
means however that (to return to the initial example) I will have to have the separate normalized table for each of these families trees, transverses, spacers, dots, tiranti, machines to,machines b,machines c, macchine, then again to find the cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 I will have to look for in each family: It is very convenient if I remember which family is right, it is absolutely dispersive if I do not remember (and the problem to solve is that I cannot remember everything).
1.3)ps: I am continuing to make examples with the parties, but I hope it is clear to all that the biggest problem, which grows exponentially is to "treat" the sub-axioms and the assemblies: imagined 2 assemblies from 400 parts and subaxis that differ only because in a there is a small pizza switch with relative bracket in sheet and pin dedicated instead in b there is a micro switch telemecanique with relative bracket in sheet and dedicated pin: how to differentiate them between themselves and among others? (I put in description the whole distinct? )I mean, even here I can't normalize, or, in order to do so I should predict in table 800 characteristics to load from time to time (i.e. all possible combinations for that set/subassieme).

I can't standardize so much, but I'm importing in ready time lost the commercials and spend much less time for finding and the graphics are ok.

Uh... Well I think that those who manage to live standardizing 3 always equal sheet metal discs do not need pdm, perhaps even 3d (set up once forget them for a lifetime), the pdm serves precisely (according to our expectations) to help us "standardize" the hundreds of "almost similar" parts we move; as I said above, the management of the commercials that are born and die as they are all another planet than the parts and assemblies.

the advantage of the merceological group is the possibility to change without the document. use a "property" controlled by the pdm instead of the code, but not being the property that from the name to the file it is possible to change it like any other custom.

the merceological group do not know it, if I understand correctly, with this system, the cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 will not change, but I will be able to assign (tag?) what code to the family I want and like (e.g. family trees or traverts or spacers or chocolate bars ...) and after having assigned it to the family trees I can realize I am wrong and so I can move it and associate it freely (without cups/cancellations/clonations?) to the family dots?
or, can I associate the cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 with the family trees and the family dots?
If so, you already know that my next question will be to explain immediately how to do it!!!! :

if you want you can configure the dictionary so that the descriptions are blocked and populated automatically according to the code or product group and the technical data of the normalizer.

this comes immediately after, if the answer to the hypothesis "productological group" above will be positive... even if I believe that "productological group" can only use those who have ready premium

to complete the whole would serve some (2-3) custom with additional descriptions.

these custom fields do not convince us, in practice they are additional columns to support "description" "code"
"created by:" "created the:" being generic (i.e. it is not possible to call it "diam.rullo" because this column is also displayed for bearings, for motors, for assemblies, for everything) we will find ourselves with a column "anonymous" that perhaps contains a description that after a short time risks becoming unclear (e.g. field1=76 what does that mean? is the diameter of the roller or length or what?? ? )

the text you entered is too long (13632 characters). shorten to 10000 characters.
continue in the next post...​

 

[reggio]

for speech versions you should use revisions, once "approved" a document can no longer be modified and you have to pass for workflow

2)no, we are not, I have not explained, the problem is not that for the final pieces are modified by mistake and they happen mess, but, as I explained in the example "we created cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300... and we used it until now in 12 machines, now at the 13th we realize that, it would be better to use the m10 fillets instead of m8" so we would like to:
- maintain memory of how the first 12 machines were built for future spare parts (the already built machines do not change even if today we improve a piece, we want to know how the original was).
- signal that that part (cod.1), from today on it will have to be replaced with the cod.8 that will have m10 so that even if (one tomorrow) we will take the 4th car as a base to make the 14th, we remember not to use the cod.1 but instead cod.8 (although for machine 4 will continue to exist only cod.1).and clearer now?

using part configurations within which you can also put cod. 8 as property.

the idea would not be wrong (by adding notes to the part would be perfect) but the assistance of swx does not recommend the use "massive"(?) of configurations: "if you exaggerate it could mess up" and still ready treats configurations like new and separate codes (create own separate files...) and forgets who is son.. .

surely on the working machine will be mounted the cod.1, but in case of fault I seem to understand that the above cod.1 will be replaced by cod.8.

in some cases could be replaced, but perhaps in others not, in any case it is right to see the machine in original form and then to have to report that in time that piece has undergone modifications (modification to,b,c,d,...) leaving the technician the choice to update or not the part.

Why do you force? and why replace all cod.1 with cod.8?

...because the pdm is poor... or we do not know how to use it.. .
Let's see what re_solidworks says here:d

we have in the start part: grp (special research group) and grc (general research group).
This way if I want to search for spacers, filter my search with the grp05 parameter.

?? I have not understood if you have a pdm and in case which pdm;
I didn't understand what "start part" is;
in ready, if I look for spacers simply type "distanzial*"

(3)

With regard to the possibility of finding spare parts or the complete distinction of a machine made 10 years before I see no problem, simply in my opinion reggio is not using the revisions and keeps all codes in new state without approving them before going into production.

I believe that here the revisions do not center anything (wrong??), I said <trovare "cose"="" a="" al="" inerenti="" le="" macchine="" modello="" serie="" tutte=""> I mean, I don't want to find the drawings of a machine but I want to find all the drawings of all the machines series to with its accessories series to, etc. (maybe to do a price control, or warehouse control or check if we actually finished drawing of all its parts and assemblies or if we left something behind...).
here would also serve a "catalyst" that allows to find all the drawings belonging to the machines series to... </trovare>What will I use?

before editing you should check (1 click on a tab in ready) and see if in all these assemblies the change can be accepted.

true, but then the 2 or the 150 assemblies that ready signals you, you have to open them one by one and check for good (as you said it seemed that with a click it checked all ready ... ;p)

I was referring to the quote that a component should not have a different code if its function is different here.

?? I still don't understand...

I don't know how to manage in ready but in winchill there are

winchill is a pdm?
"There are" what? What is there in windchill that helps manage the different uses of the same component?

above all the generation of the distinct.

...was to throw into other arguments, because also on the drafting of distinct sensible (that scrape fathers or children case by case) I have several perplexities. . .

ok I am finished for now, wait for vs comments :d

 

[tartufon80]

ciao! :smile:

in some cases could be replaced, but perhaps in others not, in any case it is right to see the machine in original form and then to have to report that in time that piece has undergone modifications (modification to,b,c,d,...) leaving the technician the choice to update or not the part.

Well, this check must be done sooner or later, right? so if the technician can do it instantly on all the machines where that piece is used, well, but I guess not...so I think it is "natural" to create a new code that I will replace only in the machine on which I am currently working.

...because the pdm is poor... or we do not know how to use it.. .
Let's see what re_solidworks says here:d

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. I probably got something wrong. confirm that for you to create a cod.8 means to make a copy of the cod.1 file, making some changes (see for example the thread change from m8 to m10)? If yes, creating a copy and replacing that copy in the changing machine, you tell me why it should replace it on all the others?

?? I have not understood if you have a pdm and in case which pdm;
I didn't understand what "start part" is;
in ready, if I look for spacers simply type "distanzial*"

Yes, we use windchill pdmlink 9.1. We have been using it for 2-3 years (in the technical office they have used it for ten years). when we started we tried to "imagine" all possible "necessities", and then we populated our start part (i.e. the preconfigured starting models that we load to create a new file, are often called templates: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/template) with a certain amount of parameters, which we felt useful in the research phase, including these research groups I was talking about. we decided to adopt this list with macrofamilies of belonging to "limit the imagination" during description (in the past descriptions were at the level of mouse: tree, tree, tree, tree, tree, and I'm not exaggerating. this just to explain why we use these parameters, but it is not said that they are the solution to your problem.
goes by itself that more parameters are used, and more time is used to value them. . .


I hope I have not confused your ideas, and I think I will continue to read silently this interesting discussion (my little experience will certainly not help you:redface: between re_solidworks and ozzy I think you are more than good hands. And I'm sure I'll learn something else...

hello and good work!! :smile:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I don't think I'm the right person, the more re_solidworks since he uses ready as a reggio, I just wanted to make my personal contribution to see if there are similar functions in ready than in windchill, I absolutely don't want to mess up more than it is already, maybe taking some of my cue also re_solidworks can find a similar function, I don't know.. I't throw it there.

no, we are not, I did not explain, the problem is that for the final pieces are modified by mistake and happens mess, but, as I explained in the example "we created cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300... and we used it now in 12 machines, now at the 13th we realize that, it would be better to use the m10 fillets instead of m8" so we would like:
- maintain memory of how the first 12 machines were built for future spare parts (the already built machines do not change even if today we improve a piece, we want to know how the original was).
- signal that that part (cod.1), from today on it will have to be replaced with the cod.8 that will have m10 so that even if (one tomorrow) we will take the 4th car as a base to make the 14th, we remember not to use the cod.1 but instead cod.8 (although for machine 4 will continue to exist only cod.1).

here is this example that you have made to fall for:
for example in windchill there are the baselines that are basically an snapshot of a distinct base at a certain time of its history.
so since you change something at the design level allows you to know what you provided until then and from where you started to create a new one, with clearly tools of comparison between the different distinct bases.
then you can work for concepts of effectiveness that are distinct in 3 ways:
- serial number/ batch number/or date
the actuality represents the planned date, the number of batches or series reached which the versions of the assemblies or previous parts are replaced with the new ones in production.
then there is the management of the replacement parts (usually used for trade components) that can be distinguished in two branches called alternatives or replacement that means:

alternative parts: can be used in any set in which the specified part is used and are unique or double sense banal example:
a grade 5 m10x20 bolt can be used in any set for which one grade 2 m10x20 is specified, but nevertheless it is possible that grade 2 bolt cannot be used instead of grade 5 bolt because it may not be strong enough, so grade 5 bolt is an univocal way alternative to grade 2 bolt if instead of grade 2 bolt can always be used instead of grade 5 bolt.

replacement parts: can be used instead of the specified part in a specific set.
Taking the previous example of grade 2 bolt can be used instead of grade 5 in a specific set where it is not essential that the bolt has that degree of resistance, grade 2 bolt therefore is a replacement of grade 5.

I don't want to go too far, these are some things that surely if ready had, they would facilitate not little management.
greetings

 

[reggio]

urka urka, how much stuff to "digest" ... first I try to answer to tartufon80, then I pass to parametric_ozzy :d​

It turns out "natural" to create a new code that I will replace only in the machine on which I am currently working.

confirm that for you to create a cod.8 means to make a copy of the cod.1 file, making some changes.
If yes, tell me why he should replace him on all the others?

It is correct to replace only from the current machine onwards.
- confirmation: cod.8 = cod.1+changes.
- never said that "you should replace him on all the others," what I want is that:
> if it is true that cod.8 is an improvement.
> From now on, using cod.1 is a "mistake".
> So now that I have to do the 14th, I go looking for which old car looks more like him (right?).
> I discover that the car that looks more like it is the 4th machine.
> open the 4th machine and I find it original (with cod.1) and this is right and right for us.

So what do I want now?
I want to someone o something remember that in the meantime we have improved some things, things that today cannot be accepted by the customer if we make them "wrong" as we once did (e.g. cod.1),
so now I must remember not to use cod.1 but instead cod.8.
Finally, if everything works, I exploit an old project, but I do not forget all the improvements that have been made in the meantime.

I don't know if I can explain the problem now.

when we started we tried to "imagine" all the possible "necessities", and then we populated our start part=templates i.e. the preconfigured starting models that we load to create a new file, they are often called with a certain amount of parameters, which we thought useful in the research phase including these research groups I was talking about.

we decided to adopt this list with macrofamilies of belonging to "limit the imagination" during description (in the past descriptions were at the level of mouse: tree, tree, tree, tree, tree, and I'm not exaggerating.

?? It seems interesting, especially if you say it solves :d
But I didn't grasp it as a...
i.e. you started and drew my cod.1: a round piece diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides right?
preconfigure what does that mean? Parameterized? I=300 d=20 m=8 ml=20 or how?
and therefore every time you need to draw a "pink and threaded round from both sides" open this template and impose the size l,d,m,ml?
and how do you call them with a certain amount of parameters? Where do you write them? You say, like, ready normalizer? (see Annex)
try to explain how you do, in practice, to distinguish my cod.6 from cod.7?"tree, tree, tree, tree..." another common problem...

 

[reggio]

I don't want to mess up more than I already am.

:

in windchill exist the baselines that are an snapshot of a distinct base at a certain moment.
so since you change something at the design level allows you to know what you provided until then and from where you started to create a new one, with clearly tools of comparison between the different distinct bases.

Um... "They would look like ns configurations only that from us (as I said in swx are not recommended and in ready are treated as different codes) I don't think there are great tools in ready and therefore (and here you make me anticipate another problem that amplifies my initial question #1, and now I do not want to discuss now otherwise I drown. . )
when I change a pin cod.c1.xxx.xx.xxx
contained inside a subassieme g1.xxx.xx.xxx
in turn contained in a subassieme g1.xxx.xxx.yyyy
in turn contained in a subassieme g1.xxx.xxx.zzz
finally contained in a set p1.xxx.xx.xxx
I must clone=copy/paste=create an alternative code for:
the pin cod.c1.xxx.xx.xxx (obviously), but also for
the subassieme g1.xxx.xx.xxx (which contains it), but also for
the subassieme g1.xxx.xx.yyy (which contains it), but also for
the subassieme g1.xxx.xx.zzz (which contains it), but also for
p1.xxx.xx.xxx (which contains it) ... and for each of these new codes, if I want to be able to recognize them and distinguish them from those from which they were born/clonati/partoriti I should describe them well, do you agree or am I wrong?
...but how to describe them so well to distinguish a set that at the bottom also mounts a pin c1.xxx.xx.xxx from another set that at the bottom also mounts a pin c1.xxx.xxxy? How are you doing?

then you can work for concepts of effectiveness ...bla...bla...bla...bla...data pianificata...bla...bla...bla...in a unique or double sense sense
...bla...bla...bla...bla.. .
a grade 5 m10x20 bolt can be used in any set, but nevertheless it is possible that the grade 2 bolt cannot be used instead of grade 5 bolt
...bla...bla...bla...bla.. .

I have understood little, the words in violet I do not know them (I do not know exactly what they mean) and hard to follow you, but from what little I can perceive, I feel like science fiction...addirittura manage what can be used here and what can be used there!!!:finger:
a courtesy, otherwise we really risk increasing my confusion,
If you can, try to "resolve" with windchill my initial questions/examples 1.2 and 3 and we do not start there.thanks again to everyone and soon!
ps: windchill works with swx?

 

[tartufon80]

the ns pdm currently compels us to create cod.8 from cod.1 and replaces cod.1 with cod.8 in all the assemblies that contained cod.1 (so distorting the original past) and keeps only memory that cod.8 before was cod.1

- never said he'd have to replace him on all the others.

It was here that I lost, but maybe I misunderstood...

What I want is that:
> if it is true that cod.8 is an improvement.
> From now on, using cod.1 is a "mistake".
> So now that I have to do the 14th, I go looking for which old car looks more like him (right?).
> I discover that the car that looks more like it is the 4th machine.
> open the 4th machine and I find it original (with cod.1) and this is right and right for us.

So what do I want now?
I want to someone o something remember that in the meantime we have improved some things, things that today cannot be accepted by the customer if we make them "wrong" as we once did (e.g. cod.1),
so now I must remember not to use cod.1 but instead cod.8.
Finally, if everything works, I exploit an old project, but I do not forget all the improvements that have been made in the meantime.

I don't know if I can explain the problem now.

strong and clear reggio, and probably here come out all my limits with pdm...
I hope you can find a solution, also because it would be interesting to know the potential of these tools.

?? It seems interesting, especially if you say it solves :d
But I didn't grasp it as a...
i.e. you started and drew my cod.1: a round piece diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides right?
preconfigure what does that mean? Parameterized? I=300 d=20 m=8 ml=20 or how?
and therefore every time you need to draw a "pink and threaded round from both sides" open this template and impose the size l,d,m,ml?
and how do you call them with a certain amount of parameters? Where do you write them? You say, like, ready normalizer? (see Annex)
try to explain how you do, in practice, to distinguish my cod.6 from cod.7?

All right, let's say, I don't understand.
I don't know if it works! It's a help! but nothing to do with your round piece, that, you know, drawing it later. my template contains only the main reference system and the main platform from a geometric point of view. as information I have a set of parameters (almost all empty) and other information (such as unit of measurement used by default, etc.).
here are among these parameters there are also those that I will use when I need to research according to some criteria, and here I reconnect to the example of research groups that we use: they are nothing but parameters.
I don't know the normalizer you're talking about, and I probably don't even know the possible pdmlink match that ozzy talks about. Unfortunately investing in this kind of training is seen as a waste of time and so those I tried to explain are only "trucks" to try to make things easier...in practice it is like going to 20 km/h with a ferrari. I know it's sad, but it's so...

"tree, tree, tree, tree..." another common problem...

Let's forget it's better....