change together reference to the design

[scampani]

Good morning.
I checked in the forum and didn't find something that answers my question that is this: I have a set with 5 parts with its design,
I also have another set where 2 parts are varied and I don't have the design. Since there are many views and I do not want to start from the beginning to make the drawing there is a possibility to "change" the axieme to which he points and find me May part of the quotas in the right views and fix only the differences?

Thank you.

 

[DANI-3D]

Hi.
I don't think you can. so as to open the assemblies and interested parties, with their respective drw, and make a series of renames in session. so doing you will have copies that you can edit, with all references and updated tables.

 

[calacc]

I also have another set where 2 parts are varied and I have no design...

a suggestion that can return good for the prox time:
If you had made a safe copy of the axieme before making the changes to the two parts you could have taken the tables automatically.
in the ozzy video below shows the procedure.
Maybe you need to add to your config.pro string rename_drawings_with_object both and I assure you that it works not only for assemblies but also for individual parts.
a greeting, good work
[youtube]dfxiiffep0o[/youtube]

 

[DANI-3D]

Bye-bye.
I was reproposed not to go beyond this discussion, since Mr. Scampani asks a question, receives answers and does not even deserve to give an answer no.
But I am interested in a comparison with you with the dilemma of choosing between the copy save and the rename in session, also as it emerged in other discussions, see:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?32703-salva-una-copia&highlight=salva+copiaI often, especially with big projects, prefer to rename the sessions, because with the other method often I am forced to rename components that I am sure that they do not vary and find the same name for pieces that will vary.
How do you behave in some cases?

 

[calacc]

Hi, dani!

I'm also waiting for the trusty nod...

Anyway, I use both methods a little bit, it depends on what's best to do.
I also use more rename in session, and use it like this:
I have a part or a set with n instance in family table. voglio ottenere n *.drw files for how many instances are. I then proceed with the creation of the drawing relating to the first instance (which will bring its own name), then to create the remaining I make rename in session, put the name of the second instance, I replace model, family table, and select the next instance. Finally I put in place the design with what is missing and saved again. so far as I'm not finished with instances.

the Save I only use it to "double" projects. because I find it faster in creating new projects starting from existing ones. In this case I do not want to remain links to the previous project, because I will work exclusively on the new one and I want to be free to change what I want and like without the risk of compromising anything. to differ from the example I did before is that now starting from n parts and/or assemblies with the respective tables I want to create as many parts and/or assemblies with as many respective tables connected.
then working there will always be that part and/or sub-assieme to reuse, and only if I am sure to 1000 for 1000 not to change it again then in the drop-down I will reuse (and then pro/e will not make me a new table *.drw).

the risk is that then here a change possible to what has been reused you pay dear, very dear... because you go then to affect also the previous project that maybe is for a different customer and could in the future want spare parts on the same machine that you bought 10 years ago! if there is this possibility plm I think it is worth as much gold as it weighs because I speed much development creating new projects starting from the existing ones and I put in safe even the previous versions and revisions.
I personally do not work with a plm below, so for the moment I surrender with what I have.

I hope that what I wrote is clear, but how do you use rename in session in the case of a new project?
Thank you.

 

[DANI-3D]

All clear, I am pleased to note that we are quite in tune as a work myth.
the copy save is faster, but I use it for small assemblies is when I know well the changes to make to the project.
rename in session (rs) is slower, but it is more gradual, I usually rule as follows:
I open the main set, with its setting, and I make rs, then I gradually move to the various sub-assistances and, if there are no variations I go forward, otherwise before any change I make rs. In this way I can decide the dafarsi during the reworking of the project that can last several weeks.
Since I also do not have a plm that helps me, after a while I no longer know if a code belongs to the old machine or the new one, then I use this method, when I do rs, to the new component I give a code that is equal to the old one with the prefix es, aaa, percui it is evident what are the new and old pieces. at the end of the job I reopen it and with a rename of the definitive codes, if in the folder I remain of the files that start with aaa them gate, because they were probably generated to make tests that then are not served.
so I get a new project, leaving the old man intact.

 

[calacc]

Nice! your work-flow does not bend, and I really like it!!! So I guess you're working alone, otherwise you're renouncing that I don't come out anymore! do very complex and articulated machines?
I am managing many small products, say from 15 to 50 pz to max, and I am making myriads of family table also very complex for both the parts, and for sub-assiems and assemblies. for the modeling of the components I look great, but when it comes to making premontages and fittings are pains! thinks I even split the axioms into 4 levels with its explosion boards!
I regret that I didn't start with theaax... but unfortunately it was not decided for that investment! You got it? How are you?
Thank you.

 

[DANI-3D]

So I guess you're working alone, otherwise you're renouncing that I don't come out anymore!

It is not a problem, it is enough to divide the tasks well, you can also work on the separate subaxis. being complex machines each group forming the main project and formed by some hundreds of pieces

but unfortunately it was not decided for that investment! You got it? How are you?

non ce l'ho