shared part review in other projects

[godevolution]

Good evening to all,
I've been using vault for some time and I've been facing a problem.
I have the need to review a detail. here nothing strange, I use the command revise in vault and generates the next revision.

now the problem arises. the particular was used in several projects.
doing the revision with vault I thought that going to open a project precendete, you would upload the detail with the correct revision, instead I find that it loads the last revision in all the projects.

I'll explain.
I have two together:
the particular to is mounted inside of the assemblyold.
subsequently the particular a is mounted inside the egg and undergoes a revision.
so I expect to find this configuration by opening the two assemblies:

convecchio ---> special rev 1
-- > special rev 2

But what I find is:
convecchio ---> particular to rev 2
-- > special rev 2

Does anyone know how I can solve this problem?
Thank you.

 

[Inventor3D]

It simply does not solve.
the vault, as all pdm does its work and rightly tracks changes and updates all assemblies with the revised components.
If you want to have two different results, you must have two different components and not 2 revisions of the part.

Hi.

 

[MauroM]

Right.
I have the impression that there is a lack of knowledge of the concept of "revision".

 

[godevolution]

may also be that maurom is right and improperly use the term revision.
My problem is that I have a "father" model from which I generate "daughter" orders.
within the individual orders I will have customizations that do not reflect on the father.
However, if a fault of operation occurs (e.g. an element has been underestimated and perhaps it is enough to change the material without changing size, to oversize it) I find myself having to revise the father, in order to bring in future orders the correct changes.
In this way, however, even in past orders, the component is updated, where in reality it has never been mounted.
so doing I no longer know what are the old orders where still resides the old detail to monitor.
I think this is part of the "revision" concept, maybe I'm wrong.

doing as you say, I should do every time a copy of the whole project and rename it. This would lead me to have a huge amount of identical designs. the other advantage that I would lose is the immediacy of knowing what orders a particular particular is mounted (checking the detail and using "where used" I immediately see the name of the assembly where it is mounted). so I should use a second management to monitor the details, but it's what I did before using the vault....and at this point it becomes useless.

 

[MauroM]

....(for example, an element has been understated hard and maybe it is enough to change the material without changing size, to oversize it) I find myself having to revise the father, in order to be able to bring in future orders the correct changes.
In this way, however, even in past orders, the component is updated, where in reality it has never been mounted.
so doing I no longer know what are the old orders where still resides the old detail to monitor. .

I don't use vaults in management.
I only say that : the revision brings a date and therefore from this I should trace back to what revision of any component has been used in that particular task. (effectively it is a dirty work that should do pdm).
then, I knew that a piece is said to be revised when its "change/improvement" does not affect the interchangeability of the piece in other machines already built.
If they ask you for a replacement of an old contractor, what do you care to know that revision was at the time, give him the last rev. that you're sure it's still the one.

 

[godevolution]

that the piece is interchangeable are perfectly in agreement. But let us admit that of a piece 3 revisions are made. the pieces are interchangeable.
At some point it turns out revision 2 has problems of failure. to know where the other revisions are mounted, simply by clicking on the particular rev2 allows me to know about which machines I mounted that revision and can go to the customer to replace the piece, putting it down as "ordinary maintenance" before the piece ceases, therefore avoiding me any figures from chocolate.
This is an example, there may be a thousand other combinations.
However from what I understand is that there is not a fundamental solution and that I must surrender to using a parallel management.
thanks anyway for the help