4 Replies Latest reply on Aug 21, 2014 3:34 AM by Andries Koorzen

    How do you set a transition action to affect only one configuration's property?

    Stephen Lapic

      I was looking into setting a watermark that would be visible on a drawing but also visible on the model's card.  Now if we have multiple configurations of a part and some of the watermarks could be "released, good, active, etc." while others could be "not released, inactive, bad, etc." how would this be controlled during a transition so that it would affect only the configuration being worked on?  I don't see how this would work on a model by itself but I was thinking of the watermark change through the transition would work on the drawing and then go to the model's configuration that was on the drawing.  If that made any sense.


      I do see that there is a configuration box in the transition action window but since our configurations do not have one set name that would be affected I don't think this will work.

        • Re: How do you set a transition action to affect only one configuration's property?
          Rob D

          You can update the Watermark variable to be "OBSOLETE" or whatever along those lines.


          This is then mapped to the watermark through CustomProperties


          Unfortunately, I cannot help with the configurations level, sorry.

          • Re: How do you set a transition action to affect only one configuration's property?
            Brian McEwen

            I don't think there is a way (maybe API) to pass a variable configuration name to the transition action (a trans-action?).   Dispatch also doesn't look like it takes variables (but it does have the advantage of working on more than one specified configuration name).


            One easy way to set it up is manually on the data cards.  The author/user is deciding what is good and bad anyway, just give them a drop down and then they have to set the watermark for each configuration.  This can be done on model data cards or drawing data cards - depends how you map variables. I can see how this approach might not cover all bases, but it is easy to implement.


            I'd avoid trying different revision levels for different configs - EPDM is not so good at that - if that is relevant to this config work.

            • Re: How do you set a transition action to affect only one configuration's property?
              Andries Koorzen

              Hi Stephen.


              This is just my opinion BUT... Using different revision levels for different configurations in the same part is not the way to go. Essentially you have different parts then. My questions to you then would be:


              • When managing configurations in this way, what information do you put in your ERP system when the revision of a configuration changes?
              • When distributing documents (e.g. document transmittals) to your supplier companies, which drawings do you issue since the drawing now has multiple revisions based on a specific configuration?
              • Would it not be easier to just have a separate part for each configuration, then put the new information in your ERP / MRP system?
              • If this is a standard part, I can understand, but then that would be because standard library parts are not really revision managed in the sense of being distributed outside of the CAD office
              • Using the API to solve this issue (I'm a programmer) will add another layer of complexity and a cost (in terms of implementation and time) to your EPDM system (addins still need to be upgraded / managed, and unless you're doing it in-house or your reseller is doing it for you, it's going to cost you a pretty penny to maintain (as a running cost every year)) which kinda takes fun out of it


              Don't get me wrong, I'm all for customization, I just think that sometimes we should take a step back and review company processes if some processes are becoming difficult to sustain / users start needing excessive training to use the processes. What are you're thoughts on this?