15 Replies Latest reply on Jul 20, 2009 1:09 AM by John Layne

    PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations

    Rodney Peterson
      Relatively new to Pdmwe here and would like to know if anyone shares my dissapointment with the fact that
      Pdmwe cannot maintain revisions of multiple configurations in a given model.
      For example: A part model of a shaft has different configs made of different length shafts, holes, flats and ?.
      Each configuration is technically a separate part and could/would have different revision levels for each configuration.
      Apparently, Pdmwe cannot keep track of the revisions of each config. independantly(even if you manually change the
      revision in file properties to be different) pdmwe will ultimately make all the revisions the same.

      I come from many years of using Pro-e/Intralink and intralink treats instances as separate models in the vault even though they all come from the same model.

      Any thoughts? Are there work arounds for this?

      Currently we rely on Pdmwe maintaining revision levels at the drawing level and is considered the master rev level over what the model may be at.

        • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
          Spencer Smith
          I'm with you, buddy. Before I used PDMWE, I used DBWorks...configuration revisions were no problem. I could even do stuff like choose whether all configs pointed to the same drawing (tabulated) or each config had it's own drawing. Before that, I was a Pro/E and Intralink user...no problem there either.

          This limitation essentially forces us to not use configurations for production data. 'Tis sad, since it's a very powerful and time-saving feature of SW.


          • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
            Mike Tompkins
            Hi Rodney,

            I come from the exact same situation as you, Pro-e/Intralink with a Rev on every config/instance, and PDMWE unable to match that functionality.

            Do to the nature of our business, it's not feasible to create a separate model for everything that we currently have in a design table model, so we have to use config's.

            When I set up PDMWE, I had to wrestle with the revision situation. What I ended up doing was to create a custom property (Oracle Revision) for all the configs. This is a different property than Revision (PDMWE Revision). In addition, to avoid 'more confusion', the PDMWE rev is numeric (000.00 -->001,002...) while the Oracle rev is Alpha (A.00). The drawing rev is also Alpha, but does not necessarily match the model rev. The model Oracle Revisions are mapped to custom P/N tables or design tables in the drawing via custom properties and macro's.

            This setup made designing the PDMWE workflow a 'challenge', to say the least.

            So, the PDMWE Revisions are automated and will change automatically as determined by States and Transitions, but the Oracle Revisions are Static and MUST BE CHANGED MANUALLY. Not optimum by PDMWE standards, but it works for us. In addition, this method allows the revision shown in PDMWE Preview window to match the necessary revision shown on the data card, which matches our Oracle database. I know that some people are having issues with the preview pane at this time.

            It's all driven by your company procedures, so your mileage may vary.

            • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
              John Layne
              Yes the configuration revision issues are a mind bender.

              My main client is about to go live with Enterprise, we decided to get around the issues of configuration revisions by only Workflowing drawings.

              The biggest negative about this approach, that I can see so far, is BOM's on drawings do not show the revision of the "released for manufacture configuration"

              I'd really like to know how DBworks gets around the issues of configurations and revisions.
              • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
                Jeff Sweeney
                DBWorks has a separate database table for tracking configs individually. It is left to the users to choose which configuration gets bumped. In a way it is a loophole because you could modify a configuration without upping the revision. [Still one file] But if you can trust your users....
                • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
                  John Layne
                  Thanks Jeff, interesting to know how DBWorks handle configuration revs.

                  Another old-client of mine is also close to going live and they use a lot of configs. They choose to manually control the revision configuration specific property of the configuration. Which gets around the problem of not reporting the revision on assembly BOM drawings. But adds a manual process and therefore you have to trust the users.

                  The manual control of the configuration specific revision property also has another major drawback.g. When modifying a configuration a user may inadvertently change another config without realising.

                  • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
                    Jeff Sweeney
                    You can accomplish nearly the same thing as DBWorks' configuration revisions if you put a "Configuration Revision" field on your datacard -and ensure you do not check "Updates in all configurations"
                    • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
                      John Layne
                      The biggest issue regarding the handling of Configuration Revisions is the lack of a best practice guide, or any official advice, from SolidWorks!

                      Every company that installs PDMWorks Enterprise must have these same issues yet there is no best practice guide, or any guide for that matter.

                      The people who write the Software should be at least offering some advice on the ways to manage the issues involved with Configuration revisions. A simple pro's and con's list of the different methods of handling the problem would save a lot of hours of frustration guessing which method is best suited to a companies internal practices.

                      Dear SolidWorks,

                      Companies installing or planning to install PdmWorks Enterprise need your help with this issue!

                      • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
                        Perry Waring
                        We Revision Control the detail drawings only as this is what most manufacturers still use - we allow the part & assembly Models to be revision controlled also but know they can go out of sinc with the detail
                          • PDMWE-Revisions and Configurations
                            Simon Brooke

                            Perry Waring wrote:


                            We Revision Control the detail drawings only as this is what most manufacturers still use - we allow the part & assembly Models to be revision controlled also but know they can go out of sinc with the detail

                            We use this system for drawings and parts too, it seems perfectly logical if you think that there are many times you make only trivial changes to the drawings which do not alter the model - note changes etc.
                            Up to now, we have been putting PDFs on PDM but are only just starting to put SW models and drawings in. It is our intention to save all part files as meaningful names, have configs with similar and then have the drawings saved by part number. This way the feature tree will always be meaningful and the drawings will point to the correct model, config and revision. (Well, I very much hope this is a workable approach!)