AnsweredAssumed Answered

PDM Standard - Setting Revision & Issue

Question asked by Matthew Seavers on Feb 21, 2020
Latest reply on Mar 15, 2020 by Ants Palgi

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 8

Hi, this is my first post here and by all accounts probably not my last.

I am working on a test bed for launching Solidworks PDM standard within my work place and have encountered a difficulty in my revisioning system.

We have two distinct part numbers which both have an issue number attached to them.

I have worked out the basic part numbering revision, and can transition the part number revision to increment by 1 each time, however, I cannot get the second variable to follow suit.

The variables are:

Revision

ASCRev

Revision works fine.

If however I try and use the same process to up rev the ASCRev, because it reads the system variable %Revision%, & %NextRevision%, then I either increment Revision so it jumps a rev. and / or the ASCRev lags behind.

Does anyone know how to create the a system variable like %NextASCRev%

I have a work around, which is not pretty involving a formula built into the part or assy document, however this requires the transition to then open the document in a writable state, allow the formula to run, then close and perform up-issue to revision.

This of course has its limitations, esp. in Standard.

I am not sure if it the functionality of the Standard version, or my lack of knowledge which is leading me into a dead end.

Any suggestions would be most appreciated.

No one else has this question

Outcomes

8 Replies

Nadia Shea Feb 24, 2020 10:58 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
May I ask why you have two Revision variables? Just curious.

A couple of things to note: Revision is comprised of two parts: Variable (dumb text that represents revision) and a Counter (this is internal, but why you have the option for 'initial counter value' on the revision components)

Workflow Transitions Actions are order sensitive. So depending on how you configure the 'Set Variable' action may require you to move the 'Inc. Revision' action in a different order.

Usually:
- Set Revision to %nextrevision% should be ABOVE (aka before) the Inc. Revision action.
- Set Revision to %revision% should be Under (aka after) the Inc. Revision action.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Matthew Seavers @ Nadia Shea on Feb 24, 2020 11:28 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Hi Nadia,
  We have two revisions due to the MRP system we run.
  As part of our investigation we are looking at whether to just use the MRP specific part number & revision throughout, however our legacy data is not set up in this way.
  The difficulty is that the revision and ASCrevision, tend to be out of sync, which is proving a challenge.
  
  I have the revision increments set correctly and they work.
  It is when I try and incorporate the increment to the ASCRevision variable, as %nextrevision% & %revision% affect the revision variable only.
  
  If I can up-rev both variables it would work alongside our current methodology. Otherwise I need to review how our legacy data is input into PDM.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Nadia Shea @ Matthew Seavers on Feb 24, 2020 2:10 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Do both revisions bump during the same workflow transition?
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - David Lane @ Nadia Shea on Feb 24, 2020 3:01 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Nadia Shea wrote:
      
      Do both revisions bump during the same workflow transition?
      Also are they supposed to match?
      
      If so just set variable "ASCRev" equal to variable "Revision" after you set revision to what you want. As Nadia stated, the order of actions is important so be sure to set Revision based on NextRevision, and then set ASCRev based on Revision.
      
      If they don't match or at least bump at the same time, this will be pretty difficult to do with PDM. Although you could probably do it with a custom add-in that links up with your MRP system.
      
      If say ASCRev is always 1 number behind Revision... then you could set ASCRev based on Revision... then set Revision based on NextRevision. I'm doing something like this for the revision history table, as the built in one has/had problems with custom properties and didn't work reliably at all.
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Matthew Seavers @ David Lane on Feb 25, 2020 4:21 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        in most cases the ASCRev lags the Revision by 1 digit so the practice of using %Revision% to set the ASCREV before the %NextRevision% bumps revision, works.
        
        In several cases the ASCRev is 3 or 4 revs different. due to the fact that the model and drawing have been through several Iterations prior to being assigned an MRP number.
        
        also to complicate this the development part may have been assigned an ASC number, however when it transitions to a production part the Revision of the part/drawing is then reset to A (from numerical), whilst bumping in ASC to show this transition.
        
        So I can have a part that has varying combinations:
        Rev1, ASCRev 0
        Rev5, ASCRev 0
        RevA, ASCRev 5
        
        this is why I would like to try and bump them separately.
        I have tried to bump separately, and together and generally, each way bumps the Rev by 2 points, missing a rev in the process.
        
        I am going to go away and have a think about our process a bit more and see if we can simplify from there first.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        David Lane @ Matthew Seavers on Feb 25, 2020 8:30 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Matthew Seavers wrote:
        
        in most cases the ASCRev lags the Revision by 1 digit so the practice of using %Revision% to set the ASCREV before the %NextRevision% bumps revision, works.
        
        In several cases the ASCRev is 3 or 4 revs different. due to the fact that the model and drawing have been through several Iterations prior to being assigned an MRP number.
        
        also to complicate this the development part may have been assigned an ASC number, however when it transitions to a production part the Revision of the part/drawing is then reset to A (from numerical), whilst bumping in ASC to show this transition.
        
        So I can have a part that has varying combinations:
        Rev1, ASCRev 0
        Rev5, ASCRev 0
        RevA, ASCRev 5
        
        this is why I would like to try and bump them separately.
        I have tried to bump separately, and together and generally, each way bumps the Rev by 2 points, missing a rev in the process.
        
        I am going to go away and have a think about our process a bit more and see if we can simplify from there first.
        As far as I know you can only have one PDM revision at a time. You can have as many variable revisions as you want. But bumping them would come from the PDM revision, and therefore I don't think what you want is possible out of the box. Probably the best way is to develop a custom add-in to communicate with the system driving the ASC Rev.
        
        Also sounds like a good excuse to simplify the process and only use one revision scheme if possible. I would say that typically PDM should drive the revision numbers and the MRP system should just show whatever PDM has.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Barry Watkins @ Matthew Seavers on Feb 25, 2020 8:32 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Can you treat the ASC Rev as a completely separate variable and increment it in your workflow step independently of "Revision"? We don't use PDM at my current position, so I can't test this.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
Ants Palgi Mar 15, 2020 6:25 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Can you draw out logic how revisions are assigned to parts? Which procedures are done during revision assignment?
Just note, that in PDM Standard is only 10 states, so you may not be lack or workflow stages.

And I recommend to consider that main idea of PDM is to feed MRP-ERP system with correct revisions and mechanical BOMS.
Idea to bring kind of information back to PDM from ERP is most probably going to die. PDM is simply not meant for that.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

PDM Standard - Setting Revision & Issue

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content