Can I suggest a better / different suffix system?
My own!
Instead 0f ASSY, use PartNumber-001 for assemblies, PartNumber-002, would be the second version of that same PartNumber, when you get to version 009, its time for a complete new number.
For parts I use 101, 102 being the second version etc.
So this looks like Part-101, Part 201, Part 301 etc,
I can have 99 parts of the same parent/family number and each can have 9 versions.
It also lists well in File Explorer and is easy as to see what is assy and what is part and what version is being used. No IP on this feel free to use. It works in the CAD environment a charm.
KISS.
Couldnt be completed until the file structure was sorted so its a long journey and a long way to go. Hence my suggestion they integrate with e 3rd part cloud system.
Cheers - Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks again. I have turned off the auto everything as you suggest.
I have also recreated the folder structure on the local hard drive, then opened each file in ZW3D and save as’d them into the new directory structure.
Then killed off the user folder.
So far, touch wood, I have two assemblies, albeit with only a few parts in each, that I have created and then nested into each other without issues.
I will reset a backup to back these files up to my dropbox account and copy the files across to the NAS at home so hopefully I can recover in the event of a problem
I like the simplicity of your naming conventions, but wonder how you keep control of them outside of the program, for example in your spare parts book, inventory etc.
I did have a quick look at Upchain and see Autodesk have their hands on it. This will make it a bloated expensive tool that the single operators will not be able to afford. Their vault system for inventor was ridiculously priced and you almost had to have a server set aside for it to run.
the PDM/PLM in ZW3d was one of the reasons I swapped over, but hey progress is progress.
Hope, with your mobile Office/living arrangements you are managing to stay one step ahead of Covid.
ell, horses for courses, both single object and multi object have advantages and disadvantages. With one bucket, if you want to give somebody access to your project, you have to give them access to the bucket with all the parts you have ever created and their computer must be configured exactly the same as yours so the hard coded folders are accessible. This is OK for a stand-alone computer or network server but not so easy for unlinked computers in some consultant/client relationships. Single object part number based systems are great for CAM as CNC machines don’t need descriptions but less useful for less automated fabrication shops where a person preparing parts for fabrication needs to get all the information from a bill of materials. In SO design, when a generic structural section is configured for each length needed, you will finish up with hundreds of configurations which is unworkable or hundreds of individual parts which is less efficient at producing cutting lists. In this case, a project based file is better where a new copy of a part is created within each project, unlinked, and configured for that project. This is the library/multi-object model which requires checking that ZW3D has found the right version of the part. The choice between SO or MO design must consider the end user and information sharing as well as the design process.
Is it possible to run ZW3D within a virtual machine where all the file relationships are hard coded and the virtual machine can be copied from machine to backup or a client’s machine? This is all a bit geeky for me but might be an answer to Ken’s issues. Does anybody do this?
Jim
Hi Jim,
the less is more folder approach with manually set search paths means you can force ZW to ONLY look in the right place.
If you want to give someone else access to your project you can pack it and send ONLY the relevant items.
Otherwise I am expecting who you are sharing with is within your organization and access to everything is normal.
Re cut lengths os generics there are several solutions to this problem. But it should a separate topic.
I’m not buying the copy and unlink idea BTW. Single source of truth is a golden rule.
Hi Russty,
re the part numbering system.
Obviously there is more to this than we have covered so far.
With the info I have provide so far I have solved several problems.
Identifying assy vs part
A way of managing versions.
Compatibility with file indexing.
In front of this is the part number system which may or may not be originating in the CAD department, may or may not be intelligent etc.
In the organizations I work with no one wants the job of part numbering.
Here is my take.
Sales people want small numbers, inventory and warehousing want their cake and to eat it too, CAD guys want someone to tell them what they want. Each organization has to figure it out for itself as a team. Then there are those who say random number ares fine - we have computers to help find things - yeah right.
Number should be in groups of 3(max 4 at beginning)with a dash between. e.g. 204(0)-110-336-101
All parts have the total complement unless using supplier numbers which is fine.
I call the first number the Family number, you can have 999 members of a family easy as. and 999 or 9999 families.
The second group can be a sub group or not used at all or just a filler 000
The 3 group is the part number unique, the last sequence is part/assy/version identifier as previously explained.
So what happens when you use this approach in a large assembly.
easy, once you have one, then you increment the part unique as you add parts within the family, all parts end in 101 or assemblies in 001 for a start. Job done. Mostly sales with just use what ever depth they need.
As soon as you make a new version, you will also end up with a new drawing etc. appropriately numbered.
Part number control required that people work from the BOM. BOM is king.
I also maintain that the part/assy must contain ALL the relevant metadata so that drawings pull that info directly from the part/assy.
The only things entered on a drawing are dimensions and annotations.
NEVER edit drawing meta data, change the data in the part/assy.
I will not comment of Autocad people who thing they can edit data anywhere!
Re Upchain, worse - Autodesk. because Vault is such a dog. Death by a thousand cuts. Upchain was only ever intended as an enterprise item.
Might not be much fun being Covid sick in our current arrangement. We do look after ourselves quite well, but time will tell. The politics of the thing are the dangerous part!
Hi Paul
Very interesting scenario. I will give it some thought and play with the idea. I like the way you have explained it and it makes a lot of sense to me as I have to cover off most of the areas you are talking about in your description.
