Update Linked Document Warning Icons for multil level assemblies.

owen_sparks

Hi folks.

Hit a snag yesterday and want to check if what I thought I saw was true.

The scenario is 3 documents:-
(1) Common Fittings
(2) Sub-assembly
(3) Top Level assembly

Workflow:-
(a) Doc1 - Design a new fitting, revision Doc1.
(b) Doc2 - Deign a new Sub assembly pulling in the fitting from Doc1.  Revision Doc2 .
(c) Doc3 - Design a new Top-level assembly that pulls in the Sub-assy from Doc2.  Revision Doc3.

All good so far.

(d) Make update to fitting in Doc1, Revision it again.

Now the problem as I see it is Doc2 (the Sub-Assy) will show the "update available icon", but Doc3 is unaware of the change, and won't see the need for an update until Doc2 has been updated and revisioned.

This seems scary dangerous even for a 3 level scenario above.  What if there were 10 levels, and multiple designers working on the project?

If I'm not talking nonsense we would seem to need a "where used" search at a minimum.

Help!

Owen S.

john_mcclary

owen_sparks said:

This seems scary dangerous even for a 3 level scenario above.  What if there were 10 levels, and multiple designers working on the project?

If I'm not talking nonsense we would seem to need a "where used" search at a minimum.

Yea, that sound's dangerous. Nice catch.

I'm curious about your workflow choice though. Why so many document links?
I'm sure you have your reasons. I just want to hear about the benefits.

owen_sparks

Hi @john_mcclary

First the caveat, I'm a new CAD user, but a year into OS use so I'm not holding this up as a shining example of optimum workflows

However in my experience there are a few factors in play here. 
(a) Rebuild Times
(b) Reusable Models
(c) Future proofing / future edits

(a) Rebuild Times
I used to start a partstudio and pretty much let a design evolve in one place.  This is great, however as complexity rises rebuilds are slower.  I was also guilty of deriving something from a different document, that had in itself been derived from something else...  Each time we do that the whole document it's derived from is also rebuilt.   To paraphrase PT "If it's geometrically unrelated then put in in another studio."

(b) Reusable Models / sub - assemblies
Some of what I model I'll re use later, so it seems cleaner to have library documents and separate one-off project files. 

In the example I'm working on I have a 19 inch Rack Mount Cabinet test rig.
Cabinet, Power Supply, DVM = Standard Bought in Library Parts
Fitting Kits = Custom 3D Printed Library Parts, but will be reused in other projects
IO Panels = Default Sub assy with some project specific add-ons.
Vac Pump Sub Assy = Library Sub-Assy



(c) Future proofing
Even renaming features doesn't stop me from coming back to a file with 100+ features and wondering what goes with what.  "Bracket Top Sketch" is not great when there are 20 brackets. Split over multiple studios, and with a bit of ICE thrown in things are clearer.

Sub assemblies are nice too.  Makes the top level easier, and updating stuff simpler too.

What I'd love to see in OS is a document summary in the form of a flow chart or similar that maps out what has been linked to.

Just my opinion, I welcome others.

As an aside I planned project is what set the alarm bells ringing.  We're about to re-layout factories.  I was intending modeling the whole thing but by splitting the tasks into chunks.  Bob models a workbench, Sally a soldering iron, Rich an assembly of Production Line A, Fey Production Line B etc.  All these can be thrown into assemblies for everyone to push together like lego, with one master layout sketch driving the overall project.  Hey presto even a small change in a sub assy document will cascade through the whole project...  Only it would seem that it won't.  It'll flag up automatically at one level and then die, until that level is updated, which will trigger the next level flag...  

Owen S.