HI,
Just curious... If a company uses the Component ID as its drawing UG file name & now wants to create parametric models for them.
In the history, the company only had drawing files which is used in multiple systems. Now, that they want to create models, the company is trying to establish a (better) naming convention, without having to change the UG drawing file ID's.
I know when drafting, attributes can be used to callout the child components. They were thinking of putting some designation to the UG Model file names, but if I use that in my attributes, I will be getting more than I want to see.
How has other companies deal with using old UG file naming conventions & be able to create new file naming conventions, without drastically changing 1000's of drawings names?
Thanks
Just curious... If a company uses the Component ID as its drawing UG file name & now wants to create parametric models for them.
In the history, the company only had drawing files which is used in multiple systems. Now, that they want to create models, the company is trying to establish a (better) naming convention, without having to change the UG drawing file ID's.
I know when drafting, attributes can be used to callout the child components. They were thinking of putting some designation to the UG Model file names, but if I use that in my attributes, I will be getting more than I want to see.
How has other companies deal with using old UG file naming conventions & be able to create new file naming conventions, without drastically changing 1000's of drawings names?
Thanks
