SaveAll - avoid "read only" files & flush changes on "read only" files

[romaleee]

Hello.

I have a little problem that I'm stuck with. So here's the thing. We do not use any professional PDM platform in our office, so I'm not familiar with any of their solutions for my problem. I'm trying to make a library of standard parts on network that would be used in different projects by different users. I would make the directory as "Read Only" for the users because this are standard parts(products). So when the person works with an assembly that contains files from "Standard_parts_directory" and from "Actual_project_directory", he is able to save only "Actual project" files.

Problem:

When you make change that does not impact a geometry of part (hide/show, change dimension/change back to old, etc), the document is automatically labeled as "modified". If you do that with "read only" files, you can no longer use "save_all", "unload", "send to"... unless you save those parts with "Save As". Is there a way to avoid this. For example, is there a way to flush those changes without having to save "Actual project" files with Save Management and then restarting the project?

Hope I'm clear enough.

Thanks for help. Roman

 

[catiavbmacro]

Hi,
we use this system all the time and we don't have any problems.
When you want to take that start part, just go with new from, don't open that part, and you will not have any problems.

If you have any questions i m here, also there is a lot of possibilities to go with a macro.

For example we go like this, all of those parts are loaded into macro app, we double click it, and fill the name and part number.
Also you need to select where you want to add into assembly. When you do that, macro will make new from with that entered name and it will add part to the selected assembly.
Ofc you have search option just like in windows, so you will never to open that part and have those issues.
It's very practical and fast.

https://catiavbmacro.com/

 

[romaleee]

Hmmm. That is a very interesting approach indeed. But this way of solving my problem would mean that we have to make new file/s every time we put a standard part or assembly in new project. For first, those files wouldn't have the same UUID as the originals. Starting from the fact that we do not want to change those standard parts but only use them in assemblies, I don't think this is the best way for us. We would also have more parts with same part numbers roaming the network and of course possibility of differences between them, ergo mistakes. Not to mention space consumption. If I'm seeing something wrong in my logic please correct me.

Another problem would be, not being able to use standard Catia catalogs, and all the issues I'm going trough is partly for the purpose of catalogs.

I went with an idea that we create a macro that would replace Catia-s "Save All". The macro would:

1. Do "Save As" on all <In Memory standard documents>, and thus mirroring them on local drive from a user. ** <In Memory standard documents> - parts and products that are read into catia trough catalog.

- at this point we could have differences between "network standard files" and "local standard files" but we could synchronize them later.​

2. Run "SaveAll" on the rest of the files.

- The problem here is that with first step I unintentionally relink my catalog references to local files. Catalog gets modified and "Save all" tries to save it. Don't know how to avoid that.

 

[catiavbmacro]

Hi, i m sorry i didn't understand you goo first time, i got it now. So i ll just write about your idea.

In my case, we must have all parts for specific model in it's own folder, so every model has own folder and all parts inside. If you work only inside your firm you can go with option like you mention.
But if you need to send that model to someone it will be the problem. Also all parts in our model must have unique part number so we can order it. Our parts are parameterized, so every part has more variants.
So when you use, you must change variant, like distanz, lochstempel, gasdruckfeder and so on. Also have your approach in mind, i m little bit scared, how can you control so much models, ghost link can be huge problem. For example BMW has full system of macros, and has read-only parts, but they just use it to make new part from it, Mercedes has IKOM for NX and again same thing. This macro from picture above is for VW, they dont have any kind of macro system, but they have standard parts, so we use them and make our own system of macros.

So how do you handle part change, you just go with replace part for example, if it's same part there would be any kind of problems.
And when we are talking about space, these parts are lightweight, it's not big deal.

I hope i help you with this answer.

https://catiavbmacro.com/

 

[romaleee]

In my case, we must have all parts for specific model in it's own folder, so every model has own folder and all parts inside.

Our parts are parameterized, so every part has more variants. So when you use, you must change variant, like distanz, lochstempel, gasdruckfeder and so on.

Believe it or not, but we have the same approach at the moment. But we had some bad experiences with it (second quote) when we tried to test ENOVIA on our models. Dassault experts said that this is one of the reasons why we are having so much glitches and that is the reason we are trying a different solutions. This is off course in beta phase on smaller test assembly. All in all we are trying to become more compatible with 3dx for future benefits. As for my original problem, I've got something that needs to be tested and we'll se if that's the way to go.

Thanks for a discussion. It's nice to hear that we are not the only ones that work in

Our parts are parameterized, so every part has more variants. So when you use, you must change variant, like distanz, lochstempel, gasdruckfeder and so on.

way.

 

[catiavbmacro]

Hi,
can you be more specific, what kind of problems?? We work in V5R26. That's interesting, and what about these other problems with this approach? For example, we must have specific part number. And other thing too, so for this paremterized models, you must have one variant in one part it's mess :O. Maybe i don't have all the informations, but for me it's not good option.