Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Were a still a little too small to implement windchill. I have 4 people running Creo, but I am looking ahead and trying to make decisions on things like the use of family tables so that moving forward I can use PDM without blowing up my legacy systems.
I appreciate your time, and I understand everyone is busy. I do not need a response right away so please get your work done and get back to me whenever you get a chance.
You are never too small to implement Windchill. We have 2 people running Creo. About 25 people accessing viewables via Windchill. It is a huge asset to operate within Windchill. Granted, the investment isa bit larger than I would like, but with the time and energy I save elsewhere and the document management capabilities for not only Creo but any other type of document, it's well worth it.
TMPENG
"The problem is that I cannot use the parametric balloons with the top level generic BOM to balloon the instance views. So I can either use manually placed non-parametric balloons, or I can insert BOM repeat regions for each instance, and fix the indices of each to match the the top level generic BOM. Either way is cumbersome."
Any thoughts? Yes
As for balloons, we use one that is parametric that is driven by a part parameter. This is done by creating a custom balloon that pulls the part parameter. This way the part detail number is always robust. The fix indices never has to be used.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.