CAD Forum

In the user/group settings->Reference Dialog tab there's a setting that will cause the drawing node to be selected automatically on transitions. I've found this only works one way; if model file is selected for transition the drawing comes with by default. The other way around would be if, for example, I'm approving a drawing from the PDM add-in then the model is selected automatically. It's a small inconvenience but seems logical, desired behavior. I should learn to approve files (model and drawing) from the model, not the drawing. Or not forget to check the model in RFD.

Just checking if there's some setting that I'm missing.

thanks.

The setting above it....however that setting is too broad and does any child reference. Would be nice to have several child reference option types to select (Drawing, assy component, mirror part, derived part, etc.)

We have reference checkboxes unchecked. The problem is we have a model and its accompanying drawing. But then we also have other drawings that may reference the part/assy such as for manufacturing, technical publications, installation drawings, and other cases. So having 4+ different types of drawings linked to an assembly, we didn't want it grabbing all of them by default on transitions and check-ins.

I wish they would enhance the transition, checkout/in dialogues to filter better on different types of references instead.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:09 am The setting above it....however that setting is too broad and does any child reference. Would be nice to have several child reference option types to select (Drawing, assy component, mirror part, derived part, etc.)

So the answer is "NO."

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:09 am We have reference checkboxes unchecked. The problem is we have a model and its accompanying drawing. But then we also have other drawings that may reference the part/assy such as for manufacturing, technical publications, installation drawings, and other cases. So having 4+ different types of drawings linked to an assembly, we didn't want it grabbing all of them by default on transitions and check-ins.

I wish they would enhance the transition, checkout/in dialogues to filter better on different types of references instead.

Yes exactly. That checkbox above is very bad for us, our entire data set is a standard parts library, assembly files included. Not project structured at all. In some of our product lines, the RFD for one top level print will find nearly every other top level in that family(and therefor every single file in that family). There are some common options that can go on any seat in that family and the top level prints show those optional attachments. So the RFD takes a couple minutes to load and has several hundred to a thousand lines. But, the ref between a drawing and a model has different context than a ref between an assembly and a part. Also, as you mentioned, PDM shouldn't forget about part to part refs, those are different context too.

The closest option that I can think of is to use a custom PDM add-in to hook the check-in/out action and build the reference tree yourself. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if this would even work so I'll have to test it.

bnemec wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:58 am So the answer is "NO."

I need to work on brevity

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:11 pm I need to work on brevity

LOL! I've found sticking with bulleted lists limited to one line for each point is a good starting point.

Also learned that when someone selling/demoing/hocking some software/platform answers a question along the lines of, "Yeah I think that can be done." or "You know that's a popular request and I'm not at liberty to go into details, but that functionality has been demoed to resellers." What they really mean is, "No it cannot and don't expect it any time soon." That's shaped my tendency to clarify the response with categorical, non-ambiguous answer.

bnemec wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:15 pm Also learned that when someone selling/demoing/hocking some software/platform answers a question along the lines of, "Yeah I think that can be done." or "You know that's a popular request and I'm not at liberty to go into details, but that functionality has been demoed to resellers." What they really mean is, "No it cannot and don't expect it any time soon." That's shaped my tendency to clarify the response with categorical, non-ambiguous answer.

I'm always in "solution" mode and thinking about how things should work. Not trying to sell you anything....I promise

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:01 pm I'm always in "solution" mode and thinking about how things should work. Not trying to sell you anything....I promise

Doesn't that cause a lot of

bnemec wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:09 pm
Doesn't that cause a lot of

Story of my life.......just ask my wife........err....or maybe don't

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 10:04 am Story of my life.......just ask my wife........err....or maybe don't

https://youtu.be/Dx6HojLBsnw