Tables & "Automatic" Revision Tags in Drawing Formats

Hi Folks -

SW Monkey had asked a question relative to getting the Revision Table
rev & the Title-block revision to match "automatically" . . .

I must confess that up until 1/2 year ago, I was unaware of this
splendid little feature that was now available to anyone using the
"new" revision tables - available in 2004 & beyond.

I was a "let's keep using excel" hold out for a while, mostly from the
horrible space usage on the "new" BOM, so I never investigated tables
too closely.

Nevertheless, I now exclusively use the New BOM and revision table
regularly and find them quite likable in many ways (still some creepy
issues around editing & space but they are not feature killers).

The "new" option that we now have is the ability to have a Revision in
the title block follow a Revision table's revision.

To use this:

- Create a new "blank" drawing

- Insert a new revision table (Insert-table-revision) and take the
defaults.

- RMB the table and then "Add New Revision".
You will now have a SW "Revision" property available to use in notes
just like any other sw-generated property (like sw-filename, etc.).
NOTE: THIS IS _NOT_ AVAILABLE _UNTIL_ YOU ADD A REV TABLE & ADD A
REVISION TO THAT TABLE. Adding the table alone is not enough for this
to work - it also needs a rev added. This is the catch.

- Once you are comfortable with this process, you can edit your
standard sheet formats and add the table & initial revision and update
your title-block tag. Once this is done, you will not have to make the
initial steps noted above.

Other Things:

- This works if you control rev levels in drawings. If you are
"inheriting" _model_ attributes, then you can continue to do this the
same way and manually update the table. (I'm not sure of a way to make
the rev-table inherit the model's rev directly).

- This won't work with the excel method.

- It can be used on multiple sheet drawings with no problems.

- When you alter an existing revision or add a new revision line, the
new line will be the "new" revision letter. It will put the
title-block Rev at the last entry (lower in the list) in the table.

- It's a great improvement over the "old" method of manually keeping
all this stuff in parity.

There is a simple file showing this here (also has these instructions
embedded for future use):

http://www.sheetmetaldesign.com/Cad-SolidWorks/Modeling/Modeling2-UsingRevTables-BasicIdea.zip

Other Facts: I'm a world-class moron for not learning about this so
much sooner - so much anguish could have been avoided - don't be like
me . . .

Fortunately Ignorance is curable, Stupidity is not.

Later,

SMA

(Bad spelling is also curable when you use the new Google toolbar with
spell checker for forms - just discovered this little gem)

 

....

Sean,

This also works great with PDMWorks. PDMW uses the custom property
"Revision", which is the same property that drives this table. It
automatically fills out the table with both the revision and the check-
in notes from PDMW. It takes a step of faith, though, since you check
in the document and leave the table blank. SW fills in the spaces after
you check it in, so there's room for things like unwrapped long revision
descriptions.

I was glad to give up the excel table, with its "squint for accuracy"
placement method.

 

Hi Matt,

That's pretty cool - I think they are really catching on to what John
Q. User needs everyday - at least in that realm.

I think that most PDM does require a leap of faith - one usually worth
taking.

I like the new tables and think that they are getting there. The only
place that I see Excel serving well into the future is in the Design
Table - there is the one place that excel shines. I don't ever see
them replacing that. The new tables are also pretty weak (I.e.
nearly-non-existent) on formatting, but they do seem to be a lot more
bullet proof. I wish they could make them a bit "prettier" if that
makes sense. It offends the artist in me to have such a clunky looking
table with such horrible editing in a production release - alas. At
least the data template does not get corrupted like in the Excel BOMS.
Happened about 10% of the time. We left the old "Vanishing &
Inaccessible" menu thing in the dust too . . . it's getting there -
slowly as usual.

Here is my wish:

- Allow me to use the BOM as an attribute grid, propagating or editing
any custom property that exists in one doc into any other doc.
- Allow me to open a model, assembly or drawing from the BOM grid as if
I RMB'd on a the model.
- If I had PDM allow where used query from the BOM and so on.

I would love to see they BOM be like a control center for all assembly
attributes and a means to open up any document related to the assembly.
Imagine the impact on data availability if that could even be rolled
into the viewer. SW-2112?

Just that itty bitty little thing.

(Yeah Right)

Later,

Sean

 

Its a shame it wont show Rev 0. Our first Rev # is 0, but that doesnt
show up in the titleblock. So if I wanted to use this feature, I would
have to keep the rev # in the title block blank for Rev 0.

Any ideas?

 

Hi Monkey,

Send me a copy of your format if you wish.

I think that something curious (perhaps like george) is going on.

I am able to make the posted drawing show ANYTHING that gets put in as
the last revision of the part and also show up in the "titleblock" tag.

I'm thinking that we can nail this one with a little monkeying around
(har har - self amusement).

Later,

Sean

 

Hi Monkey,

Send me a copy of your format if you wish.

I think that something curious (perhaps like george) is going on.

I am able to make the posted drawing show ANYTHING that gets put in as
the last revision of the part and also show up in the "titleblock" tag.

I'm thinking that we can nail this one with a little monkeying around
(har har - self amusement).

Later,

Sean

 

Right, very nice feature that comes whn we have PDMWorks. But it still
feels like a half-cooked feature, you have to be aware of how it's
working because you'll end up with a lot of superflous revisions of
your drawings because any file change will ask for a new rev.
For example you'll want to go to print setup and make sure everything
is fine there before you check-in. If not, when you'll print the
drawing you'll have to create a new rev if you want to save the page
setup you did...
-Marc

 

Sean-Michael Adams,
I simply have a spot on my title block that says REV :
I want this to match the REV in the New Revision Table. When adding
your first Rev, 1 comes up. We use Rev 0 for the first rev, "Released
to Production". The tag you have to put in the Rev field on the title
block is $PRP:"Revision" When I do this, it is blank until I add a
revision to the New Revision block. Then it changes to 1. I could put
a 0 in front of the code, making it 0$PRP:"Revision". When I do this,
it shows REV: 0. When I add a revision to the New Revision block, it
shows 01, 02,03, etc. I wish there was another way to do this, so I
dont have 0 in front of all the numbers.

Any ideas?

 

OK -

1) Let me ask this, if you have only one revision in your table, can
you edit it so that it is ZERO? Is it the only revision?

2) Does your titleblock tag have the $PRP:"Revision" tag? If so, then
it should be reported as ZERO as well. Anything I type into my table
here will go into the title block. If you need revision 0 for every
new drawing, then once this is working, you will need to commit it to a
drawing template.

3) Failing 1 & 2, can you share a copy what you consider a good
production print with revision 0 as you would like to see it? If you
can share a copy I think we can get this one working.

4) What SW version are you on? Maybe there is a glitch. This should
be working - table interacts with titleblock seamlessly.

5) Do you put an actual revision into the revision table for revision
zero (this may be our problem)? Or is revision 1 the first actual
entry into the table?

Later,

SMA

 

1.) When creating the revision table, i have to "add row" for the Zero
revision. Doing a "Add Revision" will adde ONE has the first revision
(can this be changed, i dont know).

2.) My titleblock does have the tag $PRP:"Revision". But since I
manually added the ZERO revision, it doesnt see this.

3.) Where would have like me to send a template?

4.) We are on SW 2004 SP 3.0

5.) See #1. Im confused on your question. #1 contradicts #5.

Another problem I came across was adding custom propertys to the actual
revision table. We have a spot for "Dwn By". I want this to be
grabbed from the model, but when I put $PRPSHEET:"Dwn_By", it doesnt
grab info from the model like my titleblock does. Am I doing something
wrong here?

Thanks for the help

 

Hi Monkey-

1) For this item, YES the first revision in the table can be changed by
editing the cell (via double click). I think that's the missing part.
Start here first.

2) Indeed, running over the $PRP:"Revision" with a "hard" ZERO will
cause it to stop working in the future, so we soudl try to retain the
$PRP:"Revision".

3) Mail:

4) same available for me.

5) I tend to confuse myself as well, so at least we can agree here.

(also look at your Dwn By vs Dwn_By - possible underscore in one and
not the other)

Later,

SMA

 

Sean-Michael Adams,

Here is a screenshot of what im trying to achieve.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/3eleven/SolidWorks/rev_block.jpg

I want the 0 in the Rev block (left corner) to show up in the REV:
field on the titleblock (right corner). Using $PRP:"Revision" doesnt
do this, but when I add a Revision, "1" does show up in the REV field
(right side).

Any ideas? I guess its not common for a company to start at Rev 0 ??

 

The content of the cell can be anything including "!%#$^&%"

The machanism for what you seem to want is there.

The example I posted allows a ZERO in the table and in the TitleBlock,
concurrently with no hassle. ZERO revision is not peculiar from what I
can see.

Unfortunately I can't take in any further without a sample of your
drawing, failing that, I wish you the best.

Does anyone here have any ideas on how to describe this better?

I think that the string between the tin cans is not as tight as it
could be, but I can only pull on this end (grin).

Later,

SMA