We are testing FDS, the 2d-3d connect and user connector class are very useful. we meet 3 problem with FDS:
FDS Current Process:
insert a asset and the file name should be originalfilename+ID. but if we change the parameter, FDS will create a new file name and replace the old one.
why FDS create a new file and replace the old one after we change the parameter?
- it will create so many dirty file in the hard disk, user must use pack and go to package it.
- We save some asset information to database when we insert a new asset to the layout. unfortunately we can't find the original file after we change it's parameters.
- if we create a application to change the asset parameter and don't use factory properities dialog (it's wouldn't create a new asset file), what should we be pay attention?
FDS Current Process:
insert asset to layout and the file will be Read-only.
- Are there some un-known reason that FDS didn't support customer modify the parameter directly by inventor Fx function? set it to read-only protect those files?
- Those files set to be Read-Only, so how to integrate FDS with Vault? and we can't fine check in button to check inventor file to vault. so that mean FDS forbidden to integrate it with Vault?
FDS Current Process:
Insert the asset one by one, and FDS will snap the connector and connect it automatically.
In realistic application, use will insert some fixed asset to special location, then insert adaptive asset (like conveyor) , FDS should be able snap both side asset's connector, and adjust the length or others parameter to meet ensure the both side connector are connected.
Thanks for working with FDS. Here are some answers to your questions.
1) The component file handling is done for efficiency. So, when you have multiple identically-configured components in a layout, they all use the same component file. This also applies to any other layouts created via the same project. We understand that this can result in potentially many unused components in the workspace. A script could be written to identify and remove these, or Vault could be used, with its "where used" capabilities.
I'd be interested to know more about the database you're using to store the component file information. Why do you do this? What is the mechanism that records this?
If you try to avoid the component file handling that happens via the properties panel, you're essentially breaking the efficiency I mention above. If you want to control this yourself, then you're free to do that. Otherwise, you'll wind up potentially with unwanted changes to other components when you change one of them.
2) The component files are read-only to support the mechanism I mentioned above. We don't want users to be modifying parameters (etc.) for these components manually. This is to make sure that we know that a particular component represents a known set of parameter values.
FDS is certainly not forbidden to use Vault; many customers have used this quite successfully. You need to make sure you're using a Vault-enabled project.
3) This is a request that we've seen before, and is in our backlog of features. Today, this is a more manual effort than we would like. We will increase its priority for inclusion in a future release. Thank you for your feedback on this.
Please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions.
For the question with Vault, I check it and found that it's cause by my check out the inventor vault project file. it's ok now.
1. I understand for the efficiency reason to use file rename mechanism. but how about just rename and replace for first time of change the parameters. and keep file name don't be change from the second times.
we are ADN member and we are take a development for a potential FDS customer. About 60-70% asset are conveyor type in the manufacturing line. and each conveyor or fixed asset have at least one connector of each side, some side have 2-3 connectors.
as I mentioned in my question, they insert all fixed asset into the layout first, then insert the conveyor. but they need we find the nearest fixed asset and change each conveyor's length/height to meet the fixed asset installation requirement. and customer's conveyor much complex than in the FDS system asset.
we capture the conveyor insert event, and save the conveyor/fixed asset connectors which user selected. after the user move the fixed asset, we can find the correct fixed asset and it's connector, then batch update all conveyor parameter.
you know, user will often change the fixed asset location and the parameter of conveyor/fixed asset. so with rename mechanism, we have to re-search all conveyor/fixed asset, re-build the relationship of all conveyor/fixed asset, and some time it's will cause wrong connection.
2. for Vault integration,the local file will be full control after we check it out, and user can edit it's parameter manually without any notice. so I think the FDS read-only mechanism Conflict with Vault and its original expects.
for the Q3, I had explain it in my Q1 explain.
HI again. Glad your Vault issue was resolved.
The scenario you describe covers a very specific use case. To do what you're asking would potentially break other workflows where existing parts are used by other assemblies, and therefore cannot just be modified in place.
If you're looking for a case where you start with an asset, and want to instantiate it into a layout assembly, and then modify it as a "regular" part, this may be doable. Essentially, you want to "break the link" with the library asset, so that any subsequent changes are just reflected on that part, and we don't try to keep track of its parameter values. Others have requested this, but it's not something that is currently supported. I haven't thought this through, but you may be able to achieve this with some custom programming/sripting. If you did this, you could also control the file name any way you wanted, since it no longer matters in the part matching process that the Factory add-in uses.
Checking out the files created (and made read-only) in the Vault defeats the goal of that mechanism, so we don't recommend it. Perhaps we can find a way to prevent it in the future, but for now it's an unsupported/unadvised practice.
I think conveyor is auxiliary asset, it should be have different methodology with fixed asset.
thanks again and looking forward your suggestion for this case.
I think your thinking is consistent with others' concept of a "custom" component (created from an asset). We just have no specific support for this notion today.
This is in our backlog, as I've mentioned, so hopefully we'll be able to come up with a solution for this in an upcoming release. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can come up with any specific suggestions to handle this on your own.
There should be a way to add some sort of right-click command on the component to make it "custom", and then deal with it as if it were not an asset anymore.
Thanks for your ideas and advices. we finished the development Auxilrary asset for tobacco plant. and please see the video about this product: