LOCKING DESIGN VIEW

[msklein]

What associative links are removed when locking a design view representation?  Help is absolutely no help again!

Hopping IV 2012 will have representations working the way they did back in IV 2008, my BOM'S and views both played together quit nicely when creating installation drawings.

msk

IV 2010 64bit

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Could you be more specific on what behaviors in R2008 miss in R2010?

Design View controls the following items within the context (assembly).

-components color override

-browser nodes status (expand/collapse)

-components visibility

-work features visibility

When it is locked, it means any change on the above items will be ignored, not saved.

Thanks!

[msklein]

When I made an install file for a subassy bolting up to the top assy. My install bill would consist of the subassy and assorted mounting hardware. My model would also include the major components and or subassy's that are needed for ref of spatial relationships, these were done as ref parts in the tree for bom  structure. Maybe only one or two items of that assy, so I would suppress all other components of this assy, items would not be in my install assy but show as phantom lines in dwg. 

My sub assy's would then be the only items that show up at the top assy. Today if I make a part reference I cannot get that reference be only defined in the specified View and corresponding LOD. It affects all Views and LOD'S causing problems with my Parts lists. Making parts ref for the bom structure in the tree acted locally where as defining them in the BOM made the changes globally.

Example is I have a assy dwg of a control cabinet with major valves and fittings that the hard tubing and hoses need, the motor.  The subassy showing just the hoses and hard tubing is at another level with the parts of the other assy for ref only. This all worked extremely slick in IV2008  but fell apart in 2010, as I can not find any way to make it work. Now I have to admit a lack of update training for a couple of versions, but have been around since version 3. So I do know my way around pretty well, I including having to do reps the hard way before they were part of IV.

I would be very happy to know that their is something that I've missed and would solve this real easy with minimal rework to all of my existing files.

I will be checking into locking to see if it will give me some help, but sounds like it will still not completely cover all of my problems.

thanks
msk

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! There are many variables here which cannot be easily described. I would like to take a look at the workflow. Is there any possibilty you can send me an example showing what you want to achieve? I can set up a secure account for you to upload. Please send me an email.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Johnson Shiue,

Did you resolve his issue for msklein?

What associative links are removed when locking a design view representation? And from which design view and why?

I have the same question and this is not described in the help system.

Thank you.

Josh Hunt

[johnsonshiue]

Josh,

I am terribly sorry that I do not have a record showing how this issue ended. I could be wrong but I don't think I got the dataset from the original poster.

If I understand how Design View work, this warning is telling the user that the DV associativity between current level and -1 level will be broken. It means that any further change at -1 level will not reflect at the top level.

Is this not what you are seeing? If no, please show me an example so I can tak a further look.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Johnson,

     Yes, I figured out what you described shortly after posting. If you have any influence over change requests then I would recommend rewritting the warning text. A description like yours would be more accurate. But don't say "-1" level, "lower level" or "sub-level"would be fine.

I firmly believe that once you let go of a problem, your mind works on it in the background.

Thank you,

Josh

[johnsonshiue]

Josh,

Many thanks for your comments! I will forward it to development for review.

Thanks!