Has anyone figured out a way to add additional USER fields (beyond USER3) to the catalog database and have them show up in reports? The help file says you can add additional fields but they are "ignored" in the reports. I'm not sure why I would add them if they cant be retrieved logically. I really need to capture additional custom data for components. Any suggestions?
Thanks.
Instead of adding extra user-fields to the database, can you use the TEXTVALUE-field?
Just enter :
MYDATA1=SOMETHING;MYDATA2=MORESOMETHING
into this field, and assign it to a component.
IF there is an attribute named MYDATA1 or MYDATA2 in the object, the value will be copied to this attribute. If NOT these attributes exist in the symbol, they'll be saved in the Xdata of the symbol.
Now, go to the reports tab, and press User Attributes. Here, you can add MYDATA1 and MYDATA2 as some values that you want to use in reports. Save these settings in a .wda file (preferably, for testing purposes, Projectname.wda, locatied in the project folder.).
Now, run the report-command (BOM), and see that you get access to your company specific data.
Not exactly what you wanted, but it works like a charm.
Another option is to just delete the Manufacturer Data that comes stock in the USER1, USER2 and USER3 fields in the database from Autodesk and reclaim these fields.
In the 2015 version, This only impacts ABB products for
PB family code (in USER3 field)
LT family code (in USER2 and USER3 fields)
AN family code (in USER3 field)
Sometimes public shaming works, LOL
Actually, I stand corrected, there is data in the USER1-3 fields from ABB in the following family codes: AN,LT,PB,PLCIO,PW,SS as well as from AB and ABB in the DR family code.
The problem is the way the data was merged into the table to begin with, (general series number was often used as a catalog number and the actual catalog number was placed in the USERX fields).
I just deleted all records in the associated tables from these manufacturers in these specific family codes and reclaimed the USER1-USER3 fields. Not the prettiest way to address it, but it also works.