Improve copy design when a model has more than one linked drawing

G.L.R. · ‎02-19-2022

When a model has more than one linked drawing,
copy design fails because Vault cannot create more files with the same name in the same folder
and the option is to deactivate Link Drawings with Models

Can you take into consideration the idea of creating a copy of the drawings
replacing only the part of the code in common or / and inserting a progressive index?
example

original
xxx.ipt
xxx.idw
xxx_laser.idw

ideal result after copy

yyy.ipt
yyy.idw
yyy_laser.idw

or
yyy.ipt
yyy.idw
yyy(1) .idw

On files whit model state

original
zzz.ipt
zzz-100.idw
zzz-200.idw
zzz-300.idw

ideal result after copy

jjj.ipt
jjj-100.idw
jjj-200.idw
jjj-300.idw

or
jjj.ipt
jjj (1) .idw
jjj (2) .idw
jjj (3) .idw

I think it would be always better than getting errors or having to check file by file

thank you
Gianluca

jedidia.Andrianarivo · ‎07-29-2022

When the option "automatically copy parents" is turned on and a numbering scheme is selected, then you get the same filenames for related files (for examples 00125.iam and 00125.idw), it's okay no problem.

If an assembly or part file was referenced in two or several drawings, and the same option "automatically copy parents" will be turned on, a numbering scheme is selected, then we have an error when copying (see screenshot) because only one number is assigned for the different drawing and vault doesn't permit it.

this is very helpful and time saving for designers who want to copy for example 30, 50 files or more at the same time, if the second drawing could be equipped with a predefined prefix or suffix in case of double naming to avoid the error.

Uwe_Lindner · ‎02-17-2023

Users have the requirement to copy an Inventor model that has several drawing derivations via Copy Design.
A number generator should be used for this, since the user is not allowed to freely define the part number.
The drawing derivations (except for the "primary" IDW) all contain a suffix. The suffix describes the further use of the IDW, i.e. the suffix has a descriptive character for the customer and must be retained by copying via CopyDesign.

The current workaround is that the user uses a number generator in CopyDesign and after copying the files the ones in the picture with _01; _02 and _03 files are manually renamed.
Users see this as very time-consuming.

Another workaround would be to work without a number generator in this specific case and to assign the new file number / component number manually.
In this case, you can use search and replace to replace the "old" file name with a new one.
The problem / challenge is to specifically name the new number.

The requirement for copy design would therefore be:
Possibility of manually assigning a suffix when working with a number generator. The string ######### plus suffix suggested by the generator is used for each suffix for an assigned document.

Uwe_Lindner · ‎02-17-2023

for more Information see Autodesk Support CaseNo:20129866

ihayesjr · ‎02-17-2023

@Uwe_Lindner

Thank you for posting the idea. Will the user be manually adding the suffix every time? Or is this automatically added by Copy Design?

If manually added, what should Copy Design do if the user misses a set of drawings?

Uwe_Lindner · ‎02-19-2023

@ihayesjr

Ideally, CopyDesign recognizes the separator and the suffix automatically, because the basic file name has the same content in all IDWs, followed by the separator and then the suffix. If the file name is missing separator and suffix, it is the primary drawing derivation.

If it is easier to implement in programming, then the user can also manually specify the separator between the primary file name and the suffix.

ihayesjr · ‎02-21-2023

@Uwe_Lindner

The challenge with that is if a user's naming scheme already includes the separator, it would be difficult to know what to do.

Uwe_Lindner · ‎02-21-2023

In this specific case, the separator is not part of the numbering scheme.
From my point of view, it would then also be a condition that separators are not part of the numbering scheme already in use.

ihayesjr · ‎10-13-2023

tthoe · ‎12-11-2023

@ihayesjr, thank you to you and the Autodesk team for accepting this change idea. Can you give a rough ETA of when users should expect to see this feature implemented? All of us understand that programming carries with it an intrinsic risk of unanticipated schedule slip due to unforeseen code conflict, but a rough timeline (e.g., 3 months, 6 months, 2 years, etc.) would be appreciated.

Very Respectfully,

Tom Thoe