×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Intralink, layouts and skeletons...

Intralink, layouts and skeletons...

Intralink, layouts and skeletons...

(OP)
We are using Wildfire 2.0 (M130) and Intralink 3.3 (M022)
We use sophisticated top-down design methodologies, but are having problems with Intralink submissions.

In a simplistic overview, we have sub-assemblies, sub-modules and the master assembly.

Sub-assemblies make sub-modules, and sub-modules make the master assembly.

Each sub-assembly has its own specific sub-assembly skeleton and sub-assembly layout.  We could have chosen one layout for the entire product, but with many sub-assemblies and sub-modules, we feared that at the beginning of the project, many designers would be fighting to change the one and only layout and submit it back to the database.  Thus we opted for one layout per sub-assembly.

Sub-modules always have their own specific sub-module skeleton, and each is built up from copy geometry features from contributing sub-assembly skeletons.  Sub-modules don’t have their own layout, but refer to a master layout.  This declaration is only made to access a declared co-ordinate system for auto assembly functionality.  I could have created a sub-module layout but didn’t, and wonder now whether this was a mistake?

Using copy geometry means that sub-assembly detail is abbreviated in the sub-module skeleton.
There is a master skeleton, and this is made using copy geometry features from the sub-module skeletons.  The master skeleton declares the master layout.

As the system architect, it is common for me to work in a Pro/INTRALINK workspace where more than one sub-assembly and/or sub-module are being modified.

My problem;

I want to make a discreet and well documented submission of one sub-module into the database.  However, because the sub-module has a dependency to the master layout, and this has a dependency to the master assembly, every modified file in the workspace wants to be submitted back into the database.

Reading about Intralink 3.3, we think that this is a bug.
Does anybody have similar experiences with layouts and skeletons, circular dependencies, work-arounds, or alternative methodologies?

Does anybody have detailed explanations about circular dependencies?

Thanks in advance

Dave

Meerkat Design www.pro-ae.com

RE: Intralink, layouts and skeletons...

Do a search on "circular dependencies" in the PTC Knowlwdge Base.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources