NateLiquidGravity
Alibre Super User
Saving "snapshots" in time of the whole project like Lew does is one good way to make sure the previous revision doesn't get messed up later. For example constraints changing.
+1In my mind, having a simple Project file (like Inventor has) for designs (which include models and drawings) will solve this problem
I also like this. Keeping it all together including BOMs and drawings would make thing a lot simpler.In my mind, having a simple Project file (like Inventor has) for designs (which include models and drawings) will solve this problem, as JST also alluded to. It's still a manual process, but you can "uprev" the contents of a project, and keep the old/previous design. I used to work like this with Inventor, it takes a bit of planning and careful consideration of your filenames and revision control, but you can make it work very well.
How does Siemens do it with the Solid Edge Built in Data Management? It runs via Windows Explorer, but with hints of a Sharepoint or database support. It's not complex, difficult to setup, or hard to administer. It's the same file/folder structure that we're used to, but with release statuses, link management, file moves and archiving.I hear it - It's a complex issue and we've evaluated several PDM solutions that are either a) too expensive to include in a version of AD or b) way overkill and too complex to setup and administer and usually c) both
So we are left with doing something on our own, and it's bubbling to the top of the list. I think doing something here would be a good candidate for v24 or v25, so H1 to early H2 of 2021.
Hi Sebastian -- But the advantage is that by creating a "Project Revision Archive" dataset, you can track and restore earlier versions swiftly & easily. -- LewYou can leave them all in the same folder if you like. The revision suffix will keep them separated. Assembly files don't take up any space anyway.
Same with my system. Since all the old files are all there too I can open which ever revision like.Hi Sebastian -- But the advantage is that by creating a "Project Revision Archive" dataset, you can track and restore earlier versions swiftly & easily. -- Lew
Hi Sebastian -- But the approach I use creates an archive record of every Alibre file, but all the "supporting documents" contained within a Project Directory Tree. -- LewSame with my system. Since all the old files are all there too I can open which ever revision like.
I think that Max and the team won't be able to fulfill everyone's file and revision handling needs so some flexibility will be required from us.
Hi Sebastian -- It ought not to be up to "Max and the team" to give us more than supporting tools as we can solve the "problem" with otherwise standard practices.Hence
By that measure, why don't we all just revert back to a drawing board and pencil! Tools increase productivity, so use them to their max.It ought not to be up to "Max and the team" to give us more than supporting tools as we can solve the "problem" with otherwise standard practices.
I think Lew is referring to a methodology wrt how we name and save our files. To be perfectly honest, I took the time (years ago) to develop and fine-tune a method that suits my needs perfectly. I have explained it here on the forum and apparently some have found it helpful. I don't really need a new file management system. Sure, it would be nice but I would much rather have improved modelling tools.By that measure, why don't we all just revert back to a drawing board and pencil! Tools increase productivity, so use them to their max.
+1 on that one!I would much rather have improved modelling tools.
My method involves making the file name a number. This can be an arbitrary number although I do actually have a system for this. The part name I enter into the description field. Then in BOM or drawing I call up the description as the part name. The file name (i.e. number) is separate from that. As a method it works well.But for those of us doing design work, it is a real pain, because first, parts change character and require a different description or even part number (if one can even be assigned up front). The "washer" becomes a "seal", the bracket becomes a "support", the part number is assigned differently, etc, etc. One cannot foresee everything, and yet the system as it is assumes perfect vision and deadly accurate file naming systems, both ridiculous in client work and similarly ridiculous when you start with a "blank sheet design" for the product or portion of a product..
That's the problem though, isn't it? Larger companies that require an in-depth file management system for their CAD are already using 'Big CAD'. There's no way they will ditch their current software vendor in favour of Alibre when Alibre still has so many other shortcomings and is a relative nobody. Big CAD like PTC, Autodesk, Dassault, etc have cornered that sector. Alibre have their own customer base: either hobbyists or smaller companies. So where would be the better place to invest in upgrades? A file management system that maybe only 5% of the user base want or improved modelling tools and a more robust CAD software?(Another) disincentive for a commercial outfit to use Alibre.