≡ Menu
Share the knowledge

…And another thing, what’s up with NX checking parts out without being asked? Mike paused to take another swig, Somehow I’ll be able to save changes to a part without intending to, what’s up with that?
It was a typical wild and crazy night at The Dojo — a couple of engineers hanging out, drinking beer and talking about Teamcenter and NX.

What Mike had run into is one of my pet peeves with the NX integration with Teamcenter: you can’t prevent NX from checking parts out for you. [click to continue…]

{ 6 comments }
Share the knowledge

A little while ago I was talking to one of my colleagues who also supports Teamcenter. Mott (not his real name) told me that he is not allowed to use any ITK customizations at all. The program manager has said that everything should be done purely by codeless configuration. Coding costs more money and could easily blow the project’s budget. The thing was that this limitation meant that Mott was forced to put together some God-awful workarounds to comply with the business requirements.

I asked him, so you mean to tell me that they’re forcing you to deliver a solution that is way too complicated and does a half-assed job of implementing their business requirements because they’re afraid to invest in a little bit of code that would get them a system that does exactly what they want?!?.

For some reason, Mott was offended by my description of his project. [click to continue…]

{ 14 comments }

Last week at the PLM World Conference I attended a round-table discussion about Organization structures in Teamcenter. It was a wide ranging discussion that touched on several related topics, Access Rules in particular. Something came up in that discussion which was a bit surprising to me that I don’t really understand. I’m hoping I can get some of you to educate me a bit.

A couple of the attendees made the comment that their Access Rule Trees are constantly being updated. One admin had updated the rule tree back home three times during the four days of the conference. This really surprised me because the Access Rule Tree where I work is rarely modified. To be honest, my first reaction to hearing that others need to make frequent changes was that they must have a flawed process or data model that they’re working with. But… these are smart, experienced, people. So maybe it’s something else — maybe they’re dealing with more complex use cases than what we deal with, for example, and that drives their need.

So, what I’m hoping is that some of you who manage “living” Access Rule Trees could take a minute or three to summarize what the main drivers are for you to make a change to the tree. I’m especially interested in hearing from anyone with experience dealing with both static and dynamic Access Rule Trees. If you share some insight as to what were the fundamental differences between the systems driving the need, or lack of a need, to frequently make changes, that would be really appreciated.

{ 2 comments }
Share the knowledge

The comments section for my earlier post about icon customization in Teamcenter 9.1, kicked off a discussion between me and The Teamcenter Heretic® about the BMIDE. I think a fair summary of Heretic’s position is that the older command line tools from iMan worked very well and that the BMIDE is overcomplicated and unreliable.

Since a discussion of the BMIDE is probably a topic of interest for many of the Dojo’s visitors I thought it should be promoted into its own post. You can review the earlier post’s discussion to catch up. And now I’ll try to lay out my thoughts on the topic. [click to continue…]

{ 31 comments }

Because I like to torture myself by reading what’s new and cool in the latest Teamcenter version, which I likely won’t be able to play with for a long time, I started to read through the What’s New document for Teamcenter 9.1, which you can check out for yourself at GTAC’s website.

One thing that jumped out at me, because we had just been discussing the rigamarole that you currently have go through, was the news that as of TC 9.1, icon configuration will be done directly inside the BMIDE. You no longer will have to create a separate Eclipse project to customize your icons.

From the documentation:
[quote]To add or change icons on business object types, use the Fnd0Icon business object constant in the Business Modeler IDE. The icon definitions are placed on the server and used by the rich client. Previously, you had to perform a customization to add the icons. Now it is done entirely through the Business Modeler IDE.[/quote]

I like the sound of that. I’d much rather have a single BMIDE template to maintain than a template and a separate eclipse project.

Icon Overlays

It goes on to say this, which I think was pretty interesting:

[quote]You can also use a property rendering XML file to overlay icons on the base icon conditionally based on property values. For example, you can decorate the icon with images to designate the business object’s state (status, remote, checked out, process, and so on).[/quote]

As far as I know this is a new capability (please correct me if I’m wrong). I can think of plenty of uses for icon overlays. A common user request is to make more about an object’s state graphically obvious.

How well does it work?

Okay, the 64,000 dollar question is, has anybody tried this yet? How well does it work? If you’ve had a chance to deploy a TC 9.1 data model that customizes icons, let us know how it went.

{ 8 comments }
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE