Split Revision Table?

[MJuric]

I did some searching on this and so far most of the answers I have found are pre 2014 and the answer has been "No". I'm on 2018 have they added a way to split revision tables since 2014? I don't see anything obvious like it is for BOM's, but really...why is there no split for the revision table? What a PIA if there isn't.

[zwei]

I dont think SOLIDWORKS allow you to split revision table

You can try to use General Table instead... but you will loss some of the feature (eg: auto-populate of zone, etc)

Just curious... is it really necessary to keep that many revision?

[mike miller]

IMHO splitting a revision table would lead to confusion. If you have that many revisions maybe you should consider rotating the older ones off the bottom...???

In all reality, splitting a table uses MORE sheet space because there are two headers. If the table interferes with a view, why not just move the view? (Unless of course, company standards require another revision whenever a view is moved which means moving the view again to make space for another row which means creating another revision....ad nauseum. )

[Merovingien]

you can simply "delete old old rev-ligne" without problem,
SW keep the last Rev. active.

simply select the lign, right-clic "Delete / Lign"

so for a Rev-Table, up to A-B-C-D-E-F
you can delete A-B-C
and keep D-E-F


Rev-Table can't be attach to a drawing view.

[MJuric]

In all reality, splitting a table uses MORE sheet space because there are two headers. If the table interferes with a view, why not just move the view?

That's what I typically do but in this case I'm just plain running out of room to move things down and in pretty much every case, if you have enough revisions or large revisions....it could extend across the entire sheet.

Deleting old revisions seems like a "Workaround" type of fix and in some cases ends up causing people to go thru all the old changes in some other place.

Splitting a Rev table wouldn't be any more confusing than splitting a BOM, at least in my opinion.

[Jim Steinmeyer]

I have another "sort of" use for splitting revision tables.
With some of our mixer shells we will have a basic dimensional drawing for the shell. Then on a separate page we will quarter the page and place an assembly view with BOM and revision table for 4 different variations of the shell. Things like different material thickness or stainless rather than mild steel. As odd as it sounds, we sometimes make changes to one variation and not the others so the variations would be on different rev levels.
I don't always agree with how we do it, but as of yet I'm not in charge. And I don't know how a whole sale change would be received if I do get there.

[HerrTick]

Just hide the old revisions. No compelling reason to keep more than the last three.

In any respectable firm, the real meat of the revisions is in the ECO documentation, anyway.

[Ömür Tokman]

Just an idea.
Add a new page and move the revision table here, add a statement (reference) to report that there is a revision page in the drawing page you can now revise enough to fill a full page.
Or hire a more experienced designer, and continue with as few revisions as possible. (joke)

[MJuric]

Just hide the old revisions. No compelling reason to keep more than the last three.

In any respectable firm, the real meat of the revisions is in the ECO documentation, anyway.

I've worked at automotive companies where the EC's started to look like an Excel spreadsheet AAC, AAD, AAE. ALL of the revisions where on the print because people did not want to go hunting down the supporting documentation to find out if the die, gage, cmm program, material etc etc etc was effected by the change and or if a change had been missed.

Can't tell you how many times I have been on the shop floor because "This gage is not correct" and by simply looking thru the history of the EC's on the print find out that either a change was not made to the Gage or the die....20 changes ago, because someone missed it or just ignored it....I mean what could go wrong if you ignore the EC's?

Granted this was in the early 90's, last time I was directly involved with actual automotive product design, but essentially the parts were released for manufacturing really before the design was done. Safety testing, durability testing, final design of mating parts were all still typically taking place when we were designing the dies and supporting tooling for manufacturing. The changes came fast and furious and were never ending.

[MJuric]

Just an idea.
Add a new page and move the revision table here, add a statement (reference) to report that there is a revision page in the drawing page you can now revise enough to fill a full page.
Or hire a more experienced designer, and continue with as few revisions as possible. (joke)

I've done that before....but seems like it would be much easier to just split the revision table. In this case I had three revisions, although all three had a lot in them. I also had plenty of room along the top so splitting the change would have been easy.