What should the behavior of ‘Dissolve part level rows’ be?

Should the part level row be dissolved when all cut list items are excluded?

Yes, the sheet metal part level row should dissolve as well.
0
No votes
No, the weldment part level row should be kept as well.
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 0
User avatar
Stefan Sterk
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2021 2:40 am
Answers: 2
x 43
x 62

What should the behavior of ‘Dissolve part level rows’ be?

Unread post by Stefan Sterk »

I made this post to express my dissatisfaction with how Solidworks and our VAR are handling this, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. I mean, is it just me? ()

So Solidworks introduced the ‘Dissolve part level rows’ option under ‘Detailed cut list’ in the bill of materials (BOM) options for Solidworks 2022.
Currently there is an inconsistent behavior between sheet metal and weldment parts when using the 'Dissolve part level rows', hence SPR 1239409.

The inconsistency with the 'Dissolve part level rows' option is that when all cut list items for both parts, sheet metal and weldments, are 'excluded from cut list'. Then only the part level row of the sheet metal part remains.

We have mixed-part assemblies with sheet metal and weldment parts that have multiple and single. The cut list item for single body parts are mostly excluded from cut list because the item itself is unnecessary.
We'd like to use the dissolve part level rows option for those assemblies. So that we can format the BOM in a quicker way. Only The problem is that the weldments parts, with the single excluded body, are completely missing from the BOM, since the body (cut-list-item) is excluded from BOM and de part level row is dissolved. While the sheet metal parts remains.

In my opinion the part level row of a weldments part should also remain when all cut list items are excluded. Because why would you want to dissolve a part level row if there are no sub items to display on the BOM! o[
And if that is what you want you should instead exclude the part itself from the BOM.

Our VAR says that the inconsistency is with the sheet metal part. So they don’t share this opinion with us. And I think Solidworks isn’t ether, but I’m not sure about that since the description/title of the SPR is vaguely defined. Pretty hard to get clarity on this. :shock:
I'm hoping that the SPR will end up mimicking the behavior of the sheet metal part, rather than the other way around.

What do you think?
User avatar
bnemec
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:22 am
Answers: 10
Location: Wisconsin USA
x 2463
x 1344

Re: What should the behavior of ‘Dissolve part level rows’ be?

Unread post by bnemec »

I think this is one of the reasons we don't use weldments. One part number per sldprt file and one welded part number per sldasm file. Sometimes the nifty features/methods just aren't worth the workaround fallout.

It appears in this case there are many convolutions of how to model and how to deliver the design outputs (boms, prints, boms on prints, data for CNC ect.) I don't expect one software to be able to smoothly handle every user story out there. Many of these whiz bang features in the software should be add-ons or options because the behavior that's demanded by one customer is a hindrance to another.
Post Reply