Visio > Visio 2010 Feature Requests

Master Shapes

<< < (3/3)

Yacine:
Nikolay,
I am very impressed and apreciate your offer. Thank you.
However, I am somehow looking for a more automatic and easier solution (can't rely on my users). I agree with you that the replacement of objects imply a lot of considerations.

I investigated this morning the possibility to work with nested OLE objects. It does not look that bad as you can see from the attachment.
Some observations:
- I won't be able to run reports. So I thought to nest partial reports in the objects. Will see if this is viable.
- Several crashes showed that there are limitations. But I did not found out yet if it was the number of objects or the nesting depth that caused them.
- I need to make sure to have the same scaling in all my objects
- I can't glue any connector to the shapes in the nested object. The user needs to set manually connection points.
- Entities belonging physically to the group, but not to the hierarchy can be superposed to the nested object. They will get their own reports.
- This solution could allow me to realise a kind of P&ID configuration.

Yacine:
Just saw one of the guests reading this topic of the same tenor.
http://visguy.com/vgforum/index.php?topic=906.0

Nikolay:

--- Quote from: Yacine on June 04, 2010, 04:52:17 AM ---Just saw one of the guests reading this topic of the same tenor.
http://visguy.com/vgforum/index.php?topic=906.0

--- End quote ---

Yep, that's what I meant by "Paul's Visio Super Utilities" ;)

As for the your previous post, it seems I didn't quite get what you mean.. This might sound stupid, but can't you just use "data-bound" shapes to "fill in" the sheets? I mean, it seems that you need to update only text (BOM) fields... no? So maybe something like filling the "bill of materials" shapes from a common(shared) external source (e.g. an excel file) will do?

Yacine:
No, we have standard machines that we need to tailor to almost every order.
First there are the electrical data that change. That's only a matter of data.
Secondly there are many options and variants in the standard machine itself. That's where I need configuration (replacement of groups or enhancements)
Third there are project specific requirements. They imply sometimes superficial and sometimes deep changes in the process. Here, we need manual work and configuration at shape leve.

The difficulties that we encounter is that our P&IDs include some 300+ elements. As they are so big, they get hard to maintain and for each new project, you will not only need to add your modifications, but also check all the standard stuff that you would actually be supposed to rely on.

Splitting the P&ID in modules would allow the designer to maintain smaller groups. Each change in the standard BOMs could be easily reflected in the partial P&ID group.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page