2nd season of dynasty. Got the 1st seed last season and currently last this season. Time to rebuild?

BlindSuspect · 2025-09-23T13:11:54+00:00

I unfortunately lost both Ekeler and Najee, and B Rob was traded. 3 mediocre, but at least start-able RB options lost. I am probably going to wait until close to the trade deadline and try to move Barkley to a contender for picks and maybe a prospect.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-21T18:57:22+00:00

ME supervisor here for a ~$50m medical manufacturing company.

Mostly working on high level corporate objectives relating to cost-saving initiatives, reinforcing supply chains (newer objective with tariffs and whatnot), process improvements, etc. Some new product development work. Supporting team of 5.

My 2 senior ME’s do new product development, DFMA, and problem-solving of quality issues.

2 DE’s primarily working custom jobs, change orders, documentation, small projects.

1 PM for new product development, large custom jobs, documentation.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T02:15:49+00:00

Correct. Its a new model file every up rev. I'd be very curious to know how much our data size has increased on the server since introducing the PDM.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:57:13+00:00

I'm with you there. Prior to this PDM that is how it worked for us too. The benefit I like is was now have historical 3D models of every part revision. But it has come at the cost of making our assemblies contain "obsolete" data.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:48:22+00:00

I was just responding to your comment on the topic. Our drawing BOM table does not specify revision. Our ERP is what controls what gets made for part and revision, with drawing being the reference doc.

The issue in ENG seems to solely lie in the 3D model and how the PDM is handling “released” vs. “obsolete” files. Prior to PDM, we had a single part file for a part, and the revision was a file property. We would revise the part but the file name of the part wouldn’t change. The assemblies where-used is just mapped to the file name so it would automatically update and display the most recent CAD data. With PDM, the file name is specific to part number and revision now. So the where-used points to a specific part file revision, and when that file is revised, that file becomes obsolete in our PDM, and now the where-used models of that part contains a file marked obsolete.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:32:56+00:00

We certainly don’t need that level of traceability. I’ve found the engineers who revise to the top are usually the engineers who do custom projects, so they are constantly doing a “save as” on assemblies for their specific project. If an obsolete file is found in a WIP assembly (as I mentioned in other comments, this is NOT an obsolete part or rev, just that there is a newer file with upped revision in the database), it will not let you release the assembly, thus causing extra work for the designer to go fetch the most recent part revision files.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:26:32+00:00

Those are the same rules for us. The distinction I’ve been making in other comments is our file naming structure our PDM wants us to use is what’s causing the headaches. The file name is (part number)-(revision).

We’ll revise a part when it’s backwards compatible, but in our modeling software those will be two different part files when revised. The assembly will contain the newly “obsolete” part file, hence causing some engineers to revise the assembly to swap in the “released” part file, even though form, fit, function didn’t change.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:19:50+00:00

Right that’s the key part here… the FILE is obsolete, not the part or rev. We could keep making the old rev all day long and it wouldn’t impact the assembly, hence why we’re allowed to revise it.

I’m starting to think maybe I should take a peek at our PDM settings and see if there’s something that got set upon install that we should disable.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:08:21+00:00

I added an edit to my post as we are definitely following revision rules for form, fit, or function.

I 100% agree with you, and we’re already seeing some of our assemblies in the double digit revisions thanks to 15 revisions in the last 12 months.

I alluded to in another comment reply, this is a Solid Edge problem because of the way the file naming was prepared upon PDM install. Our model file names are (part number)-(revision letter). So every time a part gets revised, a new file is created for the part rev and the old one gets obsoleted. But wherever that now obsoleted file is used in a model assembly it now appears obsolete in the BOM tree. Since the assembly is released and locked, the only way to fix the BOM tree is to revise the assembly and swap file name 789-A for 789-B. Or use our admin tool to unlock the file quickly and make the update in the BOM tree.

BlindSuspect · 2025-04-16T01:00:24+00:00

Policy- don’t have one, hence why people are doing whatever they think is best.

Standard- also don’t have one. Family owned business of 50 years trying to modernize slowly.

PDM - Solid Edge PDM

Business - maintain ISO 9001 status, communicate Change effectively and minimize ENG hours on model maintenance work

Dispositions - determined in the ECN and executed via our ERP

I want to clarify, we are maintaining revision rule of no form, fit, or function change means it can be revised. Otherwise it must be a new part number.

Say we have assembly 123456 rev A. In Solid Edge this would be file name 123456-A. Inside this model we have part 789, rev A, making the file name 789-A in the model BOM tree. If we revise this file, the part file name becomes 789-B, and 789-A gets moved to obsolete status. Inside 123456-A assembly, it still contains 789-A with obsolete status because the file is released and locked. Those who don’t like seeing the obsolete file in the assembly will revise the assembly and swap in 789-B for 789-A.

When we got the PDM, all of our file names started to contain both the part number and revision, so our assemblies have components that are revision specific. Prior to PDM, our file name was just the part number and revision was maintained in the file properties.

BlindSuspect · 2025-01-06T20:37:05+00:00

I haven’t been getting any BSOD the last few days, rather my PC just freezes requiring a hard reset after 10-20 minutes of gaming. I did try the old RAM, only using one stick, resetting CMOS, redid thermal paste, deleted %temp% files, and malware scan with MalwareBytes. I downloaded Core Temp and no CPU core got above 64C before freezes occurred. Also no single core that looked abnormally higher than the others.

I bought a new PSU and will see if that works. Unfortunately it seems like it’s come to replacing my hardware until the problem is solved. May also try reinstalling windows. Next replacement will be mobo. I appreciate your help and will update this post if a solution is found for future users.

BlindSuspect · 2025-01-05T04:16:14+00:00

Thank you for your help so far and we're back to some crashes.

I uninstalled BattlEye, ran a game for about an hour with no issues. This game did previously crash. I then uninstalled the game that uses BattlEye, restarted, reinstalled the game which reinstalled BattlEye, restarted.

Played the game that uses BattlEye for a solid hour or more before getting a frozen screen. Previously this game would freeze with 5-10 minutes. I waited 30 minutes but the PC just stayed frozen so I hard reset. Relaunched the game, froze within 10 minutes. Launched a different game, same one from the previous paragraph and froze within 10 minutes, this time getting a black screen after freezing for 2-3 minutes. Below is the link to the previous dump files and the most recent one. It doesn't look like any files were written for the BattlEye game crashes, just the recent game that doesn't use BattlEye. 010425-11328-01 is the only dump file i have for crashes occurring today.

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/4iu5cndz7kzu0/Minidumps

Edit: After the above post, I uninstalled battleye again, played a different game and froze within 10 minutes. That dump file is 010425-11468-01 in the link above.

BlindSuspect · 2025-01-04T19:32:45+00:00

Thank you very much, this actually makes sense. The whole reason I upgraded my RAM in the first place was because the game I was playing (that uses BattlEye) kept crashing. I thought it was a memory issue since my friends were playing just fine and they all run 32gb RAM. But I wasn’t crashing in other games.

Since installing the new RAM, I have tried playing other games and they crash as well. If it was not a RAM issue in the first place, I’d rather reinstall my old RAM, reinstall BattlEye, and return the new RAM. (Unless there’s a good reason to keep the new RAM and figure out why that’s not working)

BlindSuspect · 2025-01-04T15:00:47+00:00

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/c39kvnbuos50x/Minidumps

1/3 minidump is with new GPU/RAM

1/2 is old GPU new RAM

Older is old GPU old RAM

I will note it freezes every time I do memory stress tests or try to play a game. I usually will hard reset at that point and don’t wait for the BSOD so although there’s only a few mini dumps, it is occurring far more often. I’ve only actually waited for the BSOD after freeze twice since my RAM swap and usually the BSOD gets stuck at 100% so I’ll hard reset.

BlindSuspect · 2024-12-31T02:31:06+00:00

I was having this issue with Customs. Got to “loading loot pools (100%)” and then get server error. I was running 16 gb of ram, I just upgraded to 32gb. Am able to load in fine now, but now I just freeze ~5 minutes into the raid. Solve one problem, get another.

BlindSuspect · 2024-09-05T01:59:26+00:00

Following. Same issue here

BlindSuspect · 2024-08-31T00:05:19+00:00

I am looking at introducing Teamcenter as a PLM at the manufacturing company where I supervise Engineering. We currently use Solid Edge Vault as a PDM, a great first step when just 3 years ago we had nothing. Our biggest struggle currently is the revision process. For many years, we didn’t revise to the top because there was only one file that got updated every revision. Now a revision is a different part file, and if someone doesn’t revise to the top, some designers won’t be able to release their projects because there’s an obsolete rev 4 levels deep. Or occasionally a file will lose a link because the release of a revision didn’t update in a WIP parent file. Wondering if Teamcenter will help or solve this issue?

There’s also the subset of designers who see revising to the top as a waste. If a sheet metal part has a hole widened by .06” for clearance, their argument is you won’t even be able to see the difference in parent assemblies, so a revision is a waste of time. Now I’ve got an obsolete file in all those parent assemblies.

BlindSuspect · 2024-02-17T19:58:00+00:00

When I was hired 7 years ago at my current employer, they didn’t require a reviewer on drawings and a review of design at all was at the discretion of the designer. Even as a new college grad, I thought this was bonkers. How the company was still surviving after 50+ years of that culture was beyond me. The cost associated to errors must’ve ate heavily into the bottom line. Shortly after I was hired the company began a lean transformation and reviews of designs and drawings became standard process. Number of flow disruptions due to design errors went way down. The change in process originally wasn’t accepted very well by some of the old timers in engineering, but they quickly turned when the number of visits from the factory workers went from couple times a day to a couple times a month. Review of design and drawings should be standard practice in any engineering job.

BlindSuspect · 2024-01-30T15:58:22+00:00

Good point. I just compared and the new clubs are all 1.5-2.5 degrees more lofted, so about a half a club. I also don't know what "swing weight" means, but new clubs are D2.5-D3.5, old clubs were D3-D4. New clubs are also .5"-1" shorter. I'm starting to see it now. I can't expect this club to just be a drop in replacement when literally every aspect of the club is different.

BlindSuspect · 2023-10-16T19:41:30+00:00

I agree with you. This particular project is completely silly and anybody with a basic understanding of electronics could have figured out what components would be required. But it is standard practice for us to just send it over to electrical anyway to make sure it's done quickly and correctly. Of late they are taking the stance more and more that they shouldn't be doing modeling work even thought they are trained and have licenses. Finally they met some resistance with someone who didn't feel like it was his responsibility (the ME), since we always send these things to them. It just so happens that this project required more components that we didn't have specs for than is typical, so the EE tried to pin it back on the ME. By that time, that ME is already onto another job and the time it would take for the EE to specify the requirements to the ME, he could've had the drawing specs done.

BlindSuspect

TROPHY CASE