Question

Answer

Which is the correct process to release a configured structure related to a model?

The correct process to release a structure configured with model versions is to release the model version

so in this method, the base version will always remain A?

Correct, and as Naim said, be hidden as much as possible.

What is the difference between model version and product configuration? how they are different?

The model version is a state of definition of the variability.
A product configuration is defined in the context of a model version and consists in a selection of variant values/options, thus defining a "configuration" of the product

so if we have for example a 4 seat variant and a 6 seat variant that will be set in the product configuration?

Number of seats may be a variant in the model with possible values 4 and 6
when you define a product configuration you must select 4 or 6

Hello, do you plan to answer  all the Design use cases covered today by the "explicit" Revision on the Physical Product ? meaning to have Technical information/ metadata on MV

No plan to track attributes or other technical information per revision for now. The effectivity based approach delivers the key value on the composed objects (applying effectivity on instances)

Does that work the same on Engineering Central?

No, it does not.

But then it means my model version is a 150% BOM, right?

A model version defines variability. it is not a BOM. The model can be used to drive the variability on any structure

Is the *new* variability table of SOLIDWORKS 2027 also working in this environment?

There is no mapping between SOLIDWORKS variant table and the Model Version variants.

Is there any substitute or way of using VC on Engineering Central?

Please clarify your question.

You selected Effectivity based showcasing Explicit only

Please clarify your question. The demo illustrates an effective revision mode not explicit

Can I find any material related to baselines and how they are managed?

What do you call a baseline?

In this demo, for the moment, it's only at 1 level in the Product structure
How does it work with several levels in the Product Structure ?
Is there a mechanism to manage an allocation table between Revision of the father and Revision of the child ?

R2027x introduce the capability to manage a composition matrix between revisions of the parent and the child
please note that the revision graph of the father can also be reused on the child thus defining a single lifecycle for both objects. (this reuse capability is defined when defining the object)

A baseline for the product structure, at this time what items were in the BOM with what revision and what CRs were applied on them

In that perspective, the revision itself can play the role of the baseline as you define it

who should be applying the configuration to each engineering element? the Engineers or a Product Manager?

Effectivities are defined by engineers with the configuration engineer CFG role

Must the revision mode (explicity ...) also be configured for Physical Products which are already created?

Revision mode is defined at the object creation time; it can be either effectivity based or explicit

And for Physical Products which are created last month? Or must i create a new model revisions of my previous created Physical Products?

Revision mode is defined at the object creation time. The second part of the question not clear to me

How will the workunder change applicability will be defined if I have 150% root node e..g Vehicle and it's children are using effectivity based effectivity but if it has a another 150% structure like Battery under it with Battery having children using Battery revision for the effectivity. In this case a single change action wouldn't be able to do changes under Vehicle and Battery? Which is allowed in non effectivity based approach if Vehicle and Battery are following same model version? How will the 150% BOM under another 150% BOM be handled if both 150% BOMs following effectivity based revision approach?

If both the vehicle and the battery share the same revision graph you can have a single CA to track modifications on both (similar as when model based with a single model)
if vehicle and battery have a different revision graph, you need a CA for the vehicle with an applicability related to vehicle revisions and another CA for the battery with an applicability related to battery revisions. (similar to effectivity based/model when different models drive the vehicle and the battery)

In example i have created a complete assembly 6 months ago. Tomorrow the mode will activated/configured. If a new Physical Product is created the revision mode must be selected. If i now want to use my previous created assembly for this new mode, i must also configure the revision mode. Will it be done automatically for the previous created assembly or must i create a new model revision which will be used for the new configuration mode?

Revision mode is defined at the object creation time; it can be either effectivity based or explicit. The revision mode cannot be modified.

The object can have instances of children in any revision mode

For example a car with revision mode set to effectivity based can have a roof instance that is in explicit revision mode and an engine that has an effectivity based revision mode.

How can the product manager make these changes to engineering configuration without any checks to know the parts will work together?  does this demo assume the parts are interchangeable?   where is the engineering development?

Since the Bucket revision is explicit, would it be more appropriate to work under CA to make the bucket revision, and not revise bucket under evolution?

When you create a new evolution does it automatically associate to a model version? Is B already associated to MV-A?

This question was answered live. Please watch the replay.

For the Design office, What are the benefits of this new way of working compared to "Explicit Revision" of a Physical Product?

This question was answered live. Please watch the replay.

Is it necessary to assign effectivity to all engineering items? What happens with common products or those that do not require associated effectivity?

This question was answered live. Please watch the replay.

Can we able to modify the variant/option as well in the engineering revision B

This question was answered live. Please watch the replay.

When a structure of variants is defined is it easyt to let it evolve with new variants ? (by instance a new carterpillar type for the demo)

Does explicit revision also applicable for supplier parts?

Why not leave the Model Version IN-WORK, so that configuration manager can decide to replace the old revision of child with new one.  OR decide to do a configuration split, and set a different effectivity.

Does this method work on big products (e.g. naval ship, 1.5 million parts, 1200 effectivities, > 1000 designers)? 

Naim was talking of 'history / time' (=baselining) whereas the demo was for 'variant & options' . Two different subjects. Does the method apply for 'effectiviy for baselining' ?

The methods works on large products

It  has be tested and adopted by major OEMs in A&D and T&M for their complex products.

Revisions driving the structure are managed in a dedicated graph. Some of the revisions can be defined to serve as baselines, thus managing the history of the convergence of the definition, or as deliverables of development milestones.
Each revision can be allocated to a model version, so that the released revision can cover the full variability (i.e. 150% baselines)

What FD is explicit revision available in 2026x OnPrem?

Do we have any caa api to retrieve whether the effectivity based applied or not from root product