Hey, I hear ya. This is why I am making a class on this. It’s terrible.
I get it, we should learn it, that’s what we need to do, learn it. But I think we can put an “and” in there. We need to learn it AND there is great opportunity for Epicor to make it much clearer/teach it better.
1 Like
I get it and I have seen some of those typos as well actually KIT-STL if I recall.
I was really eluding to an AI tool that took the PE Log dumbing it down, as well as being able to do simulated what ifs with you GL Trans type customs, running the inventory WIP report then viewing the PE log is very laborious. Maybe I’m just using it wrong.
On the document side, it appears to me that a lot of the docs get dragged up from version to version and do not get a lot of editorial review. I may be wrong.
In classic help you used to be able to click a link and it would allow you to email the documentation team directly. Have not tried that lately, but it was a lot easier than logging a case to point these sorts of things out. But clearly it should be pointed out. Who has time to do it? No body really, but it is something we all need to do.
@timshuwy could you please direct us to the right people to address these documentation oversights.
2 Likes
Average costing
the new AI help tool does have a feedback button to help get incorrect dialog corrected. In some cases, AI simply doesn’t have enough information to translate your question into a valid answer, and we are adding more information.
AI doesn’t always understand some questions because it may be the first time such a question is asked. once we find these gaps, we can load some additional information, and then the questions like that will be answered.
1 Like
And just another from the 2022.2 Document
Hmmm Editorial review coming up…in some spare time.
1 Like
Haha, I have that in my slides also.
Here is another as I am wrapping up my PPT.
That same PUR-STK is wrong on the credit side.
It is actually identical to its offsetting AP Invoice debit - there are 3 stops in the hierarchy. (Notice in the PUR-STK credit it omits the Supplier GL.)
Verified in PE Log Viewer:
2 Likes
Going to say this. STK-MTL is supposed to get the product group from the Job part… Guess what… Happy for someone to sanity check me…
1 Like
Guess what what?
for the materials on the job it uses the product group from the material…(digging up the guide)
So if the the assembly part has a different product group and it happens to be a separate GL control with a different WIP Material to the Job Part Product group, it uses that.
We have some rather unusual procedures and just so happened I needed to change the WIP Material to a specific natural account for a specific set of “Job parts” and their materials. That’s when I noticed this… This may have been resolved in a later VBD version currently the one I am working with is 9.1
1 Like
I was glad they finally resolved this:
Then there’s this - working as designed but terrible design.
We probably need to split this rant into its own thread…
2 Likes
Probably… now you’ve got me intrigued.
1 Like