When a successor is complete 100% the program just skps to the next successor in the chain, so why should the logic be changed to the way it really happened? Or should we just leave it to keep from complicating the schedule and comparisons? I used to be able show how it created a false gap in time in chains when leaving in old logic with "retained" logic but I am not seeing that now. I know it can "sometimes", do you recall when it does - i assume those should be fixed.
Why? Or should we/they change logic that completed out of order?
Forum Sponsor
Top Posters
Julian Pegg
1 posts
Peter Nagy
2 posts
Raymund de Laza
17 posts
Syed_Asad
0 posts
Tony Greyvenstein
0 posts
Ahmed Al-Jubouri
13 posts
Umar Alvi
3 posts
Sibusiso Mahlalela
0 posts
Michael Samanyayi
3 posts
Simon Gumede
0 posts
yes out of sequence logic and be viewed in the P6 log report.
you can have logic pushing through an activity ie.
Activity A B and C all sequential
Activity A is in progress
Activity B is completed
Activity C has not started
Since activity A is not complete the earliest that activity C can begin is when activtiy A is done. Even though activity A is not tied to activity C it is still honoring the retained logic and passes thru activity B to activity C