Start a new topic

Transit PPF packages - which workflow is correct?

Hi everyone!

I've found two descriptions of the workflow for translating Transit PPF packages.

The first one is contained in this reference document:

There, it says that the workflow was copied verbatim from the other description, which is contained in the Knowledge Base:

However, there are differences between the two descriptions. According to the Knowledge Base, a value in the PRJ file must be changed, and the extension of the return package must be .tpf (according to the first description, the return package must have the extension .PPF too).

I've always used the workflow described in the Knowledge Base, and it worked fine. But to make sure, I'd like to ask if the workflow for PPF packages has changed in the meantime and the workflow in the Knowledge Base is not up to date.

TIA for your help!

I just tried again from scratch and according to procedure in the Knowledge Base - still doesn't work. I can't upload the .tpf. Any help is highly appreciated (I also sent a support ticket the makers of Transit, not sure if they can/will help me though ;-))

As to CLM: They specifically require a .tpf file.

If you want, I can compare the tpf you created with one that Transit creates. For this test, I'll need your ppf and tpf.


1 person likes this
Login to post a comment