Skip to main content
1-Visitor
May 17, 2017
Question

.0625 Rounding up to .063 in generic model, but down to .062 in Family Table

  • May 17, 2017
  • 2 replies
  • 21061 views

I am using CREO 2

---------------------------------

I posted a question on this issue back on Feb. of 2016, when working at another company, and we did contact PTC about it.

They were working on it, but I left there 3 months later, before it got resolved, and I have no good way to contact the old company, and frankly wouldn't want to.

So, here I am again, with the same problem, and posting again, just to see if anyone has anything on this.

---------------------------------

Just like the title says,

I have a dimension of .0625 that that is set, in properties, to 3 decimal places.

When I do and "EDIT" and check the dimension, it show .063, just like it should (.XX25) rounds up to (.XX3).

However, when  I enter this dimension into a family table, it rounds down to .062.

Further, the instance that is of the same dimensions as the generic(I do not use generics as an instances) says .062 as well.

OK, Now the really odd thing is that the drawing still shows .063 like it should.

I thought, at first, that what is going on here is that in the family table truncating the dimension, and then .0625 becomes .062.

However, this can't really be the case because, if so, the drawing would have to show .062 as well, because it gets the dimension from the family table instance.

Any ideas out there?

2 replies

23-Emerald III
May 17, 2017

The standard for rounding engineering drawing dimensions is to always round to an even number, so the Creo drawing is wrong and does not follow standards. This is defined in an ANSI standard. I found this explanation in another forum.

Maybe we need an enhancement request to PTC for Creo to follow industry standards!

Rules for Rounding Off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever since the calculator replaced the slide rule, people have been able to get results to six or more places, therefore it's critical that we know how to round the answers off correctly. The typical rule taught back in elementary school was that you round UP with five or more and round DOWN with four or less.

SORRY, BUT THIS RULE IS WRONG!

However, please don't rush off to your elementary school teacher and read 'em the riot act!

The problem lies in rounding "up" (increasing) the number that is followed by a 5. For example, numbers like 3.65 or 3.75, where you are to round off to the nearest tenth.

OK, let's see if we can explain this. When you round off, you change the value of the number, except if you round off a zero. Following the old rules, you can round a number down in value four times (rounding with one, two, three, four) compared to rounding it upwards five times (five, six, seven, eight, nine). Remember that "rounding off" a zero does not change the value of the number being rounded off.

Suppose you had a very large sample of numbers to round off. On average you would be changing values in the sample downwards 4/9ths of the time, compared to changing values in the sample upward 5/9ths of the time.

This means the average of the values AFTER rounding off would be GREATER than the average of the values BEFORE rounding.


THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

We can correct for this problem by rounding "off" (keeping the number the same) in fifty percent of the roundings-even numbers followed by a 5. Then, on average, the roundings "off" will cancel out the roundings "up."

The following rules dictate the manner in which numbers are to be rounded to the number of figures indicated. The first two rules are more-or-less the old ones. Rule three is the change in the old way.

When rounding, examine the figure following (i.e., to the right of) the figure that is to be last. This figure you are examining is the first figure to be dropped.

If it is less than 5, drop it and all the figures to the right of it.
If it is more than 5, increase by 1 the number to be rounded, that is, the preceeding figure.
If it is 5, round the number so that it will be EVEN.

Keep in mind that a zero is always considered to be EVEN when rounding off.

rleseberg1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
May 17, 2017

I was just coming in to edit my post to state that back in 2016, in my original thread on this issue, aanother gentlemen brought up this same theory, and he actually sited it as ANSI Z210.1.

However, I tested it, and this does not seem to be what is happening.

I set the number to .0625, and it rounded down to .062, OK so far.

I then set the number to .0615, and according to the above, it should have rounded to the even .062.

However, it rounded down to .061, disproving the theory of the ANSI standard being the cause.

Again, at first blush, it seems that the 4th decimal is being truncated, but when I go into the drawing it is always rounded properly.

.0625 shows as .062 in the family table, but .063 on the drawing.

.0615 shows as .061 in the family table, but .062 on the drawing.

Obvously, I am happy with the drawing showing the correctly rounded dimension.

However what if I had a dimension of .0625, and .0620, set to 3 decimals?

They should show up in the family table as .063 and .062, but they would, in fact, would both show up as .062

23-Emerald III
May 17, 2017

It does not happen with Creo because PTC programmers do not utilize ANSI Z210.1 in their standards or in their programming code.

I set the number to .0625, and it rounded down to .062, OK so far.

I then set the number to .0615, and according to the above, it should have rounded to the even .062.

However, it rounded down to .061, disproving the theory of the ANSI standard being the cause.

Your above comment proves that PTC does not follow the ANSI standard! PTC programmers are always truncating instead of rounding because it is easier.

As I said in my original comment:

Maybe we need an enhancement request to PTC for Creo to follow industry standards!

1-Visitor
May 19, 2017

The even rounding rule is stupid for a number of reason.

  • If you're averaging numbers, you shouldn't be rounding them before they are average, you only round after they are averaged.
  • With computers doing all of our calculations, measurements, etc. the phantom "0.01" isn't an issue.
  • A large part of the design/manufacturing industry works in fractions, and a large number of those people are going to automatically enter something stated as 0.63" to 0.625" w/o giving it a second thought. You have to know your customer (whether that is a sales guy, fabricator, or end customer).

There are 2 huge issues here that no one has touched on.

  1. PTC doesn't release ANY information that I am aware of on what standards they do/don't follow, or on how their system works. If they would simply say what they are doing, then we could accurately work with it regardless of how it is designed.
  2. You cannot have a system that works with numbers in multiple ways.

A great example of #2 is that we built relations into some of our start parts to automatically right descriptions. One of those is for pipes. Based on the OD and schedule we assign to the part, the relations set the wall thickness and then write the description. After writing these relations we spent hours trying to work through what it is rounding, what it is truncating, and how to accurately get the results we wanted. It was the same issue point out above... in some cases numbers were rounded, in some places they weren't at all, and in others they might have been truncated but we never could tell for sure. We finally got what we needed, but that was because we had a limited amount of data that we had to troubleshoot. If you're using family tables and/or relations there could be a unlimited number of results and we should be able to know what the system is doing to take full advantage of this. That isn't currently possible without knowing how PTC is handling every number it deals with, and it is extremely difficult since numbers are handled differently depending on where they are being used.

And I work for a company where generally 1/32" of an inch is extremely tight tolerancing. I cannot imagine what it would be like where thousandths matter.

1-Visitor
May 19, 2017

Another side note... I just saw another thread that posted ASTM E29.6.4.3 as a standard for rounding.

6.4.3 When the digit next beyond the last place to be

retained is 5, and there are no digits beyond this 5, or only

zeros, increase by 1 the digit in the last place retained if it is

odd, leave the digit unchanged if it is even. Increase by 1 the

digit in the last place retained, if there are non-zero digits

beyond this 5.


I found this here: http://www.galvanizeit.com/uploads/ASTM-E-29-yr-13.pdf

1-Visitor
May 19, 2017

The ASME standard currently references ASTM SI10 for conversion and rounding.