Skip to main content
J
JoshH1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 28, 2013
Question

Inventor to Pro/E transition advice

  • February 28, 2013
  • 2 replies
  • 4299 views

Hi folks,

I have a bit of a challenge that I'm hoping folks in the community can help out with.

I'm trying to figure out how to help a group transitioning from Inventor to Pro/E (WF5).

I can't wrap my head around the whole origin methodology.

 

1. Is anybody still modeling in Pro/E with the same origin methodology as in Inventor?

 

2. Any suggestions on making life easier for a former Inventor user? (training tips, etc)

 

Thanks,

 

Josh


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

2 replies

T
TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
17-Peridot
February 28, 2013

Maybe if you explain "origin methodology"

Perhaps you are refering to something closer to a "skeleton" model where you have a common reference for an entire project?

J
JoshH1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
February 28, 2013

Thanks for the comment,

I'd sure like to explain the "origin methodology", but I can't quite do it.

The best guess I have is that it stems from the old days of Autocad where you were just creating lines in 2D from a defined origin (0,0). The software continued to evolve, maintaining the origin to what is there today, a (0,0,0) origin that everything relates to. I can see that they still define parts based on references (insert/mate/align, etc), but that just enables the software to calculate the position relative to the origin.

My Inventor guy has it in his head that this is the most logical way to do it and that Pro/E's method is "unintuitive". Personally, I hate the word "unintuitive" since what most people think of as "intuitive" is just a learned norm.

T
TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
17-Peridot
February 28, 2013

I see. It has been argued by colleagues that creating features relative to some "center" was no longer necessary. ...that Pro|E Wildfire uses a "relative" origin. It must be something PTC hyped and it caught on with some. Personally, I never bought into that and in Creo, it is more apparant that there really is an origin.

The idea is that the default CSYS is the center of the universe. If it is the 1st feature, it places itself where it belongs. If the second feature is a datum plane, it will generate all 3 default datum planes. As far as I am concerned, you now have an origin. Parts should always be referenced from this location. This is the location that parts drop into assemblies from. Way too often I've had a screw, with the origin out in left field drop into an assembly and the assembly extents quadrupled or more. The penalty in performance is significant.

So the short of it is that you simply have a origin and you should use it.

D
David_M1-Visitor
1-Visitor
March 1, 2013

It sounds to me like Joshua is talking about using a common co-ordinate system, which is absolutely fine. If you model with a top-down appraoch, creating and editing new parts from within the assembly, you'll find a common co-ordinate system to be an efficient method. It will also allow exports of your parts to be assembled easily in other software.

Pro/E's method is whatever you want it to be.

J
JoshH1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
March 1, 2013

Hi guys,

yes, it is a common assembly co-ordinate system without a skeleton model. There are no copy geoms or data sharing.

I've heard other instances of doing this in other software programs. I just don't really recall seeing anything like this in Pro/E.

Many of the parts I've seen imported from Inventor or Mechanical Desktop will have datums located far from the geometry. Open one of these parts and select "Fit to Window" and the part is really small because it's trying to fit these datums in the window.

So, are there problems anybody can see with keeping these two methodologies in the same database? It also seems like it would not work if you're going to use mechanism constraints.

M
mdebower18-Opal
18-Opal
March 1, 2013

Many vehicle companies design this way. Trucks, motorcycles, cars, tractors. Usually the master coordinate system is the center of the front axle or bumper. All the major systems and components are assembled to it. Depending on the size of the model and the size of the vehicle, it could indeed be a long way off.

Like anything else, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.

-marc

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement