Skip to main content
BrianMartin13-Aquamarine
13-Aquamarine
January 13, 2015
Question

January 2015 TC Meetings: Enhancement Requests for Creo

  • January 13, 2015
  • 67 replies
  • 21844 views

Hi Everyone...

 

 

It's that time again! Each January, PTC/User holds it's bi-annual "face to face" Technical Committee ("TC") meetings. These meetings are held twice a year with the Winter Session being held next week at PTC Headquarters in Needham, MA.These meetings are mostly attended by representatives of large, influencial customers who pay to send their personnel directly to PTC for meetings with Product Line Managers, software developers, and technical staff.

 

Every 6 months or so I (foolishly) try to gather enhancement requests, issues, and problems from Community members who cannot attend the TC meetings. Obviously I work for one of those large, influencial customers so I will be in attendance to represent their interests. Still, I believe there's tremendous value in the contributions of PTC Community members who do not work for companies with the means to lobby PTC directly for enhancements.

 

In order to track submissions by Community members, I've previously posted an exhaustive spreadsheet of requests and issues complete with a "disposition" for each. I've reposted that spreadsheet here for reference. For this next set of meetings, I think it's necessary to clear the docket a bit. Many of the requested enhancements have either been added to Creo 3.0, slated for implementation in Creo 4.0, rejected outright, or "overcome by events" meaning they're not as relevant as they once were. Continuing to manage and update such a massive spreadsheet with stale data is a tremendous chore. I think the best way to move forward is to go back to the start and gather requests anew.

 

 

So then... if you have requests or nagging problems with Creo 2.0 or 3.0 now is the time to speak up.

 

Please know that topics like the User Interface (ribbon) and annoyances with the color schemes are perennial complaints which are often discussed... but rarely changed based on TC input. The most useful enhancement requests are very specific. Vague requests like "fix the measurement tool" or "improve the interface" are not as easy to fight for as a more focused request. Here are some tips:

  • Errors or problems should be described well. Please try to completely describe your request or issue clearly and concisely (if possible).
  • Screenshots and pictures are tremendously helpful even if they're just mock-ups of some new feature you'd like to see. I realize it takes time to put these together but this makes your issue stand out and helps communicate your request to others.
  • Use Cases are very helpful. "Use case" is a term we use to describe a particular work scenario that requires attention or demonstrates the need for a particular enhancement. For example, this is an example of a "use case" (this is a real request I've submitted):
    • "I have an irregular surface - such as an elliptical tank. I'd like to drop a coordinate system offset from the irregular surface such that one axis of the coordinate system is always normal to the placement surface but offset at some height above the surface. Currently the only way I can do this is to add a point on the irregular surface offset by the appropriate amount, then add a coordinate system on the point. It's possible to drop a point on a surface offset by a specific height and it's possible to drop a coordinate system on a surface with the normal automatically adjusting to the surface but it's not possible to create a coodinate system with an offset and the automatic normal. See slides below (click for larger images)...Slide1.PNGSlide2.PNG

 

 

 

A picture is definitely worth a thousand words in this instance. The better you can describe your issue, the easier it is for me to bring it to the attention of the PTC developers and Product Line Managers.

 

As always, our goal is to make positive contributions so that we may influence future releases of the software. Reasonable requests supported by sound logic and a true business need have the best chance of being well received. These are professional meetings held at the pleasure of PTC and it's employees. I'm an invited guest at this event and I'm also representing my employer so I need to remain professional. While I'll do my best to make a case for incorporating your enhancements, please remember that I probably can't get to every request. Numerous meetings occur simultaneously and it's tough to hop around between rooms.

 

Add your comments, requests, pain points, and feedback to this thread. I'll do my best to get it in front of the developers. I'll catalog the requests and post a synopsis and a final report after the meetings.

 

Remember to keep it positive if possible... but let's hear what you have to say!

 

Thanks!!

-Brian

 

PS: I am currently a member of the following Technical Committees so I can address topics in any of these areas:

  • Routed Systems - Cabling/Piping & Schematics
  • Core Modeling
  • Model Based Definition (ASME Y.14.41 Standards)
  • System Administration
  • Sheet Metal
  • Detailing
  • Creo NC / Manufacturing
  • Creo View / Visualization
  • Windchill

 

If you're interested in joining a TC, go to the PTC/User Website, create a login, and sign up!

 

Thanks everyone!

-Brian


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.

    67 replies

    gkarigoudar1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    January 13, 2015

    Dear Brian,

    Thanks for the info, ould you help me to find tutorial or training material on Model based definition in Creo

    Thanks

    Gouda

    BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
    13-Aquamarine
    January 14, 2015

    Hi Gouda...

    There's not much in the way of a tutorial for Model Based Definition. It's more a series of commands available in Creo that allow you to perform such definition. I also don't know of any tutorial for such a thing. Although, now that you've asked, I bet I could write a pretty nice document and distribute it for the community.

    There are many aspects to consider for Model Based Definition. This isn't an easy topic to delve into especially in a discussion thread. Can you tell us more about what you're trying to do? For example, if you just want notes and dimensions to appear in your models, that's not so hard. If you're trying to do a complete digital definition ("paperless") then that's another story.

    Thanks!

    -Brian

    TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
    17-Peridot
    January 13, 2015

    I think it is time to implement 3D machining results in defining 3D cam operations or gears.

    I don't want this buried in the manufacturing extension either but it does belong there too.

    Modeling a globoidal cam

    It shouldn't require a study to show that this can be done "adequately". With rapid prototyping on the rise, we should be able to easily mimic machine tooling operations.

    The beginnings of this are already there. The envelope can be united with the trace curve and can be united with surfacing features. At minimum, the operation should be able to generate a smooth envelope surface with edges rather than unusable facet geometry.

    BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
    13-Aquamarine
    January 14, 2015

    I would agree the technology has advanced to the point that this should be possible.

    It seems to me that this would not be an area where PTC would want to spend the development dollars. I could see a third party jumping in to fill this need with a plugin that piggy-backs off Creo functionality. This is sort of the way AFX, SmartWeld, and the new Harness Flattening modules work.

    I think it's about time we have this tool... but I think it won't benefit enough people that PTC will see it as a huge market for them. They seem to be spending their development dollars creating new tools they can sell. Even though this would be a good feature, I don't think there's much of a market for it.

    I'll add it to the list - I'm just trying to be pragmatic about the likelihood PTC will address this issue any time soon. Maybe they'll pleasantly surprise us!

    Thanks,

    -Brian

    John.Pryal1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    January 14, 2015

    Hi Brian, i hope you are well. One thing that has been on my wish list for years, to be able to simulate what a milling cutter does, i.e. to produce a swept cut with rounded ends. At the moment you have add revolved ends, extra features, more time, a big pain. Different cutter types would be great, standard end mill, ball nose, vee nose etc.

    If i got this, (finally) i would be as happy as a proverbial pig in mud.

    Just to reiterate something already said, dimensioning in Creo 3 sucks.

    Regards

    John

    TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
    17-Peridot
    January 13, 2015

    Detailing is not on your list, Brian, but we have two shortcomings:

    1) Explode extension lines do not perform hidden line removal for the extension lines. The hidden view display algorithm needs to be performed for shaded view explode. This appears to be a simple specification oversight.

    2) It is high time shaded section views capabilities are added as an enhancement.

    I use the detailing package for presentation level documents. These are the top two limitations I find that cost me significant effort to secure a reliable work-around, both of which require view duplication and accurate overlays of two views.

      BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
      13-Aquamarine
      January 14, 2015

      Hi Tom...

      Detailing is actually on my list (between Sheetmetal and Creo NC above). I usually spend significant time in the detailing meetings because I think this is where Creo needs the most help.

      I'll add both suggestions to the spreadsheet. I agree with your assessment that these should be relatively easy fixes or enhancements to achieve.

      Thanks...

      -Brian

      dgschaefer21-Topaz II
      21-Topaz II
      January 14, 2015

      It's good to hear that you'll spend a lot of time on detailing. I've long felt that if PTC had spent the some of the resources dedicated to eliminating drawings to streamlining their creation we'd all be better off.

        TomU23-Emerald IV
        23-Emerald IV
        January 13, 2015

        It shouldn't take two hands (mouse and keyboard) to create a dimension (Creo 3). Having to hold down CTRL before selecting a second reference doesn't accomplish anything since a middle mouse button is still required to place a dimension.

        See full discussion here: http://communities.ptc.com/message/268009#268009

        rohit_rajan15-Moonstone
        15-Moonstone
        January 14, 2015

        imagine my happiness when they added the option to show where were the references before the feature failed in Creo 3.0....

        and the when i went to detailing...and i had to use the Ctrl+left click +mmb to place just one dimension.......i mean what where they thinking....

        please change it back to the way it was uptil Creo 2.0...

        rohit_rajan15-Moonstone
        15-Moonstone
        January 14, 2015

        Hi Brian,

        Hope you doing good and happy...

        1. the selection box of view in detailing should be just slightly larger that the part or assembly instead

        interfering with other views.

        2. ability to edit the drawing format from within the drawing file, at present we have to open the format file separately to edit.

        3. ability to open drawing from part or assembly file, at present only opposite is possible.

        4. when one view is place as "no hidden" the other views should follow the same, at present every view has to be individually converted to "no hidden" from "shaded."

        5. if i add a sheet to already existing drawing and place drawing views of a totally new part in the newly added sheet ..the "&model_name" option still shows the name of the original part file...it should show the name of the current part in that particular sheet.

        6. re-submitting this one " to show mass properties in different units, without changing the parent units"

        imagine a customer asking me to show weight in grams,and i change the parent unit and then features in part fail....so embarrassing...and solidworks does this with a click.

        7. ability to "save as pdf",jpeg etc....of the section view from the separate window...at present we can only see the section view in separate window in creo 2.0

        8. the drag handle of section arrow disappears when zooming in, so it cannot be dragged when zooming in.

        more to follow...

        dgschaefer21-Topaz II
        21-Topaz II
        January 14, 2015

        Some of these are already possible:

        4 - Go to your drawing properties and set the option"model_display_for_new_views" to no_hidden. All new views with then be no hidden.

        6 - Research using unit sensitive relations and assigning units to parameters. You can set parameters to alternate units and have Creo do the conversion for you. So, if your mass unit is lbs and you want to report grams, create a mass_g parameter, set its units to "grams", make a relation to set it equal to the built in mass and set your relations to "units sensitive"

        BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
        13-Aquamarine
        January 14, 2015

        Thanks Doug... I was going to mention the issue with units but I figured I'd explain it in further detail when I wrote back to Rohit's original message with a longer post.

        msteis1-Visitor
        1-Visitor
        January 14, 2015

        Not sure if this is even possible, as no one else does that I know of, but I'd like to see the ability to calculate and show theoretical sharp corners on a drawing view instead of tangent edges.

        I'm a tool designer. I don't work with too many sharp edges and corners. Everything vertical surface is drafted and every corner is broken with a radius. I usually show dimmed tangent edges, but none are usable for dimensioning and it looks like a garbled mess and is not interpretable. Turning tangent edges off shows no face detail.

        dgschaefer21-Topaz II
        21-Topaz II
        January 14, 2015

        Have you tried creating dims to intersection? I use this a lot in molded part drawings to create theoretical sharp dims.

        msteis1-Visitor
        1-Visitor
        January 14, 2015

        Doug,

        Are you talking about driving or driven dimensions? I usually do a section view and do dimension to intersections on my drawings. With my workflow, my tool models are children of the part model that they're designed to create. Therefore, driving dimensions don't exist on my tool models as most of the face details are created from a Cutout feature, so I have to dimension my drawing separately.

        Some forms are complicated and need to be dimensioned from a top view, and creating a projected sketch from the part before adding radii, and carrying that from the part to the tool, to the drawing is a pain.

        ptc-60383761-Visitor
        1-Visitor
        January 14, 2015

        Hi Martin,

        Could you please help to communicate and submit the following high score votes (more than 50 votes) of product idea with PMs:

        1. Support multi-CPUs(processors) for model regeneration action in Creo
        2. Allow spaces in filenames
        3. Use Tabs for open models/drawings in Creo (like in ProE, IE, Firefox, Chrome, FoxIt pdf viewer, etc)?
        4. Sketcher dimensions that stay put!
        5. Default drawing size config.pro option (for example: A4 and not C)
        6. Remember Parametric Sketching References
        7. Allow the status bar to be moved to the top of the Creo Parametric window
        8. Be able to customize Graphics Toolbar (Creo 2.0) - Add icons
        9. Make render functionality more easy and simple to use
        10. Enable Zoom-to functionality
        11. Allow to blank the exterior border lines of table
        12. Define the default size of a template model – Sketch at the right scale of your usual models.
        13. The ability to switch between all the Creo applications "on the fly"
        14. Improve selection sequence
        15. Allow fillets (rounds) & chamfers in assembly mode
        16. Enable Show/Hide Session ID in Model Tree
        17. Default opening multi-sheet drawing on first sheet (Sheet 1)
        18. The Number "1"
        19. Diameter dimension attachment
        20. Limiting the quantity of windows/parts/drawings open to only 15.
        21. Please bring the old sweep (closed trajectory, open section -> add inner face) back
        22. Enhance the contrasts in Creo 2.0 dashboard between tabs
        23. Default choice when assembling two axes should be "coincident" (Creo 2.0)
        24. Point Tables
        25. Allow Comments in Model Tree
        26. Double-click on features in model tree to show dimensions
        27. An Option in Config.pro to specify a separate file for Mapkeys
        28. Diameter or Radius symbol in Sketcher dimension

        Thank you a lots.

          BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
          13-Aquamarine
          January 14, 2015

          Hi You...

          Each time we have these meetings, I tend to "go off" a little bit about the huge number of product ideas which have been logged on the PTC Community site. At the risk of sounding catty about it, each year PTC managers assure me they're carefully considering those idea submissions. In all candor, I don't believe them.

          Last year I counted all idea submissions from PTC Community. There were somewhere over 2000 of them. I had never seen a list of prioritized ideas mentioned in any TC meeting. Many of the submissions were never addressed. Some were "stale" because they'd been submitted for Wildfire 5 or Creo 1.0.

          PTC management fairly well admitted they hadn't been addressing those ideas as efficiently as they should have been. They committed to doing better. Again, I just don't believe it. I've heard the promises about cataloging those ideas and getting them in front of developers before. Now I think we're at the point that we've promised it for too long without delivering. Now I need to see some actual progress before I'll believe they're serious.

          So... your suggestion about making sure these specific ideas get in front of the developers is a good one. I'm not sure I can get to all of them... but a better course of action may just be to press the product managers about considering all ideas submitted from PTC Community.

          As always, the TC meetings are tricky. It's more like a chess match than anything else. The way you suggest an enhancement counts. The way you back up your suggestion also counts. There's a good bit of politics involved. Plus there are other nuances like which PTC product manager you're talking to that also come into consideration. Some are more receptive to enhancement requests than others. I'll try to bring up the topic of Ideas submitted to PTC Community.

          Of course announcing that I'll be bringing this up now tips my hand and provides some fore warning that they'll need to have a credible answer for this criticism ready to go. I wouldn't be surprised if they did have a credible answer at the ready. As I said though, at this point I think we deserve action instead of another explanation of why these ideas seem to languish even when they're voted up.

          dgschaefer21-Topaz II
          21-Topaz II
          January 14, 2015

          My biggest one would be consistency in the interface:

          Why does MMB mean so many different things (new, done, cancel, next or even nothing)? (See the product idea here: http://communities.ptc.com/ideas/2422)

          Why do IDD and ISDX have interfaces so foreign to the rest of Creo?

          Why do we still see the menu manager?

          Improved dialog boxes with larger data entry fields and fewer tabs.

          Prime example of the former is the assy contraints dialog. There is frequently not enough text visible to see what the references are. Why not make that box a lot longer?

          A good example of the latter, although technically not tabs, is the relations dialog with separate areas for initial and post regen relations. Why not a split dialog so that both sections cann be viewed at once?

          BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
          13-Aquamarine
          January 21, 2015

          Hi Doug,

          Interface consistency and better dialog boxes and improved "flow" are major areas of concern. I would expect Creo 4.0 to continue the refinements made in Creo 3.0. While I did not get any specific committments on the topics you suggested, overall PTC's reception to these issues was positive. I definitely got the feeling they are already aware of these problems and are working on them for future releases.

          Thanks!

          -Brian

          dgschaefer21-Topaz II
          21-Topaz II
          January 22, 2015

          That's great, but I'll believe it when I see it. An inconsistent & sloppy UI has been part of the Proe experience for a very long time (Done/Done Select/Done Sel anyone?)

          BenLoosli23-Emerald III
          23-Emerald III
          January 14, 2015

          One thing that another CAD vendor used to do, which would reduce the impact that a large company had on future development, was to let each company vote on requested enhancements each year. The vendor would review the lists in multiple categories, modeling, drafting, manufacturing, etc, and assign a weight value to the complexity of the proposal. These would be 2, 4, 6 or 8 points, with 8 being the most complex to implement. Each company would be given 50 points to vote in each category. If I wanted the most complex enhancement to be considered, I would vote for it and use up 8 of my 50 points. I would then vote for the other enhanhancement proposals until my 50 points were allocated. The results would be sent back and compiled into a summary which was presented at the annual user meeting. The company made a commitment to implement the #1 in each categoty when they could get it into the development schedule. It was sometimes 2-3 releases down the road if a complex coding issue. They would report each year on which ones had been implemented and the status of those they were still working on.

          BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
          13-Aquamarine
          January 18, 2015

          Hi Ben,

          They definitely need a better system than the one we have. No one tracks these suggestions in any sort of reasonable fashion. Some people like me maintain lists. I'm sure some of the Technical Committee leads maintain lists. But there's no document capturing the suggestions and the disposition of them. The best I can do is raise the issue and give you my impression of whether or not the PTC developers and Product Line Managers seemed receptive to it. That and $5 will buy you a very small cup of that overpriced Starbucks coffee (maybe). There should be a better system.

          James621-Visitor
          1-Visitor
          January 14, 2015

          Hi,

          Could anyone here recall if there has been anything good implemented to Creo 3.0 from anyones ideas posted on these boards since 2011 and then onwards?

          Just for a reference on what's been done:

          http://www.mcadcentral.com/creo-modeling/27757-creo-3-0-enhancements-2.html

          BrianMartin13-AquamarineAuthor
          13-Aquamarine
          January 15, 2015

          Hi Jakub,

          I'm sure there are some ideas which were added since 2011 that have been implemented. It's sort of the way I'm sure there's life somewhere out there in the Universe. There are over 2000 ideas... and just by sheer odds it's likely PTC implemented something even if they didn't do it specifically because of the idea.

          Do you see what I mean? Maybe they were already going to add an enhancement anyway and someone just happened to suggest it. Maybe the Idea submission came after this new feature was already created? I'm certain that probably happened.

          I think you're getting at the same thing I was saying before - you want to know if the thousands of ideas are making their way in front of the developers and PTC decision makers. You want to know if those ideas are having any kind of positive effect. (At least I think that's what you want to know).

          That's exactly what I am wondering, too.

          James621-Visitor
          1-Visitor
          January 20, 2015

          I actually know about one such idea. I've told you about it couple months ago.

          PTC devs have put back the message taken from measurement window to message log. It was being displayed in message log in previous releases, and I am happy to have it back.

          It does not sounds like a big deal, but at least one thing was implemented cause PTC people read this forum.

          Well, unless this was also mentioned elsewhere. Someone just happened to suggest it like you said.

          Anyway, that just shows there is always a chance.

          Show more replies
          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement