Skip to main content
W
Wouter_1947212-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
September 22, 2018
Solved

Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

  • September 22, 2018
  • 24 replies
  • 17442 views

Hello,

 

This is a cry for help (read: rant) regarding layer rules. I have been trying for days now to get them to work but they seem extremely bugged and inconsistent to me. Some rules don't seem to work at all.

 

Sometimes rules for one type of feature work while the same rules applied to another type of feature don't work.

Let me show you an example:

 

I have a layer 02_DEF_PLANES for default datum planes, including them by name. I have another layer 05_PLANES for all other datum planes, excluding the default datum planes by name. This one works.

180922_Layer PLANES Creo Parametric 4.0.png

 

I also have a layer 03_DEF_AXES for default datum axes, including them by name. I have another layer 06_AXES for all other datum axes, excluding the default datum axes by name. This one just ignores the naming rules and puts the A_X, A_Y and A_Z axes from the external inheritance on the 06_AXES layer. Note that these axes are NOT on this layer in the inherited part.

 

180922_Layer AXES Creo Parametric 4.0.png

 

What is going on here?

 

Layer rules also do not apply at all to items from external data on layers with the same name. In my examples datums from the external inheritance are placed on layers where I have excluded them by rules.

 

By now this has gotten me quite frustrated an annoyed. As expected, there is no decent explanation/help on layer rules to be found in PTC documentation. So I'm left to trial and error whatever ideas I come up with and try getting help here.

If anyone can explain the issues above please let me know. Help is greatly appreciated!

 

 

Best answer by Kevin

Not exactly, that's why I'm wondering what is being searched by on your 01 and 04 layers. Here is an example of what I'm referring to and see if they make sense to you. I'll include how I interpret what I'm seeing.

 

Layer_Rules.PNG

  1. LAY0001 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Coordinate System, with Attribute Name: *DEFAULT. Datum DEFAULT is placed on layer.
  2. LAY0002 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Coordinate System, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0001. Datum DEFAULT isn't placed on the layer since it's included on LAY0001.
  3. LAY0003 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0001. Datum DEFAULT is placed on the layer since LAY0001 doesn't have a feature on it named DEFAULT.
  4. LAY0004 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Attribute Name: *DEFAULT. Datum DEFAULT is placed on layer
  5. LAY0005 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0004. Datum DEFAULT is placed on the layer since LAY0004 doesn't have a feature on it named DEFAULT.
  6. LAY0006 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Feature, Look By: Coordinate System, with Attribute Name: *DEFAULT. Feature DEFAULT is placed on layer.
  7. LAY0007 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0006. Datum DEFAULT isn't placed on the layer since it is part of the Feature DEFAULT definition.
  8. LAY0008 and LAY0009 used OR rule definitions to get items on layers.

In order to make sense of the pics of the layer definitions shown I'd need to see the rules for layers 01 and 04

and what ends up on them.

24 replies

M
mbonka2-Explorer
2-Explorer
September 24, 2018

Hello @Wouter_19472

 

 got similar layers structure. You are using "AND" condition for default planes and it´s the core problem (in my opinion). Try to use "OR" instead of this. See following pictures from mine solid_start_part.prt. Plane names are different, but logic should be the same... In general:

1) Default planes - include plane that name is "bokorys" OR "narys" OR "pudorys"

2) Datum planes - inlclude all planes that name IS NOT EQUAL to "bokorys" AND "narys" AND "pudorys"

Keep same logic for coords, axis etc...

layers-planes_rules_logic.JPG

See attached part...

Regards

@mbonka

W
Wouter_1947212-AmethystAuthor
12-Amethyst
September 24, 2018

Hello @@mbonka

 

Thank you for your reply. Your rules seem to be setup in the exaxct same way as mine (same logic). See the attached example pictures:

 

Default Planes:

180924_3342_Layer_Properties.png

Other Planes:

180924_3343_Layer_Properties.png

 

The issue I was describing was that sometimes rules for one type of feature work while the same rules applied to another type of feature don't work. I showed only the layer rules for non-default datum planes and non-default axes to show that sometimes the rules ignore items in external inheritance features and sometimes they don't. I haven't found out why yet...

M
mbonka2-Explorer
2-Explorer
September 24, 2018

Example for datum plane:

l think it´s unimportant where from the datum plane is coming (regular solid part, assembly or imported part).

l think it depends on the name of datum plane (top, bottom etc.) - name in model tree.

 

For some inspiration see Vladimir´s "automatic layer" tutorial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA9X4FOQQPE

 

@mbonka

 

 

Patriot_1776
Patriot_177622-Sapphire II
22-Sapphire II
September 26, 2018

I've noticed that as well.  I made a "curve" layer with rules to exclude 2 curves of a specific name.  It will NOt filter those out no matter what I do.  I have to manually "exclude" them.  PITA, but, it's only those 2.  The "rules", while they usually work great, DO seem glitchy in some instances.....like a lot of features....  😉

Patriot_1776
Patriot_177622-Sapphire II
22-Sapphire II
October 19, 2018

Ok, I might have found a fix for some of this glitchy behavior.  First I did a "Remove" of all the rules on the "CURVE" layer.  Then I created and correctly named the features I wanted to exclude ("!= to") by "Feature, Name" BEFORE re-creating the layer rules.  This way, you are able to pick the feature names to exclude from the drop-down, instead of typing them in.  I think it lulls you into thinking that since you typed it in, it recognizes it even if the feature doesn't exist, but somehow it just doesn't, leading to massive frustration and extensive use of the Pro/FANITY module.....  Then, after the layer rules are established and you've checked that they work, you can delete the features.  I did this to all my start parts, and now, whenever I make a curve it goes on my "CURVE" layer, but as soon as I name it "PART_MARKING_CURVE" and then AFTER a regen it goes from the "CURVE" layer to the "PART_MARKING_CURVE" layer.  So, now, it works for all my new part.  Yay me!

 

In a nutshell, it SEEMS like the feature must exist by the name you want to exclude prior to creating the layer rules.  Glitchy, but I finally got it to work like it should.  Good thing, because it was really p!$$ing me off, because I KNEW it should work as ruled.

 

Hopefully creo 4 will have fixed some of these glitches instead of just moving the commands around so we can't find them anymore....

 

Best of luck!

W
Wouter_1947212-AmethystAuthor
12-Amethyst
October 22, 2018
That's one hell of a complicated workaround... I wish PTC would test their software a lot better before releasing it. I do appreciate the Pro/FANITY extension, since it comes for free with any other license and always works 😉
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement