Skip to main content
M
Mikie1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 12, 2011
Question

ProE 3.0 (& 1.9)

  • May 12, 2011
  • 3 replies
  • 1046 views

Thought this might be interesting for all to see a picture of a screen shot ( with film!) of what


vs.3.0 looked like. This is 1992, of an instrument I designed while at Caltech. I started with vs 1.9 in Feb 1988


with a Sun 360, Unix and 19" monitor, ~ $30K for hardware. As I remember, a global interference check took some 20 minutes(:o).


It saved my b--- then and many times since then.


I have another 1992 picture of an instrument called Low Resolution Imaging Spect (LRIS) at Keck Obs.


Anyway, thought this might be interesting.


MICHAEL


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.

3 replies

S
23-Emerald III
StephenW23-Emerald III
23-Emerald III
May 13, 2011
Olaf has a video of rev. 1 on www.proesite.com<">http://www.proesite.com> under the miscellaneous link. It's very similar to rev 15/16 that I started on.
P
ptc-1412741-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 13, 2011
I am creating a guideline for our department on exploded views in drawings. Management is looking at leveraging exploded assembly drawings for Manufacturing purposes.

Can anyone think of a reason why one should create an explode definition within the drawing module?

Some assembly pluses:
As far as I can tell you can only create the exploded views in the view manager ( You can only EDIT existing exploded views in the drawing).
You can photo render exploded views in an assembly but not in a drawing.
By creating the Explode Definition in assembly, it will always be available where ever the assembly goes, without relying on the drawing file availability.
From my knowledge, moving components around in the drawing does not translate back to the assembly explode state.

Doug
NGC
P
ptc-1412741-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 13, 2011
I am creating some department guidelines/tips on orientation and view creation and was verifying them and...

My memory might be failing me here. I seem to remember that it was bad practice to create orientations in the part or assembly based on features or components. The reason being that a drawing view using this orientation would fail if the feature or component in question was modified or deleted.

Now for some reason, I can't get a drawing view to fail based on these guidelines. It seems Pro-E is remembering the orientation in the part or assembly even though one of the features used to create it is missing.

Any thoughts?

Doug Pogatetz
Design Engineer
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement