Swept Protrusion in Creo Elements 1.0

Author

1-Visitor

All,

This still makes me ask the question, What is the actual solution to create the same geometry in Creo Elements? PTC's answer was that I can create a more robust model using other solutions but if I sweep an open sketch and create a open surface then use a fill on the top and bottom to close the surface I then have to solidify the surfaces to create a solid. This seems to use at least 5-6 objects in the model tree just to create the same geometry that I could do with 1 swept protrusion. How is this more robust? When modeling a part it's my challenge to create the part by using the least amount of features in the model tree, to me this is the best way to create a robust model. If you have the answer please let me know.

Thanks

Brent

J

JonathanHodgson

13-Aquamarine

At risk of taking this thread completely off-topic: now, that's a different question.

I've always been taught that the most robust models in Pro/E use many, simple features. You could sketch a complete shaft in one go, with every round or chamfer; but good practice as we understand it is to keep each sketch to maybe 4-6 lines (and fewer dimensions), use several sketches and revolves to create the shape, and fillet and chamfer the part using, well, fillet and chamfer features.

Are you saying that you'd use one sketch with many lines and dimensions?

Author

1-Visitor

Jonathan,

My statement only applies to the swept protrusion. I completely agree that sketches need to be a simplistic as possible. I would not put a round or a chamfer in a sketch unless there was no other way to create the geometry but using 5-6 objects in a model tree to create the same geometry that I used to be able to do in 1 feature seems excessive. Thanks for your response and I do agree with your example.

Brent

10-Marble

Today, the case with PTC regarding this discussion is being closed arbitrarily. It looks like and in my opinion,

PTC does not want to hear from people like us.

Thanks.

Gautam Vora.

13-Aquamarine

Hi Gautam...

This is definitely a problem. If you disagree with your case being closed, you can re-open it and escalate the issue to a higher authority.

There may be no solution to your problem... and in this case I think that's what they're saying. But you can certainly escalate your call up the chain of command until you either (a) receive a satisfactory resolution or (b) carry your problem as far as it can go.

Eventually you'll hit the product line manager... and he/she may be able to explain the reasoning behind why the sweep options were changed. It's small comfort when you're trying to bring back a feature that you used to like and use... but at least you'll know you're being heard.

My advice would be to re-open your call and escalate the issue.

Thanks!

-Brian

A

AriesChen

1-Visitor

dear all

in Creo parametric 1.0+, need use "LEGACY", as follows:

1. toggle on command search utility

2. type "legacy", pick "Legacy"

3. Feature --> Create --> Solid --> Protrusion --> Sweep --> Done

Will appear WF5.0- Sweep UI

(Legacy icon in "Commands not the ribbon",can add to the Ribbon)

13-Aquamarine

Whoa... LEGACY mode!!! I'm totally envious that I didn't think of that first. Legacy mode always available when you need to step back in time a bit. What a tremendous solution...

Aries Chen from the top rope... flattens everyone and solves the problem.

If this works (no reason to assume it doesn't) this is huge.

Thanks Aries!

-Brian

Author

1-Visitor

Aries,

Great call, but I have one problem. When I toggle to go back to the Creo UI after creating the geometry it doesn't change back to the original UI. I have to close Creo and restart to get the UI back. Anyone else seeing this issue.

Creo Parametric 1.0 Build M030

Thanks

Brent

J

JB_87049

15-Moonstone

Brent,

I'm also using Creo 1.0 M030.

At first I was very delighted as this legacy mode could solve my problem.

But I encountered the same problem as you did.

No way to go back to the Creo UI except restarting it.

The solution to create a sweep with a closed section on a closed trajectory and then afterwards filling the gap with a regular extrude is crap (this is my personal opinion which can be wrong of course). It adds non-functional dimensioning to the sketch.

So I'm very interested to hear a solid explanation from PTC why they removed this feature.

Best regards,

John Bijnens

Author

1-Visitor

John,

The good news is Creo Parametric 2.0 works fine. There is no problem toggling in and out of Legacy mode except you have to implement Creo 2.0.

Brent

J

James62

1-Visitor

hi everyone,

So why are the cases or SPR's or whatever that have been opened by Gautam not viewable anymore? Any idea?

My company has paid alot for PTC's software and it has actually happened only on my demand. So as a PTC customer I would like to know how is this being handled.

It seems like taking pretty powerfull feature away for a reason that is thought out by someone who doesn't really use the software as I see.

I just want to know how is this gonna get handled in case I am ever going to bother starting to try and solve problems like these (as there are many) with PTC's softwares.

The question is: Are you going to introduce "Cap planar boundaries" feature for quilts? Instead of this one? I think the Fill feature is ridiculous productivity wise and mentioning that as a workaround is even more ridiculous.

Fill feature is one of most common features that are likely to fail when there are changes being made to the model tree. Introducing more cituations where Fill feature could be possibly the only solution to proceed is yet even more ridiculous.

Btw Creo Parametric 1.0 M030 is kind of buggy. It would be nice from PTC to give Creo 1.0 couple more datecode releases even with Creo Parametric 2.0 out already.

So far I've only found two bugs in Creo 2.0 and reported one of those waiting for how is that one gonna get handled. I've even offered a workaround for the reported issue as the guy from PTC didn't have any when I first asked for one.

Regards.

~Jakub

13-Aquamarine

The Graveyard of Commands Gone By...

Throughout the history of the Pro/ENGINEER (now Creo) tool, change has been constant. These changes typically fall into three categories.

Many, many commands have fallen by the wayside in an attempt to streamline, modernize, simplify, and enhance the software. Many times the older commands are replaced by newer, better, faster, more powerful features. This is wonderful... and rarely does anyone objects to this.

Then, occasionally the newer features aren't necessarily better, faster, or more powerful... but just different. Sometimes this is done in an attempt to make the commands more consistent across the entire software package. At times people bristle at these changes because they seem frivolous but, in my opinion, consistency is a valid reason to make small changes to the software. Consistency gives the software a logical feel and flow... most people are still on board with these modifications.

But finally, some commands are moved, changed, combined, or eliminated in ways that frustrate long time users. These are painful and the howling of affected users can usually be heard for months (if not years) afterwards. This class of change is hard to justify but, with enough diligence, one can twist themselves in knots and come up with a marginally defensible reason for them.

So here we find ourselves picking through the graveyard of commands gone by:

Bye bye Neck feature.

See ya later Ear feature.

Sayonara Unregenerate command

Catch you next time Flat Surface feature.

Likewise Shaft, Evaluate Datum, Flange, non-intent manager sketcher, and a hundred other commands, features, options, color schemes, config files, and icons.

So then the question becomes... so what?

The software changes... and most of the time those changes are positive. Yeah yeah we can argue about that new ribbon all day long. We can wax nostalgic for the days when everything could be executed from a mapkey. But for that matter, I can tell you stories of modifying 1000 drawings at a time (complex modifications) without lifting a finger in the old Medusa CAD system. Does it mean I want to go back? No. Not really.

With Creo, we're working with one of the most complex pieces of engineering software ever created. If we ever want the software to evolve, it seems to me our options are presented here succinctly:

DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING- EVER otherwise we risk that someone may become angry

or

Try to make incremental, reasonable changes... understanding that there may be some growing pains as we reshuffle the deck now and then to create the best tool. Sometimes we'll have to make some noise, request modifications, and work within the system to help guide the software developers to create the tools we need.

or

Make changes to improve the tool but employ approximately 6,824 people (one person for each command) to insure each tiny little option, switch, and configuration is never lost.

My Point?

I have a user at my company who calls me incessantly to ask why something that took him 1 click in Wildfire 3 now takes him 2 clicks in Wildfire 5. This guy absolutely demands an answer! He uses a certain function ONE time each day and wants to know why it now takes TWO CLICKS not ONE. I don't know the answer but he persists. The additional one click takes a fraction of a second yet we consume hours going back and forth debating why he must now "waste" the time on the extra click. The saying "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

So then here we are discussing this missing Add Inner Faces option preoccupying ourselves wondering what kind of X-Files/Roswell/Alien Autopsy coverup is going on at PTC that they're trying to bury the complaints about the missing option. This isn't the Kennedy Assassination here people... it's a missing radio button on a feature most people use once ever other month (if then). We have workarounds... we even have a UDF to create the missing geometry.

At the risk of ticking people off... we're getting wrapped around the axle here... and we're crossing into 'Penny wise, pound foolish' territory. I agree we shouldn't have to cede functionality... but let's not go insane. The command was removed. We have workarounds and we have avenues to pursue reinstating the option... like the Ideas board and the technical committees. I will personally guarantee I'll raise the issue within the Core Modeling Technical Committee meeting in June at Planet PTC Live.

What else can be done?

Author

1-Visitor

Brian,

I agree, PTC does need to improve things in their product and for the most part I like what they have done. The interface had to be changed for several reasons (i.e. Windows 7 Compliance to the ribbon interface and the old UI was out of date, people from other 3D modelers wanting a common interface ...) but why mess with the core functionality? Believe it or not 80% of the parts I create used the Sweep with Add Inner faces it was nice because I could define everything in one feature. Yes, there are work around’s but what happens when they stop working, we can only hope that there will be a better way to create the same feature.

My main questions has been if they took this feature out what is the new way to create this feature and is it better, from what I’m hearing there's not a better way.

I design Molds for the Rubber industry and the most powerful feature in Pro/E is the ability to change a part by dimension in the shrinkage feature, take that away and you have Solidworks & Inventor they all have the same core features "linear shrinkage", not many other packages have what I call "nonlinear shrinkage or shrinkage by dimension". Every company I have worked for buys Pro/E with Mold because of that "ONE" feature because I can make changes in 1 minute and have prints on the floor shortly after. I "LOVE" this product I will sell it to every company I work for because I believe it's that good, but don't take away what works, if you do you had better show me the new way to do it and convince me it's better, that’s all I ask.

That's the end of my speech, Thanks for listening

Brent

10-Marble

As per English dictionary, the simple meaning of ENHANCEMENT, IMPROVE THE VALUE, QUALITY,

even though this function existed in lower version, why does PTC want people to request

the same function as PRODUCT ENHANCEMENT?

Gautam Vora.

10-Marble

IS EVERBODY HIDING?

Gautam Vora.

13-Aquamarine

I think there's been too many conspiracy theories about PTC purposely trying to "hide the truth"...

Which, combined with beating a dead horse...

Has lead to some frustration...

And then everyone started doing doing this...

Which finally exhausted everyone into ignoring this thread and praying it dies a well-deserved death!

But... that's just my opinion!

10-Marble

For las three days, this community has become slow. Where is everybody?

13-Aquamarine

Sorry... just tending to "real" work and also preparing the Planet PTC Presentation.