Manufacturing (CAM)

Good morning, I am on Creo 2 M110 and notice that when defining drilling sequencethat these big red arrows show the direction of the path but they hide thedepth path. Is there an option to turn off the red arrows. They are moreannoying than helpful.Thanks.Son Nguyen108 w. 2nd StreetAssaria, KS. 67416(785) 667-7763 ext. 3477This 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.

Hello all,how do you do for have a machining time who is close to the reality?thanks for your help or remark,ThomasThis 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.

I want to create a groove on a cylinder as shown in the image. I create the groove path and wrapped on the cylinderI am using sweep to create the groove, if i select normal to trajectory the sweep cut is created on cylinder. but for manufacturing i want to create the cut normal to center axis.if i choose normal to projection and select ctr axis sweep feature failing. It will be helpful if anybody can suggest a solution.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.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I need to clarify further.We have existing Parts with Structure and existing CAD with a differentstructure. Not pretty, but it's our starting point.We want to as much as possible link the CAD to their respective Parts inorder to get the Representations. We DO NOT want the CAD to drive the Partstructure or change it. Curious if anyone has tried using any of therelationship types beyond "Owner". And if so what your experiences with ithave been.Thanks again!MargiMargi KorchInformation TechnologyMechanical and Manufacturing Engineering SolutionsMissile SystemsRaytheon Company+1 520.545.6097 (office)+1 520.203.4444 (cell)-6221 S Palo Verde RdTucson, AZ 85706-5093 USAwww.raytheon.comRaytheon SustainabilityThis message contains information that may be confidential and privileged.Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for theaddressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message orany information contained in this message.

I'm trying to model similar indentions on the side of a part using surfaces but it is not going to well. I came somewhat close to what I wanted a few times but I'm never able to put rounds on the indention I create. And at this point I would be happy just to be able to take the model I have and put rounds on it so that it can be machined with a 3/16 ball end mill(minimum 3/32 rads)Any help or pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.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.

Just curious if anyone would be willing to share experiences on linking CADdata to existing WT Part structure?Thanks in advance!!Margi KorchInformation TechnologyMechanical and Manufacturing Engineering SolutionsMissile SystemsRaytheon Company+1 520.545.6097 (office)+1 520.203.4444 (cell)-6221 S Palo Verde RdTucson, AZ 85706-5093 USAwww.raytheon.comRaytheon SustainabilityThis message contains information that may be confidential and privileged.Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for theaddressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message orany information contained in this message. If you have received thismessage in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and deletethis message. Thank you for your cooperation.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" butt

Is anyone doing anything advanced to help compute toolpaths faster? I have a hot job and naturally its one of the most complex parts I've done. I am doing a Local Milling routine referencing a previous sequence and it takes a long time to generate the toolpath. (Over an hour) Theres no easy way to break it up into smaller segments either. Although I may have to try. Is anyone doing distributed computing or something that i may not know about? Its also annoying that I have 1 CPU maxed out and 7 others just hanging out doing nothing. (I know CREO does not multi thread yet but its frustrating).I am running CREO 2 and my workstation is:Windows 7 64-bitIntel Core i7 CPU @ 3.80GHz32 GB DDR3 RamNvidia Quadro 5000This 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 ve

Looking at a case solution I discovered there should be a new volume mill sequence in creo 3. That's a good news =>https://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/case_solution.jsp?n=CS172911&lang=enThis 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.

Hello ,I would like to know how any of you have managed a transitition from Autocad Inventor to PRO-E for sheet metal components, especially for flat state.Current Scenario in my organiztion : Inventor is used for developing sheet metal drawings. The Flat state dimensions for Sheet metal component is also given in the same drawing. This is done by inputting the k-factor values as per sheet thickness and material.After migration to PRO-E , for the same sheet metal component , after inputting the same k-factor value , we have a difference in the flat state value of the sheet metal component.This could have an impact on the sheet metal component during manufacturing.Why does PRO-E and Inventor throw up different flat state values for the same k-factor , thickness and Material?Has anyone come across a similar scenario?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 referen

HI,I'm looking for feedback from user thathave similar functionality in their projects.I would like to have bellow case scenarios:- In manufacturing projects I would like to have detailed models to be manufactures in CAM- In the projects sent to customer I would like simplify the models to avoid the IP geometry- For catalogues where I would like to different way of simplification or hide the moldes in drawingsI still bilieve the Simplify Representation is the best solution but I found also other method like:- Use family table to simplify geometry to show it IP to the customer or catalogue- Use flexibility to hide geometry or components- Create separatly models with no link (2 different models with no connection: one is detail and another one is a model with no geometries)Do you have this situation like before one where for a model representation I need all the details to be used in CAM for different representation i need models to hide the intelectual properly.What is the best solution

Anyone running Vericut latest 7.3 embedded with Creo 2.0?

I have a task of making a model of pressing-tool, and the only info I have is G-code (for unknown machine) to mill this tool.I would like to know, if there's any quick option of importing the G-code, at least to get a trajection of the tool, because it would be easy to make the model from that. (erasing any unnecessary codes, for instance start applying lubricant,...)If this isn't possible, I would manually change the NC file to IBL, but I'm not sure, how to determine a circular line with radius=R from point A to B going clock or counterclock wise.I would appreciate any information about G-code import or some IBL details.BR,Miha Z.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 knowledge

Ok, I am trying to determine if I can do a certain scenario where I create manufacturing model and drawings using english units and then create the assemblies with metric units. All of the BOM's for the manufacturing models and drawings would stay internal and on the drawings. Assembly and maintenance drawings would have BOM's created out of our SAP system. See the screenshot below of a general assembly I'm using as an example.In the model tree you see the General Assembly with 3 sub-assemblies. My thinking is the General Assembly would be created with a metric template along with the 3 sub-assemblies. Under each sub-assembly you start getting into the manufacturing assemblies, weldments and machining models. Those are the models that would be made with english templates. Is this something that anybody out there has done or even remotely acceptable?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, plea

Hello all,I belong to a Japanese electronics industry association as PTC liaison. The name is JEITA - www.jeita.or.jp/english - the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association. In the JEITA organization, there is the 3D-CAD committee. They are discussioning about future standard in terms of 3D model based and GD&T annotation - so called 3D drawing. This year, they are planning a business study trip to North America. The purpose is to communicate and exchagne information with key Creo users where are similarly doing 3D model based engineering so that it can be improve the engineering and manufacturing process innovation. So does anyone know the reference Creo customers who are particularly doing 3D drawing? They are requesting to have a business meeting face to face during their stay in North America. ASME 14.41, MIL-STD31000A, AP242, and TC184/SC4 are also very interesting standard topics for the JEITA members as well. The travel timing is not fix yet, it is

New Creo user here, taking a ton of time to find where Creo has hidden many things. Is there an easy way to add M01s before tool changes without screwing around in the tool motions tab? Trying to avoid doing it in Notepad afterwards.

I seem to run into a lot more prompts to regenerate in Creo that in Pro. There are some cases when using an old model from Pro in the new Creo manufacturing environment that I can regenerate, hit save, then get prompted to regenerate again. Can't shake the regenerate prompt in these situations. It will always say that the mfg needs to be regenerated if you are trying to save. Anyone have a suggestion for this?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.

Hello,I have been trying to use rose converter for model upgrade from rose to annotations.I see that there a conflict between the instructions in the upgrade guide and the readme file in the rose converter. Can aany one let me know the which one of them are the correct set of instructions.Note:Upgarde guide says that the custom file are to be copied from source to target and then to run roseconverter , readme on the contrary asks to copy the roseconverter in the source system and run it on the source machine.Regards,NeerajThis 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.

We want to use the leroy font for some signs we're manufacturing. But since the heigt of the leroy font is defined wrong (when you set the text height to 5mm, the lowercase letter turms out 5mm high) and it also refers to a latin font which look completely different, I have made a copy of the leroy font and made som changes. These are the settings in the original file:codeset 0height 63width 36base_offset 11spec_height 26xextent 36fixed_width 1ascender 11polygons 0ics 1gap 8These are the settings after my changes:codeset 0height 59width 36base_offset 11spec_height 37xextent 36fixed_width 1ascender 11polygons 0ics 1gap 8This gives the right height of the font. But I have the problem that when I write a note with more than one row, the base_offset of the row above collides with the ascender of the row below. I have tried to change the height and the ascender to 63 and 15. But the text comes out the same.Does anyone know how to control the line space?This thread is inactive and closed by

Is there a more direct way of modeling standard threads in Creo other than the existing way which is fully manual? I wish there was a more automated way, for example some type of a wizard utility box allowing for filling-in the thread parameters. People might ask why bother and model standard threads, when the whole technical community is based on having them as given to any manufacturing cell, as long as they are specified and noted correctly on the drawings for the machinist to make? However, sometime we do care about 3-d printing and would like to make sure that the threaded mated parts are within allowance. What is the best practice to model the threads with the existing software? Again, I wish there are plans for any enhancements in the future versions in this respect. My initial suggestion would be the creation of a new feature, different than 'Helical Sweep' specialized just for Threads and/or Tapping.This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If yo

Hi,I am creating a strip layout in PDX, and want to see the cutting effort, but the value i get is 0.00ton(s)/N.I have checked & assigned all the material properties, but still no cutting efforts is available to me.Do anyone know how to get this value. Am I missing something?Thanks AmitThis 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.

GPOST PDMLink Windchill Compatibility Integration GPOST is packaged with Creo\NC but is not fully compatible with PDMLink requiring that the post processor files (3 files per post) reside at a local hard drive or network location. I would like the ability to configuration manage these files. I should have the ability to point at a wtpub location via my config.pro and the necessary files should be retrieved to workspace when/if necessary – similar to drawing formats, startparts, etc. The workcell definition allows for a post processor ID to be defined – this could define the relationship/reference to a specific post processor which could drive retrieval of all associated files. All post processor related activities should function normally, as they do when config.pro is pointing to a local/network location, including but not limited to the 3 following entry points:   SPR1450930 still applies: Post Processor files should be made Wildfire workspace and Windchill aware. Currentl

Hello, I have a drawing that I am working on that has multiple instances. There is a part # table that I would like to have the PRO_MP_Volume in the first dash # and the PRO_MP_Area in the second dash #. The reason for this is our manufacturing process takes a -1 part to be plated into a -2 part.   Yes I could make a bunch of dash numbers in my family table and sort them out. But this makes model larger than need be and increases my regeration time. And I am currently not adding an offset to represent the plating, the manufacturing team just likes to have an idea of the surface are they will be covering with plating, so there is really only half of the part numbers in the family table.   Is there a way to write a relation to pull the pro_mp_volume for an individual instance into a cell and the same thing for pro_mp_area?   Attached in a picture of the table to help clarify what I am trying to achieve.   This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Managem

Hurco VM10ui with Winmax 9 also supports programming with tool vectors, thus makes the NC program independent of any particular machine configuration. We are developing a post-processor in Creo 2 (G-Post) for generating a tool vector NC file rather than XYZAC format. Some case studies are planned; one example is impeller machining.   <script src="https://players.brightcove.net/6058022026001/default_default/index.min.js"></script>(view in My Videos)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.

how to get lets say time for each operation so you use realtion to get time_for_operation*cost_per_min or something like that.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.

We are currently running Wildfire 4 but will be upgrading to Cero pretty soon. I was asked to see if the processors will work with Creo. Can anyone let me know. Thanks BernieThis 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.