Model Based Enterprise

In Creo 4.0 one of the significant enhancements was to provide advanced capabilities for standalone annotations of the following types: Geometric Tolerance (GTOL), Datum Feature Symbol, Datum Target and Dimension. In this blog post, I'll provide a little bit of background to explain the differences (up through Creo 3.0) between standalone annotations and annotation elements owned by an annotation feature. Then I'll explain in more detail the enhancements in Creo 4.0 and I'll finish up with some advice on when you might want to consider using either standalone annotations or annotation elements owned by annotation features.What is a standalone annotation and how is it different from an annotation element inside an annotation feature?A standalone annotation is an annotation that is not "owned" by some other feature in the model. These annotations are listed in the model tree under the Annotations node.Annotation elements, by contrast, are owned by another feature in the model. Typically

Standards-based GTOLs in Creo 3.0 and earlierIn Creo 3.0 and earlier we used to have a config.pro option called 'restricted_gtol_dialog' that would restrict access to various options in the GTOL dialog based on what was allowed or disallowed according to the GD&T standards. Effectively this option would prevent you from creating an "illegal" combination of symbols in a GTOL by disabling some of the UI components based on the options previously selected. For instance, the datum reference fields were disabled for Flatness tolerance since Flatness does not allow datum references per the standards.While in general this functionality had some benefits, there were also a number of problems associated with it:It sets the expectation that the Creo software has a comprehensive understanding of the standards and that any GTOL you were allowed to create was "legal" and, conversely, anything that you were prohibited from doing was "illegal" according to the standards.There was no way to indica

I'm a new Creo user but not new to the 3D world. What I'm looking for is the 3D PDF capture views. Solidworks has a MBD package that is sold separately but that MBD software Solidworks has allow me to make views, details and the PMI for the 3D PDF. What I've seen in Creo is the ability to create 3D pdfs but not the way I am used to. Is there a software program I have to use for Creo? I was told the MBD is in Creo. I have seen the GD&T, annotation feature and the Datum Target annotation feature commands in CREO which are the geometric constraints which I'll need but where and I do I make the views that carry over to the CAM operator.

  In Creo4 it is still not possible to use parameters of the pattern in a GTOL.This works only with “stupid” text input or with complicated relation in the model. Not suitable for users. When using the GTOL, it should be possible to have access on pattern parameters, eg. to show the number of patterns.If changes in the pattern (eg. numbers of holes) then the GTOL should also be affected of this change. The same applies to the semantics, the references of the pattern should be optional added to the references of the gtol.

Is it possible to create geometric tolerance related to a spitted datum feature that was build out of two surfaces 2xA or A & B?The tolerance zone should be created as common zone (CZ behind the tolerance value)

In MBD we are driving towards using 3D Annotations instead of 2D detailing. Now you have two options to do this:1. Do all model designing in the beginning then do all the 3D annotations in the endor2. Model and 3D annotate at the same time. Build some features... annotate... build some features... annotate - this way you remember what is important.My issue is with the 2 option. It seems that when working with MBD there is a load of rework required for each combination state IF you use a different size view than just the standard orientation. Are companies just telling users to wait till the very end to annotate and verify all annotations prior to release?An example:I have created a small feature on the model that I now want to add a new combination state to detail. In the days of 2D drawings I could add a detailed view with a center point selection (as shown).As the designed progressed, my 2D drawing detail view is still centered on the feature it details because of that center point s

Hi everyoneI just test the GPS possibilities in Creo4 and make a fit-gap-analyze.I upload an attachement to this discussion, this shows only some uscases (3 of them) of the ISO standard and we want to realize this in 3D (Creo4)Perhaps someone has this done before or any suggestion?Thanks a lot

I'm wondering if you MBD practitioner folks out there can provide an opinion upon a point of view that is prevailing right now at my division regarding usage of models to document assemblies.The 2D situation is that many assembly drawings are considered to not show so much detail of the underlying parts as to demand a new version is generated as sub-components are iterated. Thus it is currently deemed perfectly acceptable to have a 2D PDF of an assembly drawing that is technically built from an OOD configuration. We say things like 'the assembly drawing is only intended to act as guidance for assembling' and 'specs for lower level parts are controlled by separate lower level design outputs'So now we fast forward to MBD or in our eyes 3D model based definition to be clearer. The same logic apparently results in a conflict because the definition of the assembly is much higher a viewer can e.g. isolate a single component and then end up 'confused' or worse. So the people who hold the prev

Is there a way to control text size in MBD? Especially frustrating with a family table that has small and large parts. Appears Creo defaults to a text size dependent on the model size.

The use of the Creo View API to create an interactive 3D Product View instance within Powerpoint has caused problems with management of computer resources. Each new figure that is loaded on a new slide in PPT adds another process to the CPU, On average this amounts to 250 MB of memory utilized per slide containing an instance of Product View, which quickly becomes unsustainable (as shown in the attached image). We are looking to find a way to decrease the amount of memory used, particularly by not requiring a new instance of Product View for each step in the Work Instruction. A method that we have looked into is the ability to embed the .pvz model in the powerpoint file (similar to how multiple figures can be opened in a single instance of Creo View), but were informed that this is not a current capability of the Creo View Office Toolkit.Work has been done to only allow a certain number of Product View instances, and terminating all other Product View processes in a first in first out

I just wanted to post a note to the group Model Based Enterprise (MBE), in case anyone in this group wasn't at LiveWorx or has just missed the notice that you can download a sneak peek (Beta) version of Creo 4.0 to try out the new features.There is a hidden group on this community site where we are posting information about the enhancements across Creo 4.0 and having some good discussions. If you want access to this group and would also like to download the Sneak Peek software and give it a try, just send an email to - and you'll be granted access.Once you're there, you'll want to look for some blog posts by me that will guide you to information about all the cool MBD enhancements.-Raphael

I have a user defined parameter < UNITS > to capture Mass and Unit.  That information properly displays in my drawing MP repeat region table.  We now want this same information available in the model in support of MBD (model only).  Specifically, we would like to show a note that appears flat-to-screen in a combination state.  I tried applying < &asm.mbr.ptc_unit_units > in the note as well as dozens of other sequences - non work.  Has anyone tried this method for notes with success?

Hi;I am not satisfied with the Creo 3.0 M50 drawing dimensioning practices. Because use of the Ctrl + mouse ball moderate difficulty was created not ease.In this old type of application or a more appropriate method of application would need to be carried out are need for Best RegardsÜmit Şahin

I recently uploaded a video to Learning Exchange that covers the tip I showed at the Creo Tips & Tricks session at PTC Live Global 2015.The tutorial covers some techniques for adding semantic references to 3D annotations.Check it out and let me know what you think!Tutorial: Adding Semantic References for 3D Annotations in Creo Parametric 3.0