Corner chamfer workflow

[EdvinTailwind]

Using Creo 7.0.5.0

I have a situation where I'm making a rectangular base plate for a table-stand. The plate has 2 mm chamfered edges and the 8 corners should be chamfered as well (see image below). However, this requires not less than 8 separate features which are tiresome to create.

Not only that - the dimensions are not remembered between each corner, they can't be mirrored or patterned either. Not even if an existing Corner Chamfer feature is copied and pasted to another corner the dimensions are kept (so what the point of copying it?). 

Anyone who has a simple solution to this?

[MartinHanak]

Hi,

solution no.1

Create 1/8 of plate geometry and mirror it 3 times.

solution no.2

Use Copy/Paste Special to copy 1st Corner chamfer feature to other vertices. Then apply chamfer to edges.

[EdvinTailwind]

Hi!

1. Well, yes, I see how this would work, but it seems mostly like a awkward workaround with a slight scent of "bad practice" around it.  😉

2. I experimented a bit with this, and even though it requires manually selecting 3 edges for every new corner and ends up with just as many features as before, by choosing "Fully dependent with options to vary" all 8 corners can now be controlled from the "source feature". Closest thing to a set, I guess?

[kdirth]

You can apply a corner plane transition when making the chamfers.

[EdvinTailwind]

This is getting hot, but it still requires you to set every corner manually. Setting all transitions for the single Chamfer set at once would be a very reasonable functionality.

[kdirth]

That would be nice.  However, it may be difficult to implement with all of the different intersect transition types that may be in a feature.

[EdvinTailwind]

I think we can agree to disagree on that - as Inventor has that functionality with the Chamfer tool - and it works like a charm. 🙂

[tbraxton]

It would be nice if you were able to select multiple transitions and apply the corner plane setting on multiple corners simultaneously. If you need this often it is worth submitting an enhancement request.

UDF functionality will not reduce the manual actions for transition definition, so I do not see a way around it currently.

[EdvinTailwind]

I think a config.pro-option would be sufficient, something like default_chamfer_transition, with the current three options: Intersect*/Patch/Corner Plane. It wouldn't really not have to change any functionality, just add the possibility to modify a setting.

I'd love to be able to post ideas, but my Creo license is non-personal and managed on corporate level. This community account is not connected to it in any way and consequently I'm sort of "discriminated" against from posting ideas. ☹️ If anyone would like to post this idea (the config.pro-option) on my behalf you are more than welcome (and refer to this thread perhaps) - I would certainly vote for it! 😃

[BenLoosli]

If you can post here, you should be able to create a new product idea.

[TomU]

@BenLoosli,

No, only PTC customers with active support can create and vote on product ideas.

[pausob]

Not quite, I am in the same boat as the OP - my account is registered with PTC.com, but isn't linked to a license / sales order - so I also cannot create product ideas - but I can vote on the ones that were posted by other users.

I don't know why PTC decided on this policy, but anyway...

I'd vote on both the config.pro option about the default transition type and also the ability to easily select multiple transitions and apply a different setting.

I think the latter would be more appreciated as the existing workflow is very clunky (like most things with creo - technically possible, but painful...)

[tbraxton]

The same idea was posted in 2014 as an enhancement request. It got 8 votes. The best path to get it on the development roadmap is to put it in the hands of the core modeling technical committee.

https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/Optimize-workflow-for-transition-mode-change-in-chamfer-feature/idi-p/454868 

[EdvinTailwind]

Nice digging in the archives, @tbraxton !

The suggestions posted by @OliverHeins are great, but I suppose they should be reposted and aligned with the "5 mandatory questions".

However:

"The best path to get it on the development roadmap is to put it in the hands of the core modeling technical committee."

Ok, sounds like a plan, I guess... Who should I buy a coffee? Do they accept PayPal? 😉