Enhancement Requests for Creo - Now's the time to speak up!

[BrianMartin]

Hi Everyone...

Starting tomorrow January 22 through the 24th, PTC/User is holding it's bi-annual "face to face" Technical Committee ("TC") meetings. These meetings are held twice a year- once at PTC Headquarters and again at the PTC Live World Event (or whatever we're calling it this year).

Volunteers from PTC customers and other interested individuals comprise the membership of these Technical Committees. Working closely with PTC, the Technical Committees provide product feedback, enhancement requests, and other information that helps to influence future software development. At the face-to-face meetings,Technical Committee members have direct access to PTC software developers and Product Line Managers. These are the people responsible for enhancements, upgrades, and future functionality for all PTC products including Creo/ProE, Windchill, and Creo View.

There are well over a dozen different TC's of which I'm a member of about 6 of them. Originally, I joined with the intention to share NASA's feedback, comments, and concerns with the software developers and other committee members. But having spent a tremendous amount of time interacting with users on PTC Community, I'd like to throw the door open for everyone to submit their feedback, insights, comments, concerns, and enhancement requests.

The goal is to make positive contributions and hopefully influence future enhancements to the software. This isn't intended to be another "gripe" thread. Let's please focus on bringing something positive to the discussion. These are professional meetings held at PTC Headquarters and we're invited guests.

To be blunt... I can't just go into a TC meeting and start ripping the PTC people a new one because I don't like the ribbon interface. However, I can go in there with a reasonable request supported by sound logic and a true business need and make a case for a software enhancement.

The last time I attended one of these meetings, many people just sat there quietly taking in the scenery and munching on free snacks. You could hear crickets chirping in some of the sessions. Sometimes PTC Product Line Managers were standing there asking for feedback and people just stared at them. That absolutely cannot happen! How often do you get these people in a room giving you their time and attention? This kind of opportunity cannot be squandered.

I realize we have the "Ideas" section of the PTC Community and we've been assured that those enhancement requests do make it to the developers. But this is a chance to speak directly with the software developers. If there's an enhancement you really need... or a problem you're having... or some piece of feedback you really want to make it up the chain of command, now is the time to say something!

Add to this thread and send in your feedback and requests. I'll do my best to get it in front of the developers. They might be sick of hearing from me by the end of the meetings... but I've never been afraid to speak up.

Remember to keep it positive if possible... but let's hear what you have to say!

Thanks!!

-Brian

PS: I am currently a member of the following Technical Committees so I can address topics in any of these areas:

• Routed Systems - Cabling/Piping & Schematics
• Core Modeling
• Model Based Definition (ASME Y.14.41 Standards)
• System Administration
• Detailing
• Creo View / Visualization
• Windchill

PPS: If you're interested in joining a TC, go to the PTC/User Website, create a login, and sign up!

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.

[PrebenReventlow]

Hi Brian

I have a long list of enhancement requests.
Typically in the area of Sheetmetal, administration and Windchill.

I have a lot of colleagues that's been using Inventor before, and they have some pretty good ideas and experiences with Inventor.

Direct export of DXF from unfolded sheetmetal part as one of them.

I think Creo 2.0 is a huge step in the right direction, and I've been so fortunate to have some sessions with PTC, where I was able to show our problems to PTC's R&D.

Useability is a key point today as functionality is hastily coming along in other CAD programs as well.

If the user has a good experience, he/she will be happy with the programs.

[BrianMartin]

Thanks Preben... I absolutely love this idea. I've had colleagues and users I support ask for this numerous times. Rather than having to make a drawing just to dump out a flat pattern, there should be either a way to do this in sheetmetal mode- or there should be a way to dump out a 2D line drawing of any view in model mode.

For example, let's say you've got your flat pattern and it's oriented so that the "front" view is looking down on it ("plan view"). Other users have asked for the ability to spit out a DXF/DWG (a 2D line drawing) of whatever their current view is. So you'd orient to the "front" view in this case, hit a button, and save a DXF from the view.

This would give you what you're after but it would also provide 2D line drawings of any other view, too. Several users have asked for simple 2D output from 3D but we haven't been able to give it to them.

I will carry your suggestion and my suggestion to the meetings tomorrow. I'll stop in to the Sheetmetal TC, too to make sure this makes it to their radar.

Thanks for the input!

-Brian

[BrianMartin]

Hi Preben...

I was able to address all of the issues you raised. The issue with right mouse button functionality is resolved in Creo 3. I saw it with my own eyes.

Also, the developers spent a great deal of time discussing family tables. While nested family tables don't get much love at the TC's, I did raise the issue. I think it's too soon to know whether or not there will be improvements to nested family tables just yet but PTC is working on them. We shall have to stay tuned to see what comes of their efforts.

The other issues were raised but did not get the discussion I'd hoped. Or, otherwise we discussed them but the conversation strayed into other areas. The bottom line is that we need to revisit your other suggestions to make sure they get in front of the developers at the next face-to-face meeting in June.

I added an Excel spreadsheet with a full listing of everyone's suggestions and their status/dispostion. I marked the post as the "Correct Answer" so everyone can find it easily.

Thanks!

-Brian

[PrebenReventlow]

Hi Brian,

Thank you so much for your big effort.

Especially the point aboyt DXF export becomes more and more annoying. Hope they take it up real soon.

Another point is to double click a feature in the Model Tree and go directly to Edit Definition. Both in PRT and ASM.

I haven't figured out how to Check Out a drawing any other way but File > Check Out - in PRT and ASM you can right click in Model Tree.

There's a lot of points every where, but my main thought here is that the approach to do things are not consistent.

I've had the opportunity to do some work in Siemens NX and that's a beauty - everything works with few mouseclicks and it doesn't matter if you're dealing with drawings, parts or assemblies. Everything that's common is done the same way. (It's just as expensive as Creo )

Keep up the good work, and I'll probably keep up feeding you with enhancement points - as well as Enhancement Requests to PTC.

Have a nice day,

Preben

[TomD.inPDX]

...

I've had the opportunity to do some work in Siemens NX and that's a beauty - everything works with few mouseclicks and it doesn't matter if you're dealing with drawings, parts or assemblies. Everything that's common is done the same way. (It's just as expensive as Creo )

...

Last time I checked, Unigraphics NX base was 3x the cost of Creo.

[PrebenReventlow]

Probably.

But it's still a nice UI. (I just played around with the software - didn't pay for it )

[rohit_rajan]

1. selective dual dimensioning.

2. to give different color to a feature directly-instead of selecting surfaces.

3. ablility to put number of holes with one selection of hole option. (it was there in Pro/E 2001)...now we have select hole option n number times to create n number of holes.

4. double-clcik to activate feature or sketch in addition to "edit" and "edit definiton"

5. include symmetry constrain in right click in sketcher.

6. include model properties tab in quick access toolbar by default.

7. ability to fill( hatching and solid fill) wrapped sketches.

8. chain and loop option in "use edge" in detailing.

will add more...

[BrianMartin]

Thanks Rohit...

You've got quite a few good suggestions... and some of them are definitely out of the normal realm of what's requested by Pro/E folks. I especially like the idea of double-clicking to edit the definition of a sketch or feature. I read #4 that you want to be able to double-click to "activate" a feature... but I guess I'm not clear on what that means. You can single-click to "activate" or select a feature now... what do you envision should occur when double-clicking? I think I'd like to see a double-click turn on the dimensions of a feature. Maybe a "CTRL+Click" would automatically edit the definition? Hmm ... I'll have to kick that around. What are your thoughts just so I am clear on what you mean?

I think #5 is a good addition... but I would go one further. In Wildfire 2, symmetry would automatically turn itself on as sketched once your sketch got close to being symmetric. This is much in the way that the "T" for tangency turns itself on once you've sketched geometry such that it's nearly tangent to an arc. This USED to happen with symmetry but was removed in Wildfire 3. Rather than having to select symmetry from a right-click menu, I'd like to see it go back to the Wildfire 2 method... or at least a config option to toggle that older style symmetry selection on again.

For #3 (sorry to jump around), I actually do not remember this from Pro/E 2001. To my memory, you always had to add holes one at a time. I think we could benefit from being able to select references and then drop multiple holes based upon those references... or perhaps we could have a "repeat" button like they do in piping applications where you can quickly duplicate the last active option. Both methods would allow multiple hole creation. There are some enhancements submitted in the "Ideas" area which allude to this type of feature. I'll bring it up and see what the developers say.

Thanks for your feedback! Keep it coming!

-Brian

[rohit_rajan]

hi Brian...

thankyou very much for your effort to reply to our mails...

1. by double click i mean to directly go to the sketcher mode..right now we have to right click the sketch and do edit definition to go into sketcher mode.

2. in Pro/E 2001 once i select the hole option..it remains activated after i make one hole...and i can make the second hole while staying in the hole option.

3. what about selective dual dimensioning?

once again thanx for your reply.

Rohit

[BrianMartin]

Hi Rohit...

I was able to address about 6 of the 9 issues you raised (that's an estimate but I count 9 requests). Four of them were well-received by the developers. This is about the most positive outcome you can hope for. The developer writes down your suggestion and adds it to his notes (presumably to investigate further after the meetings).

The suggestion about selective dual dimensions was submitted but we didn't get time to adequately discuss it. There are some changes coming with the dimension properties anyway so this could still make it in. I gave it an orange status because I'm not really sure whether it made it into the developers notes or not.

The other issues did not get raised mostly because I was overcommitted to meetings and could not get to them. I'll hold on to them and try to make sure they get in front of the developers at the next face-to-face meeting in June.

Check out the Excel Spreadsheet in the "Answer" post. You have to select "See Answer in Context" to see the attachment.

Thanks!

-Brian

[huggre]

Brian

Thanks for taking the initiative 🙂

Here are a couple of requests from me:

1. Weldment assemblies

Similar functionality as Solidworks, beeing able to define mutiple bodies within one part.

2. Effective method of creating single part views within an assembly drawing with correct balloon/note reference to item number in partslist.

3. Relation improvements.

Include typical javascript functions within relations.

Add a "Real to string" function or something similar.

Enable creating your own functions within relations.

[BrianMartin]

Hi Hugo....

Thanks for your input! I have some questions...

On #1... I am not a Solidworks person so I don't know what you mean when you say "define multiple bodies within one part" Are you saying make ONE part model in Creo but be able to assign welds as though that single model was really comprised of multiple part models assembled together? If that's what you mean... I am a little fuzzy on how that would work. I might need to see that one to get my head around it.

For #2... I definitely see what you're asking for there. There are, of course, ways to do this already in Creo... but the method for achieving it is a bit sketchy. Well, it's not "sketchy"... it's just very laborious. I recently worked on a project with some other NASA guys and we could've used this. I think it's worth running up the flagpole but I can imagine I might have to demonstrate what this would look like in real life. I can imagine the PTC guys not really "getting it" through words alone.

And for #3... I truly wish we could just junk the entire relations thing and move to JavaScript. The relations bit of Creo (and Pro/E) has bothered me for 20+ years. It's a real mess (as is Pro/REPORT... and table relations, too... yucko). Although I can tell you we're going to get shot down on this one, I will definitely try to make the case for a "RTOS" (Real to String) like the current ITOS (Integer to String) function. Right now to do "Real to String" you have to perform multiple steps... multiplication, convert integers to a string, and then dissect and reconstruct the string with a "." added back in. What a mess!!

I'd love to be able to define my own functions within a relation... like a real object-oriented language. But even an "object-based" language like JavaScript would give us a tremendous boost in what relations can do. I'm sure the suggestion will go down in flames but someone needs to fight for an improvement to the relations/programming part of Creo. I'll give it a try!

Thanks for so many good ideas!

-Brian

[huggre]

Brian

Again, thanks for your commitment to helping out the community.

As you may guess from my requests, im not a typical end user of Creo but more like a CAD admin in the company where I work.

Anyways, all try to clarify a little bit.

#1

In my company we often design steel assemblies welded together from plates, bars, profiles etc.

From one point of view you may say that this is a single component, as the final result (after welding) is one physical object with one part number.

On the other hand, we want to be able to treat each plate, bar, profile etc. as individual items for making partslists, balloons etc. on the steel assembly drawing.

The way we manage this today is to create traditional Creo assemblies where each plate, bar.., is created as individual parts.

However, as each plate, bar etc. within the assembly does not have it’s own drawing/partnumber, managing these items separately within PDMLink as unique parts with numbers and revisions/iterations is just a waste of time for us.

The solution to this problem would be to define a new type of assembly in Creo (Welding assembly) where you could create individual parts within the assembly.

The difference being that the parts would be stored within the assembly file and not as separate files.

#2

Your right, there are several ways to do this today (simplified reps., show/hide components, single surface view etc.) but they are all a mess and a lot of work.

I would just like to insert a “single part view” where I select the component from the model tree and still be able to balloon the part with reference to the assembly partslist.

Can’t imagine that it would be very difficult for PTC to create this function.

#3

I know that changing the current relation syntax to javascript is a long shot, but imagine the power you would have at your disposal for creating intelligent designs.

(Not to be confused with the “intelligent design” debate going on in the US 🙂

Anyways, a RTOS function would be helpful as our current startpart currently contains two pages of relations just to convert real’s to strings, what a waste.

Thanks again

Hugo

[BrianMartin]

Hi Hugo...

I was able to raise a couple of the issues you submitted. I was having a tough time getting the developer to understand why we needed the "single part view" thing in the context of an assembly. So, basically, I failed to make a convincing argument for the need of this enhancement. We'll have to come up with an example or some way to visually explain what we're after.

It's not that the developer wasn't interested... it's just that we need to have a better presentation for this idea. I floated the Javascript idea but it didn't really go anywhere. The conversation was moving around pretty quickly and the time limitations of the meetings made it tough to touch on all of the requests. I'll hold on your requests and try to make sure they get in front of the developers at the next face-to-face meeting in June.

Check out the Excel Spreadsheet in the "Answer" post. You have to select "See Answer in Context" to see the attachment.

Thanks!

-Brian

[Limetrude]

Hugo,

I have used SW for 3-4 years now and one of the big problems I have found with the single part weldments is revision control. Since all the components solids are members of the same solid part how can you keep track of revisions if you only change a small component and not all the rest of the solids?

Also if you wanted to source out individual components to different vendors it is more of a pain to make drawings of those components then using Expert Framework.

Those are just my thoughts. If one can overcome those issues then there are some advantages to having single part weldments.

Jon

[James62]

Hello Brian,

Good to see you back on the boards. So I've got plenty but here's few:

1) Drawings

Surpress and show leading and trailing zeros of selected dimensions through RMB --> Properties menu.

2) Creo Session

Find Session folder after Creo crashes with the previous automatically saved data, and restore the last selected working directory path.

3) Drawings

Delete/hide/erase unwanted thread/quilt lines in drawing xsection without having to convert the view to draft entities.

4) Assembly drawings

While using automated bom ballooning by view, don't let Creo to put balloons onto parts that are infront of the xsec and also behind it. Simply put, show baloons only for components affected by the cross section.

5) Drawings

Enhance creation of cross section from drawing mode, there are still the old menus. Make it the same just like in modeling mode.

6) Mapkeys

When creating for example Extrude feature there's an option to switch it to surface and create a surface feature. The same option is also for Revolve, Sweep, Blend, etc. features. Make it possible so that only one mapkey is needed to switch a feature like that to Surface.

Right now if you create mapkey to switch Extrude to Surface, it doesn't work for other features, even that the button on dashboard tab is completely the same.

Same applies to Through All, To Selected, and tons of other options that are similar/same for features through the whole Creo UI.

7) Mapkeys

Add new config.pro option that will allow user to activate a mapkey using MMB or RMB, and in case user makes a typo in the mapkey this button will then erase the command line, so that new mapkey can be typed in instantly without having to delete the command line first. This is actually the number one thing Creo needs in my opinion.

~Jakub

[BrianMartin]

Hi Jakub...

Good to hear from you... and it's good to be back. I was SOOOO swamped with work it was getting tough to breathe. Just a few weeks ago, I had an angry project manager literally screaming in my face. Finally, that guy has moved on to screaming at other people!

Anyway... back to the point... there's certainly lots to digest from your feedback. I need to ask a few more questions so I can completely understand what you're asking for.

For #2... I think we can ask for restoring the last known working directory. However, I think having your work saved when Creo crashes is probably not possible. This has been the Holy Grail of veteran Pro/E and Creo users for at least 20 years. I'd have to say if they haven't done it yet, there's probably some technical reason why. I'll ask about it and see what they say. I'll report back, too.

For #3... you haven't been able to do this already using the Edge Display features? I'm not saying you CAN already remove these unwanted lines... I'm just asking. I've probably not tried it in so long I've forgotten whether or not it's possible. There are some drawing config options that affect the display of surface lines. Can you give a concrete example, take a screenshot, or provide a small demonstration drawing so I can see what you mean?

For #6, I see what you're asking for but I'm not sure how to ask for it. It's easy to understand what you mean but I fear that in practice, this is going to be tough. It would be great if the buttons on each dashboard operated like "methods" (subroutines/procedures/etc) within an object-oriented language (like Java). Each icon/button on the dashboard would have a name. The button would simply fire off the "method" which in turn "does something" in Creo. For example, the "Surface" button would set the feature into surface mode and the "Solid" button would set it into solid mode. If this paradigm were possible, you could write mapkeys to activate those buttons in a consistent way. Maybe the nomenclature would be "CurrentFeature.solid" or "CurrentFeature.surface".

I'd love to see this... but I'm just not sure it's possible. I don't know enough about the 'guts' of Creo to understand if this is even programmatically possible. I'll see if I can corner a developer and pick his/her brain about the issue.

Thanks so much for all your feedback!

-Brian

[James62]

Oh, I know that one too well, my boss keeps screaming at me all the time. Usually, until I keep listening, when I am not, he tries louder, and he's like the loudest person ever.

There is a story about a not so fast plane that you can first hear and then see coming over. I can't remember the name of that plane, but I'd compare that one to my boss. The plane is also really loud.

Thanks for taking these ideas into consideration. Hope they are not too overwhelming.

For #2: I can hardly imagine how long 20 years is, but as long as an autosave is there and the current session is stored into a folder predefined by a config.pro option then it will all be fine. I know some assemblies with tons of circular refs can take forever to save on older computers, but that's why this should be only added as an option. Retrieve last used working directory button would be nice as well.

For #3: You're right, Edge Display works for Erasing lines in drawing views, but not the lines affected by cross sections. See the case with quilts on picture in the attachment.

For #6: As long as #7 is there i can make as many mapkeys as can be possibly made for like every single button in Creo. I would't mind having so many if I could make typos while typing a mapkey. It's annoying being always only one shot with these so many modes in Creo. So many that it should be against law.

I've got just one more.

😎 Make feature from IDD menu Edit --> Extrapolate available inside Creo Parametric core product under Model tab. There's many occasions where I would like to work with an untrimmed surface directly instead of having to Trim the surface in U or V direction first and then extend using Extend feature. Resulting surface wouldn't require creation of additional datum plane for trimming.

Thanks again for considering these.

~Jakub

[BrianMartin]

Hi Jakub...

I got to a good many of your suggestions. Check out the Excel Spreadsheet in the "Answer" post. You have to select "See Answer in Context" to see the attachment.

Your suggestion about right-mouse button functionality should be in the next release of Creo. I was able to test some of this functionality and I was glad to see the improvements that are coming.

Many of your comments were well-received. Autosave itself is not planned... but they're working on a new way to prevent lost work during a crash. I listed that request as "green" because it is being addressed, just not necessarily in the way you requested. I'm not sure when this new enhancement will appear but I'd heard multiple times that it was being worked on.

The other issues did not get raised due to time constraints. I'll hold on to them and try to make sure they get in front of the developers at the next face-to-face meeting in June.

Thanks!

-Brian

PS: I haven't forgotten about your parameter sorting issue. I have to dig into that further over the weekend.

[James62]

Hi Brian,

I can't believe the RMB activation of mapkeys is like already there in Creo 3.0.

Could you say for sure that it works the way I explained in my previous post?

This is simply amazing. You know, it's gonna turn Creo into a complete beast, while putting the silly GUI completely aside.

Oh, and no hurry with that sorting problem, Brian. I am set for now. Just doing mistakes every now and then with my current system, which puts me alot of times into trouble.

Thanks.

~Jakub

[BrianMartin]

Hi Jakub...

I was able to play with the new RMB functionality for quite awhile. It actually did not work the way I wanted so I reported that to the developer with suggestions on how to fix it. I believe the issues I identified will be addressed when the software hits the streets in October.

I am specifically trying not to say too much about what I saw with respect to new software because when you're sitting there with the PTC developers they make it pretty clear you're seeing unreleased code. What you're seeing may or may not be in the final production code. But more importantly, you're in PTC's "house" and they're letting you look behind the curtain a bit. There's an expectation that you won't run out and start blabbing to everyone on the internet.

There's is a subtle but important piece to note here. Some of the PTC Developers mentioned (to paraphrase) that we're not allowed to speak about what we've seen due to a confidentiality agreeement (also called an NDA or Non-Disclosure Agreement). At least one other meeting attendee also mentioned 'not being able to talk about anything' because of this NDA. So... then... there must be one, right? Hmm... except I never signed any confidentiality agreement. I didn't sign one when I joined the Technical Committee. I didn't sign one when I arrived at PTC HQ and signed in. And I was never asked to sign one when I saw Beta code... or participated in any meeting. In fact, I had a document from PTC/User (who sponsors the meetings)) that specifically says there are "No sessions this time that absolutely require NDAs." This was sent out a few weeks prior to the meetings.

So, I hate to break it to anyone at PTC... but if they thought everyone signed an agreement, I don't think that's the case. Unless they snuck one in somewhere and I was not paying attention. I was pretty careful to read what was put in front of me... and I asked others who also paid attention. None of us saw any NDA's. But, having said that, it was pretty clear from some of the PTC developers that they thought there were NDA's in place. Out of respect, I've been purposely tight-lipped about certain discussions and things I saw. But in the future I think PTC should be a bit more diligent to insure they've protected themselves.

Anyway- sorry to get off on a tangent but if you detected that I wasn't being too forthcoming with information, I wanted to explain why. As for the RMB thing, I'm sure it will be worked out and that it will make it into the Production release of Creo 3. That's about all I feel I can say while respectfully honoring those who trusted me enough to give me a peek at the future.

Thanks!

-Brian

[Patriot_1776]

I agree, if you'd signed an NDA, you'd remember. You typically (should always) read them pretty thoroughly.

[James62]

Thanks for being honest, Brian.

...and thanks for the good news again.

I didn't mean to pull any classified information from you. I was just being happy about the good news you've presented. I can wait till Creo 3 is out, and see it all by myself.

I wouldn't think you need to sign an NDA there. To me NDA is just a paper. Papers usually don't have anything to do with honesty.

[Patriot_1776]

No, but they can be and are used to hold people legally accountable.

[James62]

Right, but in this case it would be a paper for it being a paper.

[rastheimer]

I wanted to clarify the point about being a TC member and requiring an NDA.

In short, NDAs are not needed as a general requirement for joining. There may occasionally be certain topics for which an NDA is required, and folks will be given advanced notice so that they can execute a TC-specific NDA if they have not yet done so. Also, some companies require an NDA even though it is PTC’s confidential info being shared. In those cases, PTC will honor those policies and allow the member to execute a TC-specific NDA upon joining the TC Community.

You should refer to the PTC/USER portal for PTC/USER Technical Committee discussions or contact a Board member if you have more detailed questions.

Regards,

Rosemary Astheimer

Creo Product Manager

PTC/User Liaison

[DavorGranic]

Hi Brian,

Evrything about whats needs to be done has been said on this forum already.So ill try to ask for something diffrent:

For the love of god make them see that Creo must come out of the box with standard parts and material library. All they need is 2 engineers they can pay with beer and it will be done. There is no excuse under the sun for not doing this.

[BrianMartin]

Hi Davor...

I had to laugh out loud at your post. I agree... WHY in the name of all that's holy don't we have a decent material library? I'd say maybe it's some type of liability issue... but Mechanica came with a library for years! Also, the library should be dynamic instead of static. I want to be able to keep my materials in Windchill if I want and have Creo recognize them!

I'll take this to the PTC guys for sure.

Thanks again!

-Brian

[JoshH]

Hey Brian, I second your sentiment on managing materials in Windchill. I'm not happy that I won't be there to discuss it again.

Must have material informaiton stored in Windchill and associated to Creo documents. Probably need to have a choice on whether it iterates the parts.

Question...what about finishes? Are they applied as a seperate wtpart?

Say hi to Paul for me