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.

[David_M]

Hi Brian. Here's a few more:

The ability to work within an analysis mode, such as Draft Analysis, and have Creo tone down the "transparency" of the superimposed analysis results when you start working (eg less red and blue for draft, so that you can still see the model shading to work).

Currently, as soon as you do something the analysis turns off again, which is a pain when you're still trying to draft all the white surfaces. I usually take a screenshot of the analysis and put it on a second monitor.

The ability to have a persistent view manager. There's no need for it to close on its own all the time.

The ability to navigate the features in the model tree with the arrow keys.

Ask them to buy 3D Caliper and build it into the foundation package 😉 or at least include a decent 3D thickness analyser for parts.

Thanks

[BrianMartin]

Hi David....

I added all of your suggestions to the spreadsheet of suggestions. I thought the suggestions in this recent post (the one I'm replying to) were especially good. I could not get to the analysis/simulation meetings because I was ovrerloaded with core, cabling, windchill, and assembly meetings but I'm working to contact the proper technical committee to forward the analysis suggestion.

I'll put the spreadsheet up tomorrow so everyone can see what was addressed and what still needs to be pursued.

Thanks again for all of your input!

-Brian

[TomD.inPDX]

Can we have a legacy "menu manager" interface option? Pu'Leeeeeeeeeeezzzzz

[BrianMartin]

That Legacy Menu Manager thing was just never gonna happen... from the way these meetings went I can tell you the ribbon is permanent. Yet I did see some bright spots coming down the pike for upcoming releases.

[rohit_rajan]

while giving our views on what enhancements should be there....i think that will keep on coming....

i wud like to thank all the engineers at PTC and all those engineers through techinical commitees have brought out a wonderful freshness and offcourse the powerful enhancements uptill CREO 2.0.

there are many enhancements in Creo 2.0 like the attached preview, dynamic cross section,...the sheetmetal is much easy to understand......and many more...

great work guys..keep it up!

[pimm]

Hi Brian,

I have 1 request that I'd like to add.

Could "Solid" select be added to the pick querry dropdown box in the bottom right. Since the other pick choices are already there it would be nice to be able to select by this type as well.

[BrianMartin]

Hi Paul...

I like that idea... I'll add it to the spreadsheet I made of all the other suggestions. I'll try to get it up here tomorrow so everyone can review. Several of your teams' suggestions made it in front of the developers.

Thanks!

-Brian

[pimm]

That is great that you were able to bring forward many of these ideas.

There are some such as this that really wouldn't be that difficult to impliment and save people time looking different places for the same type of things.

This was a great opportunity you took to advance the Creo product. This was good for all ends concerned.

Thanks for stepping up to the plate for us!

[David_M]

Hi Brian

If you're still taking requests I almost forgot my number one wanted feature: ability to limit selection to faces, edges, or verticies. Pro/E's habbit of always picking some obscure points in the background really slows me down.

Thanks

[PrebenReventlow]

Hi Brian

Just another thing:

A BIG warning sign when Windchill server is offline

Just had a computer that was offline without warning.

[rohit_rajan]

Hi Brian,

so which all suggetions did you give to PTC? I guess the only way to know is to ask you directly..

.

Thanks in Advance.

[JPenner]

I know the meeting is over. But here are few more enhancement suggestions.

1. double click in a window to activate it,

2. a larger window for "appearance" selection

3. allow the user to switch windows wihout having to close a sketch. ( so one can go maeasure another part while sketching a new part.)

[Patriot_1776]

Major props to my friend Brian for stepping up to the plate to do this. Bravo!

[BrianMartin]

Thanks Frank... now I just owe everyone a final wrap up to tell you how it went last week.

I actually made a large spreadsheet with everyone's enhancement requests. Although I wasn't able to get all of them in front of the developers, I was able to at least bring up about half of the ideas suggested here. There were literally 5 or so meetings for different topics going on at one time. I simply couldn't be everywhere at once so I tried to go where I could be most effective while hitting a good cross-section of the various topics.

I will write back again and attach the spreadsheet and a status on each item suggested. I'll need to get on this tomorrow. I'm getting clobbered by the instructor in my new Javascript class at the moment. For some reason she's decided to make her class unreasonably complex... almost like she's doing it to see who will wimp out and quit.

Anyway, I really did run as many of those suggestions up the flagpole as possible. Tomorrow I'll try to get the spreadsheet up. Anything that didn't make it will not be lost... we'll get it in front of the technical committees another way.

Thanks!

-Brian

[BrianMartin · Accepted solution]

I'm posting the wrap-up notes from the Technical Committee meetings as an attachment to this thread. I'm also going to write a blog post to tie things up. I'll also respond to each person individually (in the thread) so everyone understands the disposition of their requests.

Thanks!

-Brian

[JoshH]

Nice going Brian!

I'll be looking forward to that blog!

[BrianMartin]

My fingers are killing me from typing about 15 replies just now! I'll have to get on the blog later tonight or over the weekend! I also have a raft of Chemistry homework due by tomorrow!

In the meantime I attached the spreadsheet to this response, too.

Take care...

-Brian

[rohit_rajan]

you have taken lots and lots of efforts Brian...thanks a lot for that. You have done a great job.

[rohit_rajan]

i just remembered one more enhancement request which i was not able to mention before:

ability to fill/hatch wrapped sketches....our work sometimes is related to medial equipments..where we need wrapped sketches for "doses"....at present we have to manually fill the wrapped sketches in detailing after using the use edge option.

and the "use edge" option in detailing does not have "loop" or "chain" selection option as in sketcher mode.

so basically two enhancement request

thanx

[dwhitworth-2]

I know it's a little late for the conference, but I just signed up. I noticed when analysing a part or feature, namely when measuring angles between two surfaces, you can toggle between all the different angles that those two surfaces can make. The only problem with this is the curve or arc that represents that angle that shows up between the two strait lines of the angle icon is kind of arbitrary. Why does Creo not show the arc going from one surface to the next and moving around with the straight lines in line with the surfaces instead of some arbitrary direction? I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, I could get a screen shot later.

[rastheimer]

David,

Thanks for the feedback. I am the Product Manager who owns the measure tool. A screenshot would be helpful or if you stop by the Data Exchange kiosk at the conferece we could speak about your requests 1:1.

Rosemary

[BrianMartin]

Hi David...

I know this is kind of late... but I wholeheartedly agree with your enhancement request. The measure angle tool needs work. It doesn't make sense the way the angle is displayed. I will make absolutely certain this gets in front of the right people this weekend. I know it's almost a year since your original request but I have stored everyone's feedback. I use every chance I get to speak with PTC managers and developers to get these issues in front of them.

Thanks!

-Brian

[Kevin]

Hi Brian,

There was a discussion I had some time ago on here with someone about this which might useful. The arc isn't as arbitrary as one might think. The lines from the surfaces are surface normals and the angle being measured is the angle between the normals which is the angle between the surfaces. The arrow perpendicular to the arrows at the base control how the angle is measured according to RHR. This simpler when you consider that for direction arrows in line with the surface you'll need a way of specifying the orientation of the arrows which will change depending on the surfaces orientation to one another. With surface normals the orientation is set, it's always 90 degrees. I'll see if I can find the discussion and post the link and see if it might provide some background or ideas.

Posts: http://communities.ptc.com/message/151999#151999

[BrianMartin]

Hi Kevin...

I had already noticed the surface normals being used as the basis of the measurement. My problem is that the general user isn't concerned about that. When you're measuring from a plane to a plane, few people are interested in projecting a normal from those planes and measuring between them. We're interested in the plane-to-plane included angle. Instead you get some odd angle which usually requires some kind of mathematical calculation before you get the number you need. There's a drop-down box allowing you to change the measurement direction and normal directions but this occasionally still doesn't give you the number you need. It's pretty maddening.

The TC meeting for this topic went well and PTC seemed to understand user frustration with this issue. I would expect to see it addressed in a future release.

Thanks for the link, too!!

-Brian

[Kevin]

Glad to hear they are looking at this.

It's been my experince that if I stick with the RHR and looking at the normals you can get the angle you're interested in every time as long as you handle the Normals and direction arrows correctly. Think of it as if you were using a protractor to measure the angle between surfaces, one surface is the zero the the other is the angle your trying to measure. Now consider these as the arrows on the surfaces. Now rotate the arrows in the same direction, either up or down, 90 degrees. Looking at it this way you are now looking at the surface normals and to get the angle you're looking for you want to flip the direction of the normal of the second reference you have chosen. Looking at it this way I've gotten the correct angle all the time; just my experience anyway.

[BrianMartin]

Hi Kevin...

I know what you're saying... and I have always managed to get the angle I need. But many times the tools available do not give me the angle outright. I'm always having to do some sort of math calculation to get the right angle... which is ridiculous. I think I can gin up an example for PTC to look at in June. I think once they see the problem, it can easily be fixed. And like I said.... it doesn't always happen. Sometimes you can get the right angle on the first try.

Thanks...

- Brian

[BrkYrdSS]

Brian,

Not sure if this is too old of a post to submit this too, but I'll try anyway. Shelling and thickening can many times be the biggest headache in complex modeling, Creo has added some tools to work with this issue, but much more is desired. I'd like to see a usable "approximate offset" feature. CATIA has this feature, but the results can be very unexpected (usually not acceptable).

Many parts only really need one machinable side (i.e. thermoformed, blow-molded, rotational molded). Other times, one only needs a quick part for concept exploration. Many times, a part needs a little extra thickness for an SLA build. Thermoformed parts may only need the shell feature to show on a part drawing, but the shell side will never be machined. Why then, would we need to spend so much time building a two-side machine-able model.

It is usually very small (insignificant) surfaces that make a shell/thicken feature fail. GeoMagic (I believe to be a polygon modeler) has never had a problem thickening our ProE models to any thickness we desire. It seems that Creo's sub-division surface (Freestyle) surfaces also do not have a shelling/thickening issue. Given these observations, I propose one, or both of the following:

1) A shell/thicken option that would create a approximate offset, with the system determining how to patch small surface that typically might fail. Possibly add some user input such as: Ignore surfaces smaller than ___. This shell/thicken feature would still be machinable both sides.

or

2) A shell/thicken feature that basically creates a polygon mesh on the shell side. This would be helpful when a machinable shell is not required (i.e. thermoformed, blow-molded, rotational molded parts). You could still create part drawings, place in assemblies, export to SLA, etc.

If this capability was added, I believe Creo would have a huge advantage over other CAD systems. I know it would be a big hit in the packaging industry.

-Mark

[BrianMartin]

Hi Mark...

Your enhancement requests are captured. I think PTC may push customers toward using Freestyle because, as you noted, it can thicken almost anything. I'll see if there's any chance that type of robust thicken can be implemented in shell/thicken.

There's a great many meetings this week. I'll post an update letting you know if I got to bring the topic to their attention and what their reaction was. This will be included on the master spreadsheet of enhancements. Follow this link over to the latest Enhancements/Technical Committee Thread for Winter 2014. That's where I'll post the spreadsheet.

Thanks!

-Brian

[Patriot_1776]

Thanks for being Da MAN! Brian! It is appreciated my friend.

[BrianMartin]

Thanks Frank...

It's been a productive week. It's taking quite a long while to get some of these long-needed enhancements. But you definitely get the sense that PTC is listening and that they've been picking up chatter from the communities. So in case anyone doubts it... PTC developers and Product Line Managers are lurking around and picking up comments here and there.

I've updated the master spreadsheet of enhancement requests and suggestions. We've managed to get a pretty large number of them in front of the developers and product managers. I was also able to go back to suggestions from Summer and Winter of 2013 and either submit ones I missed or resubmit ones that didn't seem to go anywhere the first time.

As always, thanks for your support... I'll try to post my final results before I leave Boston in the morning.

Best regards,

-Brian