External threads.

[CBenner]

Am I missing the obvious, or is a cosmetic the only way of applying external threads... short of actually modeling the thread form? If so... this needs a LOT of work. How the heck do you put on a cosmetic of external NPT threads?
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.

[DELETEME]

You can revolve a conical surface and add the typical parameters that a thread will creat if desired. Yes, it would be nice if the cosmetic thread command would do a tapered thread, but no. I would not bother to model any thread unless it was absolutely needed, as in if the model was for a plastic part and the threads needed to be burned into the mold or core.

[CBenner]

Here is what I'd like to see from PTC for cosmetic threads. Internal or extrernal. I could care less what kind of note is attached, or even if there is one. I simply want to be able to easily apply threads and have them show up in a drw. as a simplified thread form. Not too much to ask. To apply these, you just pick the surface and select the thread form from a menu. No typing the parameters in a Pro-Table (ugh). This is from Inventor.

[DELETEME]

Well, that'd be nice, but there's a lot of far more functional enhancements and bug-fixes I'd rather see first. You CAN assign a texture to surfaces if you like, and probably make up a texture to add what you want to see. Hell, if I remember correctly any of the texture maps are simply image files (JPEG's, TIF's, etc.) anyways, so you might even be able to import them.

[CBenner]

This is more than mere texture. I dpn't really care if you can see them or not. I just like to function of the tool. Click the thread tool, select a surface and the threads are there. You specify coarse vs. fine etc... but that's all there is to it. Just pick a surface. it reads the diameter and makes assumptions of what you want... then you tweak it with a dialog box. Just a dream... and yes there are TONS of other things that I'd probably put in front of this wish... this is just the one that was bugging me yesterday.

[eric.mills]

These threads or shall I say helical sweeps are CPU/graphics killers. Yes it would be nice to see the threads and maybe someday PTC can find a feature that would let the eye see the threads, but be kind to the processor. Download some of the McMaster-carr models (Solidworks) and see what those fasteners do on your screen once you add more than a couple.

[DavidButz]

Pro could give us an easier interface for applying threads, but Eric is right about the sticky issue; if you have more than a few "real" threads in a model it places very heavy demands on the graphics engine, especially when spin-pan-zooming. Two compromises I have tried (but seldom use) are (1) a pattern of revolved "V" cuts, and (2) a spiral Datum Curve. David

[CBenner]

I'm not asking for "real" threads. Inventor's threads have the data of a real thread... apply in an instant, but are visually no more than a texture. Thus you get what you need for a drawing, but nothing to slow you down graphically in the model. I'd just like to see PTC improve the method for placing a cosmetic. I don't even care what it looks like in the model. Can open,... worms everywhere!

[nkriel-2]

Agree with Chris. Most of my users battle with the concept of cosmetics for threads, especially when using the pro/table option. For the older guys, ex 2000i2 it all seems "natural" for a better word. New users struggle. The stability, overall functionality and flexibility of Pro/E is way ahead of everything on the market, but the user interface and number of picks required to generate things that are easily done in other packages is always brought up. We run in a company with 14 Pro seats in one department, and 20 Inventor seats in two other departments. It is a constant battle with managers (non modellers) between justifying why we stick with ProE. Chris has quite rightly pointed out a definite improvement step required with our plentiful (seemingly wasted) maintenance money.

[CBenner]

Thank you Nigel. Though I'm not sure I agree with the stability comment. Let me first state... we will not return to Inventor. No way will it handle the size of the designs we are getting in to, nor does it have a good piping module, which is 99% of what we do. But as for stability, this is the first program I've ever worked with that, when it does not like what you are doing, simply shuts down with no warning. Couple that with the lack of "undo/redo" function, (sorry for re-opening THAT can of worms!), and there is some definite frustration. Overall I like Pro better than I ever liked Inventor, don't get me wrong. But I do need to vent once in a while, and I do it here because I figure some of you can probably relate.