We are training using Precision LMS. What we are finding is that there are too many gaps in our training and we can't get where we need to be. Great pain is taken with trivial matters such as turning on or off datum planes, but matters that are extremely important are avoided or quickly glossed over with no explanations as to why something was done.
We are looking for:
1) A guide that will explain all the options
2) A guide that takes you through an advanced shape project from start to finish.
On top of not understanding how to do many things in Creo we aren't understanding the entire work flow.
I don't think there is an all encompassing guide I think you're going to find it split up. One of the biggest complaints I've heard is that it can be difficult if not impossible to understand why something was done. The modules, especially those after WF2, seem to now focus mostly on how things are accomplished and don't have much if any background on what's being done. I still use the modules although I find they can be un-engaging since they focus mainly on the how. As for workflow it depends on what you are referring to. Some things haven't changed or haven't changed much to changed alot. One of the biggest problems is finding where things are placed on the ribbon. You could work with PTC to create custom training materials but I don't know how much that would cost you.
You could work with PTC to create custom training materials but I don't know how much that would cost you.
Answer: A Lot.
It sounds like you need something truly "custom" for your designers. I'm sure there are a hundred companies out there who would love to develop a custom course and sell it to you for a "special price". One of the biggest problems learning Pro/E (and Creo) has always been understandg why you use a specific feature or technique when there are several possible methods. What makes one better than the rest? Or... is it really a toss up and the choice is up to you?
Once you start digging into these topics, the can of worms you're opening is huge. This is why there aren't any good classes to address the "why". PTC has launched Best Practive Academy in an attempt to answer some of the "why". It's a good start but so far, in my personal opinion, I'm disappointed in the Best Practice Academy content. I've said this before on Planet PTC... I love the concept but the execution needs refinement.
So I have a proposal... how about this: Let's get together offline/email and discuss the various places you and your team get "stuck" in Pro/E. We can discuss workflow issues, too. Let's examine your current processes and see where additional training could be beneficial. I'll develop some course materials and then, if you'd like, I'll use my training portal to actually train your people. We can do it online... and I'll do it for free.
I don't think anyone else can beat my price.
Why in the *(#)!(@$ would I want to do this for free? I am working on developing my own training. One day I'd like to market and sell this training for very mild cost but I want to make sure I'm putting out a superior product and that I can conduct online classes flawlessly and effectively. If I can't do the job better, faster, and cheaper than PTC or anyone else, I don't want to do it at all. Therefore, I need people to test drive the training. If the first couple of sessions suffer from "lag" due to a poor connection... or if it's tough to use the online training forum, I need to know before I suffer these issues with a paying customer.
If you and your people would serve as test subjects... and would agree to help work with me to perfect the online training forum, I'll develop the course materials and teach the classes for free. We can cover any module or process that interests you.
Give it some thought and let me know if you're interested. I was going to start by offering a Top-Down Design class which leads into Cabling, Piping, and Schematics work... but I'll be happy to switch it up to be able to work with real live people!
This is a very thoughtful offer.
I will e-mail you to determine whether this would be a good fit on both of our ends.
From your profile info I notice that you work in die design.
Now that Brian offers you a hand I am really curious how this is gonna turn out. I know tooling and Creo Parametric don't come together too well in terms of best approach especially if you don't have all the additional modules for it such as TDO and PDX. Which is my case.
Now I really wish this goal of Brian comes true one day and I am gonna spend whatever it takes to see the tutorials.
After using Creo Parametric in Tool Design for 7 months it's still hard for me to figure out
1) How to develop bullet-proof top-down design approach for a stamping die when you have to count with like anything possible. Let's just say as an example that the sheetmetal part would flip. How would that affect your workflow and how many design changes would you have to make if you developed the right approach?
2) What kind of features your skeleton model contain? The stuff you may change alot? Imagine a tool with more than two spring mechanisms and ejection plate. How on earth can you develop a bulletproof enough skeleton model for such design. Yet when before you start working on such project you have no idea that it will turn out as complex so your skeletons and subassemblies are never ready to take it. I am not talking about aditional sliders.
Btw I am not using top-down design approach in my work. I have every part related to every other part next to it in the assy. It's the situation where child of this parent is a parent of child which comes from this first said parent. You know. Mechanisms in my tools don't really behave as mechanisms (in Creo environment ofc) but maybe one day they will.
So I am really curious how this turns out. I can also offer a hand if needed.
I appreciate that you would be willing to help in getting off the ground with Die Design. It appears we are from different fields of die design. You work with stamping dies and we make forge dies.
I imagine there are similarities such as multiple progressive impressions.
We have the Mold Design package which appears to be built primarily for the Plastic Injection Molding industry. Hopefully there will be tools within this package that will help us accomplish what needs done. There are tools such as inheritance modeling and the assembly interface that should be useful.
Great, I don't make forging die designs in particular but I do make other different types of tools along with stamping dies such as injection molds, casting dies, etc. which by technology are sure different from forging but there sure might be some similarities especially in case of design approach using Creo.
I don't have Mold/Cast Desing licence and not even AAX licence but that could change in the future if I knew their right use. Right now I would say I am more productive with just tossing the features in Creo Parametric and making the design that way.
Ah... thanks Jakub! Developing custom training is something I really love to do. Check out the link to another thread below...
The original document and models are attached.
I really love being able to provide people with specific training to address a current need. In the referenced thread, a gentleman needed help getting started with top-down design on a motorcycle frame. This was a very specific need. I was able to help out with a very specific tutorial. Sometimes it's not possible to really communicate why to use a specific technique or procedure unless you understand the application. To me, the best training teaches people not only how to use all the functions within Creo, but what options are available for different design situations and how to choose the best one.
For my training, rather than sit in a classroom for 6-8 hrs a day for a week, we'll tackle the issues more like an online college course. Each week there will be 1-2 hours of lecture and demonstration as a web-based virtual meeting. Users can ask questions live and receive immediate answers. The meetings are recorded and made available later for students who couldn't attend. Lecture topics are reinforced with a bit of homework and reading. Each week's lesson builds upon the lessons of week's past. There are accompanying videos and demonstration exercises to insure each topic is fully covered. Finally, interactive quizzes check for understanding. If a student answers a question incorrectly, they have the option to review a video to correct the mistake. Everyone should finish the class with 100% of all questions answered correctly.
This is my vision for providing training...
The goal is to provide superior training at a price low enough that individual users can afford it. If your company won't pay to train you- train yourself to keep yourself marketable in an era where no job seems truly secure anymore.
Anyway, that's the idea.
I've had a chance to see that post it has some astonishing info. Thanks for the link and also for the input.
I'll have to finally read it as a whole tommorow.
It's great to see that your goal is not just a goal but you have also got it planned. So maybe one day there will be one more site similar to the one of Leo Green.
Leo is definitely an inspiration. He's not only knowledgeable but also seems to be a genuinely good guy. I wish we had more like him! Much of what I'm doing is patterned after his example.
Wow, I forgot all about pipes. Why do you suppose they buried that command in Creo? It doesn't even have an icon anymore.
I've always had sort of a love/hate relationship with the Pipe command in "standard" Pro/E or Creo. It's a handy tool for certain specific situations. There are a couple of things you can do with the standard pipe that you cannot do with the full-blown Piping package. So the command can be useful.
Yet there are also quite a few annoying idiosyncrasies to the pipe command. The biggest pain in the neck is hiding the centerline. There's a drawing option to toggle along with some oddball layering work just to get that big ugly center line to go away. I say "oddball" because it's not obvious how to hide the line. You have to know to add the entire pipe feature to a layer and blank it- which actually does not blank the pipe but does have the desireable side effect of blanking the centerline.
This is one long standing problem with Pro/E and Creo in general... it doesn't always make sense. The pipe command is just one example but many, many other examples abound. But why aren't these issues caught and corrected?? Perhaps because no one brings them up.
When I was at the Technical Committee meeting at Planet PTC Live, I raised several confusing, idiosyncratic Pro/E functions to the PTC Product Line Managers and software developers. More than once I'd explain a strange behavior that's existed for years and they would doubt what I was saying.
Now I get it... if you're a PTC Product Line Manager or a lead developer, you're already assuming you're the most experienced dude in the room when it comes to your own software product. When some random guy from the audience chimes in telling you your product behaves strangely, your first reaction is naturally to assume the audience member is doing someting wrong. Maybe he's been mis-trained. Maybe he just doesn't understand the nuanced beauty and complexity of the software. Or, maybe he's just a moron. Either way, the last thing on your mind is "Hey, that guy might have a point!"
After experiencing my first committee meetings, I can say it's no wonder we still have strange software idiosyncrasies after all these years.
I realize that's only tangentially related to what you were saying Antonius. Sometimes I just meander off topic I suppose!
I have a lot of projects that need wires strung through the assembly. I have to string wires through specific paths where they don't interfere with each other or walls. I also have to run insulation in one feature and the copper in the other. All this is for detailing purposes but it needs to be shown relatively accurately in drawings. It is not something that warrant a complete harnessing extension, but the capability is something I expect in a package at the pricepoint of Creo.
Tubes... rather, Pipes is one way to get there although still a bit criptic. They do not follow paths as they don't follow intersected sketches. Tangency can only be controlled at endpoints (much like splines).
The 3D datum splines where you cannot control the contours in the base package is really troubling. I actually had to use Solid Works to complete one project in time due to its simplicity and power to run wires. Something -any- base package should be able to do with little effort.
Good to know about the "spine" of the pipe. I will have to play with this some. I remember an "environment" setting for this. Of course, we no longer have the "environment" dialog which was actually useful through 2001 and WF.
Needless to say, I dread having to run wires through "mazes" (vacuum tech) in Creo.
I have replied to your above training suggestion through e-mail on your profile page.
I've discussed where we are at in our learning stage and what would be helpful to us.
My basic contact information also is included.
I replied back directly to the email addresses in your email. Hope to hear from you soon!
Thank you Brian!
I'll check in Monday when I access my e-mail at work.
I appreciate your help.