Is there any company in the world that uses the welding module?

[RobertH]

As the weld module is terrible programmed by PTC (it is slightly improved in Creo 4.0) we have several problems with this module. As it seems that PTC has no priority in improving this module I am interested in if there actually are companies using it. Maybe we can share some findings and give feedback together to PTC hoping it makes more impact.

[DavidBigelow]

Yes - I know quite a few companies that use this... have not really heard ANY complaints about the module.

We also rely on it for cost estimation for manufacturing costs (computing labor and material costs for assemblies) - we Nitro-CELL to extract much of the data needed automatically and merge that with company cost tables in Excel.

The Welding Module is pretty slick once you get things figured out.  But throw your ideas in the ideas section and you might get some traction.

Dave

[RobertH]

There are several things that make using it quite annoying. And yes I think after 12,5 years I know how it works.

Some of the things:

1. It's not possible to flip weld annotations in 3D, only in 2D. So when using MDB it looks ugly (PTC case)
2. The tail of the annotation stays on even if you turn off the sequence ID and the note (PTC case).
3. Creating a sold weld is nice because you can use it in Simulate. But when you create welds in a way you also get weld annotations that can be used you ran into the problem that the welds interferere in the corners and therefore simulate can't mesh.
4. Creating a double weld with unequal lengths gives an incorrect weld length in the annotation. Because it simply sums up the weld length and divide by 2. So a weld which has a length of 50 on one side and 40 on the other gives a weld annotation stating that the weld length is 45 on both sides.(PTC case).
5. It's not easy to adjust the number of decimal places. Probably something you didn't notice when using ANSI or live in the US but quite annoying when there is 30.000 stated where it could be just 30 (and it also should actually be 30,000 but that's another discussion). To change this by default you have to actually change the weld annotation. And if you have ever tried that you know how hard that is (I've done it) and how much work it is. There is a config.pro opting called weld_dec_places but I cannot find what this setting does.
6. Updating weld standards is almost impossible.
7. Default weld settings are not stored
8. Using a centralized place for your customized weld annotations is not possible.
9. Adaptive weld annotations should be nice so you doesn't have a weld annotation that has a line that is WAY to long for the text that it uses.

These are some of the things but I have more of this.

[DavidBigelow]

I love these practical breakdowns of issues like this...  Our own products get better from this kind of feedback.

I agree some of them are quite valid. -- Nicely done!

Dave

[RobertH]

"Our own products" what products do you mean?

[DavidBigelow]

Meaning - products we develop as commercial add-on's to PTC's Creo Parametric.

• Nitro-BOM - Excel-Based Creo BOM Automation 
• Nitro-CELL - Excel-Based Creo Automation
• Nitro-PROGRAM - Graphical Pro/PROGRAM Editor

OR -- CREOSON - Open Source Automation that we develop for Creo Parametric.

Raw feedback drives much of what we do... "hey this _____..." or "why the heck?!?".

Sometimes you are leading the customer, other times they are leading you.

Dave

[RobertH]

I think this is a bit of why I asked the question. I have a suspect that the companies that are using the weld module within Creo are not using the "naked" module but using third party software to solve the shortcomings. Because I can't imagine that a big company simply accept these shortcomings in their production.

This is a bit how PTC works I think, they are buying or creating a module, people are going to use it but shortcomings are solved by a third party. If the third party does the job right and the demand/usage of the module is high enough PTC implement it in their software. But in the mean time I as an engineer have to deal with the shortcomings or need to search for a good third party...

[DavidBigelow]

I disagree with the "shortcomings" statement as a kind of business model.... and we are a Partner with PTC BTW...

I think they honestly are doing their best to address a wide variety of demands/pressures for new and existing functionality - and do it as generically as possible.  It is a very dynamic industry.

Our products are a fraction of the scale of change they are dealing with and we are always trying to fix things that do not seem to work as well as they should or scrap/rewrite our own functionality - taking a huge risk that we upset existing customers in the process.   We are implementing a TON of functionality currently, changing how some things are done/look/feel ...  so I can relate the decision process and priority they are likely making in their own products.  

I have always assumed, and felt, that if something is not 100% in Creo - eventually it gets better...  Creo is not what it was years ago - it is way more stable and better in so many ways.

If one person is really frustrated with something... how many others are not talking about it.  This has been a hard lesson for us - and we have been surprised when some existing (close) customers come out of the shadows after we make a change to thank us for solving a pain they had we did not even realize they were struggling with.  #facepalm

But connecting feedback to the right person is always a good thing - try to find that person at PTC and you will be one step closer.

Dave

[RobertH]

"If one person is really frustrated with something... how many others are not talking about it.  This has been a hard lesson for us - and we have been surprised when some existing (close) customers come out of the shadows after we make a change to thank us for solving a pain they had we did not even realize they were struggling with.  #facepalm "

This is the result as you are not listening, then people stop talking to you. You are right this is improving, I also notice this. But "hoping that it eventually gets better" is something that relies on thrust. And this is something they lost from my side and needs to be "re-earned". To much I got the answers like "works as intended" and "no plans to fix" and "this is the workaround"...

"But connecting feedback to the right person is always a good thing - try to find that person at PTC and you will be one step closer."

This might be the problem from my side. I complained about this more than once but that didn't help. I have no influence on who's answering my call and the only persons I get in contact with seems to has closing the call as the main task.

But back to the welding module, in the 12,5 years I work with this there is very very less changed or improved. The above points are in since Wildfire ages, this seems to support my point that PTC is not driven to improve this module for some reason and does not help in "re-earning" the trust that it eventually gets better. That's why I was interested if it is even used.

[mhlavac]

Re point 5.

Today we solved the number of decimal places for the length of the fillet weld.

The solution is possible by editing the symbol file in the system directory, eg ...\weldsymlib\iso_weld\iso_fillet.sym.

Specifically, edit the values for the variable texts length_AS and length_OS. Insert the line &weld_length:weld[.0] or &length:weld[.0] before the default value, and then you must change Floating point to Text. WELD_LENGTH and LENGTH are parameters inside the weld feature.

Save the file back to the original directory.

[Patriot_1776]

I'm not an expert in it by any stretch, but I played around a little and was ok with it.  I remember having some issues with the mass of the weld not showing up correctly in exploded views, it was like impossible to turn it off so the welds hung out in space.  I even tried using a simplified rep with the weld suppressed and it didn't work.  But, as I said, I'm not an expert and only used it that one time, perhaps I missed a trick.

[RobertH]

That's also an issue indeed. As far as I know the only workaround that improves it a bit is by hiding the welds...

[RobertH]

Indeed a know issue. I solve it by

• Create assembly steps by setting up a group for each step with the correct parts and welds belonging to it, give the step a name that starts with "STEP_01.."
• Creating layer states that filter groups by searching for the name of the group.
• Then using combined state to show and hide the layer filters.

But this is still a workaround of course.