Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X

January 2015 TC Meetings: Enhancement Requests for Creo


January 2015 TC Meetings: Enhancement Requests for Creo

Hi Everyone...



It's that time again! Each January, PTC/User holds it's bi-annual "face to face" Technical Committee ("TC") meetings. These meetings are held twice a year with the Winter Session being held next week at PTC Headquarters in Needham, MA.These meetings are mostly attended by representatives of large, influencial customers who pay to send their personnel directly to PTC for meetings with Product Line Managers, software developers, and technical staff.


Every 6 months or so I (foolishly) try to gather enhancement requests, issues, and problems from Community members who cannot attend the TC meetings. Obviously I work for one of those large, influencial customers so I will be in attendance to represent their interests. Still, I believe there's tremendous value in the contributions of PTC Community members who do not work for companies with the means to lobby PTC directly for enhancements.


In order to track submissions by Community members, I've previously posted an exhaustive spreadsheet of requests and issues complete with a "disposition" for each. I've reposted that spreadsheet here for reference. For this next set of meetings, I think it's necessary to clear the docket a bit. Many of the requested enhancements have either been added to Creo 3.0, slated for implementation in Creo 4.0, rejected outright, or "overcome by events" meaning they're not as relevant as they once were. Continuing to manage and update such a massive spreadsheet with stale data is a tremendous chore. I think the best way to move forward is to go back to the start and gather requests anew.



So then... if you have requests or nagging problems with Creo 2.0 or 3.0 now is the time to speak up.


Please know that topics like the User Interface (ribbon) and annoyances with the color schemes are perennial complaints which are often discussed... but rarely changed based on TC input. The most useful enhancement requests are very specific. Vague requests like "fix the measurement tool" or "improve the interface" are not as easy to fight for as a more focused request. Here are some tips:

  • Errors or problems should be described well. Please try to completely describe your request or issue clearly and concisely (if possible).
  • Screenshots and pictures are tremendously helpful even if they're just mock-ups of some new feature you'd like to see. I realize it takes time to put these together but this makes your issue stand out and helps communicate your request to others.
  • Use Cases are very helpful. "Use case" is a term we use to describe a particular work scenario that requires attention or demonstrates the need for a particular enhancement. For example, this is an example of a "use case" (this is a real request I've submitted):
    • "I have an irregular surface - such as an elliptical tank. I'd like to drop a coordinate system offset from the irregular surface such that one axis of the coordinate system is always normal to the placement surface but offset at some height above the surface. Currently the only way I can do this is to add a point on the irregular surface offset by the appropriate amount, then add a coordinate system on the point. It's possible to drop a point on a surface offset by a specific height and it's possible to drop a coordinate system on a surface with the normal automatically adjusting to the surface but it's not possible to create a coodinate system with an offset and the automatic normal. See slides below (click for larger images)...Slide1.PNGSlide2.PNG




A picture is definitely worth a thousand words in this instance. The better you can describe your issue, the easier it is for me to bring it to the attention of the PTC developers and Product Line Managers.


As always, our goal is to make positive contributions so that we may influence future releases of the software. Reasonable requests supported by sound logic and a true business need have the best chance of being well received. These are professional meetings held at the pleasure of PTC and it's employees. I'm an invited guest at this event and I'm also representing my employer so I need to remain professional. While I'll do my best to make a case for incorporating your enhancements, please remember that I probably can't get to every request. Numerous meetings occur simultaneously and it's tough to hop around between rooms.


Add your comments, requests, pain points, and feedback to this thread. I'll do my best to get it in front of the developers. I'll catalog the requests and post a synopsis and a final report after the meetings.


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





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
  • Sheet Metal
  • Detailing
  • Creo NC / Manufacturing
  • Creo View / Visualization
  • Windchill


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


Thanks everyone!


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.

Dear Brian,

Thanks for the info, ould you help me to find tutorial or training material on Model based definition in Creo



Hi Gouda...

There's not much in the way of a tutorial for Model Based Definition. It's more a series of commands available in Creo that allow you to perform such definition. I also don't know of any tutorial for such a thing. Although, now that you've asked, I bet I could write a pretty nice document and distribute it for the community.

There are many aspects to consider for Model Based Definition. This isn't an easy topic to delve into especially in a discussion thread. Can you tell us more about what you're trying to do? For example, if you just want notes and dimensions to appear in your models, that's not so hard. If you're trying to do a complete digital definition ("paperless") then that's another story.



I think it is time to implement 3D machining results in defining 3D cam operations or gears.

I don't want this buried in the manufacturing extension either but it does belong there too.

Modeling a globoidal cam

It shouldn't require a study to show that this can be done "adequately". With rapid prototyping on the rise, we should be able to easily mimic machine tooling operations.

The beginnings of this are already there. The envelope can be united with the trace curve and can be united with surfacing features. At minimum, the operation should be able to generate a smooth envelope surface with edges rather than unusable facet geometry.

I would agree the technology has advanced to the point that this should be possible.

It seems to me that this would not be an area where PTC would want to spend the development dollars. I could see a third party jumping in to fill this need with a plugin that piggy-backs off Creo functionality. This is sort of the way AFX, SmartWeld, and the new Harness Flattening modules work.

I think it's about time we have this tool... but I think it won't benefit enough people that PTC will see it as a huge market for them. They seem to be spending their development dollars creating new tools they can sell. Even though this would be a good feature, I don't think there's much of a market for it.

I'll add it to the list - I'm just trying to be pragmatic about the likelihood PTC will address this issue any time soon. Maybe they'll pleasantly surprise us!



Hi Brian, i hope you are well. One thing that has been on my wish list for years, to be able to simulate what a milling cutter does, i.e. to produce a swept cut with rounded ends. At the moment you have add revolved ends, extra features, more time, a big pain. Different cutter types would be great, standard end mill, ball nose, vee nose etc.

If i got this, (finally) i would be as happy as a proverbial pig in mud.

Just to reiterate something already said, dimensioning in Creo 3 sucks.



Hi John...

I wrote back to Antonius about this, too. This feature won't be here in Creo 4.0... and personally I also don't think it will make 5.0. But PTC is aware of this swept solid feature and they have been trying to figure out ways to incorporate it. The best I can say is that they understand what is needed... and why... but this is not yet on the radar for development.

Sorry for the disappointing news... we'll try again in the Summer at the TC meetings in Nashville.

Thank you!!


It would be better to describe it as a swept solid, an advancement over a swept profile, that is useful for motion studies. I think there is already a form of this in the motion envelope, but it isn't available as a feature in a part.




Ref (my favorite so far)

To make the problem more interesting, add the ability to modify the solid geometry (either a single solid part or an assembly) by using trajpar as an input to relations controlling the solid, in a way similar to the way trajpar can be used to modify the 2D section as it moves along the trajectory.


It seems like the same code that would have to be implemented for creating smooth 3D sweeps rather than facets would be useable for a better gouge checking. Maybe we could use that to add a little weight to the request? Nothing quite like being able to see the toolpath will gouge when you look close at the displayed path, but it not being flagged by the gouge checker because it is between steps (which appear to scale on longer toolpaths).


Excellent feedback on this one... Creo 3.0 already offers some relief for this suggestion. Creo 4.0 NC will be even better.

If you go to the View drop down while playing a path in Creo NC, you can choose "Collision Checking" (which is different than the old gouge checker). Set the playback speed to SLOW to insure the most accurate checking (I'll explain why you should set this to SLOW later). This will provide you with accurate collision detection.

Right now the collision detection is not turned on by default. You must turn it ON under the Play Path tool (view drop down menu). Once turned on, the amount of checking done is dependent upon the playback speed. If playback is set to FAST, many intermediate simulation points are ignored thus providing a rather inaccurate check. By selecting SLOW, all simulation points are considered and an accurate check is provided.

At Creo NC 4.0, there's an enhancement to change this tool to be accurate independent of the playback speed.

Hi Tom...

I'm still trying to understand this suggestion. There's such a small window of opportunity to get this in front of the Creo NC product manager that I don't want to miss the opportunity. I realize you need this OUTSIDE of Creo NC but at least I'm trying to see if I can get an up or down vote on whether we can get it in the manufacturing tool.

Of course if would help if I truly understood this... I clearly haven't put in the necesary time to completely learn what this suggestion is about.

This is a duplicate from the other thread...

Have a look at these videos... it is a pretty simple thing to wrap your head around...

Video Link : 5595

And this thread...

Timing Screw

Hope that helps...

...need to find the video to show that SolidWorks does this already

Hi Tom...

I re-read and went through your thread (and the other discussion) about this feature. I approached this from the modeling perspective AND from the manufacturing (Creo NC) side of the house. Basically... we're not getting this in Creo 4.0... and it's not likely in Creo 5.0 (at least not right now).

This feature has been the focus on much planning and scheming for many years. PTC is working on another "big ticket" item for Creo 4.0 and 5.0 and I think this would be another big ticket. As much as I pushed, I just don't see this making it into the next release of Creo. In fact, I can say emphatically, it won't be there... but maybe when we open the design space for Creo 5.0 there will be another opportunity to advocate for it's inclusion in the software.



Thanks you very much for bringing it up, Brian.

I don't know how PTC can defend their position to large manufacturing extension users, but okay.

At least we know what not to expect in the near or even distant future.

(ref: solid sweep)

This capability has been investigated in detail by individual doctoral students.

This is one of of those "if you build it..." arguments.

Solidworks already built it.

Just today I had a potential client try to convince me to invest in Solidworks.

23-Emerald IV

While we really need this capability, Brian's "big ticket" comment scares me. "Big ticket" items don't just get added to the software, they require an additional purchase to "upgrade" to the new capability. I don't want to start a debate about whether or not ongoing maintenance customers should automatically receive the new capabilities in exchange for remaining on maintenance, but I would be very disappointed if PTC built this functionality and then decided to charge extra for it. (Think manikin, flexible modeling, design exploration, etc.) We're already getting pressure internally and externally to move to Solidworks. PTC's unwillingness to add support for this when Solidworks already has it isn't helping the fight. We really struggle today to produce cams that reflect the actual machined condition. At some point we are going to need to get these right. If PTC can't (or won't) provide this capability we may very well be forced to go elsewhere.


Very well said, Tom.

I think you just summed up the decades of frustration in the minds of smaller or former PTC customer.

Detailing is not on your list, Brian, but we have two shortcomings:

1) Explode extension lines do not perform hidden line removal for the extension lines. The hidden view display algorithm needs to be performed for shaded view explode. This appears to be a simple specification oversight.

2) It is high time shaded section views capabilities are added as an enhancement.

I use the detailing package for presentation level documents. These are the top two limitations I find that cost me significant effort to secure a reliable work-around, both of which require view duplication and accurate overlays of two views.

Hi Tom...

Detailing is actually on my list (between Sheetmetal and Creo NC above). I usually spend significant time in the detailing meetings because I think this is where Creo needs the most help.

I'll add both suggestions to the spreadsheet. I agree with your assessment that these should be relatively easy fixes or enhancements to achieve.



It's good to hear that you'll spend a lot of time on detailing. I've long felt that if PTC had spent the some of the resources dedicated to eliminating drawings to streamlining their creation we'd all be better off.

Doug Schaefer | Experienced Mechanical Design Engineer

Hi Tom...

The extension lines (for exploded views) is apparently a known issue. PTC is aware of the problem but fixing it is not as simple as we'd hoped. There are some underlying issues and PTC is struggling with how to resolve them so they can eliminate this problem. For now, the best information is that the extension line issue is known, they understanding why the problem is happening, and they are taking steps which should allow them to fix it. The PTC people I spoke with were not able to firmly commit that this would be fixed in Creo 4.0 but it is a priority and they are trying to get this problem fixed.

As for the shaded cross section... indications from PTC Product Line Managers were that this should be fairly easy to achieve. While I need to speak with the Detailing Technical Committee Lead and the PTC Product Line Manager for Detailing before I can get a firm answer, so far signs are that this feature wouldn't be a big issue to add.

Thanks.. I'll try to post a more complete and comprehensive account of where all of your suggestions stand at the end of the TC meetings tomorrow evening.

Take care...


Maybe I can help them since I already have a steady Pro|WorkAround^tm for this.

It really is as simple as adding a layer (not layer as in layers, but layer as in code).

Maybe they just haven't thought out of the box on this yet.

Let me know if I need to talk with someone.

(ref: hiding extension lines in exploded views)

23-Emerald IV

It shouldn't take two hands (mouse and keyboard) to create a dimension (Creo 3). Having to hold down CTRL before selecting a second reference doesn't accomplish anything since a middle mouse button is still required to place a dimension.

See full discussion here:


imagine my happiness when they added the option to show where were the references before the feature failed in Creo 3.0....

and the when i went to detailing...and i had to use the Ctrl+left click +mmb to place just one dimension.......i mean what where they thinking....

please change it back to the way it was uptil Creo 2.0...

I agree Tom...

Whomever developed this whole "hold down the CTRL key" concept needs to be held accountable. Who thought this was a good idea? I didn't like it when it first surfaces in modeling... then I hated it more in the measurement tool... and now I hate it even further in dimensioning.

On the one hand we're always pleading for consistency across the entire tool. So yes, it's much more consistent to always have to use the CTRL key to pick multiple references. However, it's also inconvenient and inefficient. So now the tool is at least consistently inconvenience and inefficient. Somehow that doesn't seem to be the kind of "win" we were hoping for.

I understand the "object - action" paradigm was supposed to really change the way we work... but it actually hasn't. I teach object-action all the time as a way to speed up model geometry creation. You can save a few picks implementing this technique... but you really lose that momentum playing Twister with your fingers as you seek out the ALT key, CTRL key, SHIFT key, etc.

I'd bet people would far prefer things the way they used to work. I'd advocate for getting away from all the extra keyboard work and moving back to providing the ability to do all picks with the mouse. Who can remember all the correct circumstances when the ALT, CTRL, or SHIFT keys provide value? The answer: almost no one.

Personally, I always practice using every arcane shortcut and command in an attempt to become ever more proficient and fluent with the software. But most people don't bother with this. Surely casual users won't take the time to learn such things. So then, if you're interested in making the software easier to use, shouldn't we make it more intuitive and less reliant upon weird keyboard combinations to function?

23-Emerald IV


Here is a similar issue - adjusting leader lines. SHIFT has to be used now to adjust leader length. Never did before. Why make it harder? It's like they decided to turn of the location sensitive properties of the arrow for this one function but not others (like edit attachment, change leader style, and two-way drag of the radial portion of the leader line.)

Wildfire 5 (Creo/Elements Pro 5)

Select the dimension. Move mouse over leader. The cursor will automatically change to a two-way move arrow. Click and drag the leader to the desired length. (My wording. Can't find this anywhere in the documentation.)

Creo 3

When you select the dimension with the cursor over the dimension text, the cursor changes to a four-way move arrow. If you hold down the SHIFT key when you drag the dimension, the cursor changes to a two-way move arrow with a constrained movement of the dimension text along the leader elbow. This way you can drag the dimension to increase or decrease the length of the leader elbow, or flip the dimension text to the opposite side of the leader. (Creo Parametric Help)

Let me know if you want two videos showing the difference.

Hi Brian,

Hope you doing good and happy...

1. the selection box of view in detailing should be just slightly larger that the part or assembly instead

interfering with other views.

2. ability to edit the drawing format from within the drawing file, at present we have to open the format file separately to edit.

3. ability to open drawing from part or assembly file, at present only opposite is possible.

4. when one view is place as "no hidden" the other views should follow the same, at present every view has to be individually converted to "no hidden" from "shaded."

5. if i add a sheet to already existing drawing and place drawing views of a totally new part in the newly added sheet ..the "&model_name" option still shows the name of the original part should show the name of the current part in that particular sheet.

6. re-submitting this one " to show mass properties in different units, without changing the parent units"

imagine a customer asking me to show weight in grams,and i change the parent unit and then features in part embarrassing...and solidworks does this with a click.

7. ability to "save as pdf",jpeg etc....of the section view from the separate present we can only see the section view in separate window in creo 2.0

8. the drag handle of section arrow disappears when zooming in, so it cannot be dragged when zooming in.

more to follow...

Some of these are already possible:

4 - Go to your drawing properties and set the option"model_display_for_new_views" to no_hidden. All new views with then be no hidden.

6 - Research using unit sensitive relations and assigning units to parameters. You can set parameters to alternate units and have Creo do the conversion for you. So, if your mass unit is lbs and you want to report grams, create a mass_g parameter, set its units to "grams", make a relation to set it equal to the built in mass and set your relations to "units sensitive"

Doug Schaefer | Experienced Mechanical Design Engineer

Thanks Doug... I was going to mention the issue with units but I figured I'd explain it in further detail when I wrote back to Rohit's original message with a longer post.

Top Tags