Model Color Based on Finish instead of Material

[kbeach-2]

Currently using Wildfire 4.0. Managing part colors for most components is relatively straightforward since colors can be applied to material files. For plastic parts, each color is a different physical material and therefore repsresented by a unique material file, and in our case, managed by family table instances.

However, is there a way to base the part color on finish rather than the material file?

Example: A machined part made of aluminum, then anodized with several different color options. Using the material file for aluminum will set the correct material properties (density, etc.), and list the correct material (name and part number) but will also set the part to a grey/silver color on all instances instead of showing the correct color representing each anodized finish for each instance.

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.

[DavidButz]

Kevin,

Don't think there's an easy way to do this automatically. However, if you don't have too many color variations, you could copy you aluminum material to several variations like aluminum-blue, aluminum-amber, etc., then change the colors in each variation. Don't know if that would be efficient for you or not.

David

[kbeach-2]

Thanks for the reply David - I didn't think there was an easy way, but had to ask. Your solution would work under other circumstances, but our material files are controlled with internal part numbers and descriptions and that info is passed through to the drawing automatically.

[rgonzalez]

Kevin,

If your generic has only a few features...

I had to model multi-colored light bulbs, an instance for each color. By copying the surface of the bulb and setting the color of the copied surface and putting each surface in the family table I was able to produce an instance with different colored bulbs. Be careful to only select the original surface when creating the colored surfaces so you don't create children. When you're finished set the color of the original surface to 100 percent transparent.

[BrianMartin]

Richard's method is the way we used to have to achieve the multi-color effect before material files had the option to control colors.

By making a surface copy of the colored region, recoloring the surfaces, and then toggling them off/on in the family table as Richard said, you might be able to skirt the material color issue.Perhaps set the copied surface to be 50 or 75% transparent using the color of anodizing you wish. This should allow you to see the grey/silver shown through a colored lens to achieve the anodized effect.

Let us know if this works... I'd be interested to know!

Thanks!

-Brian

[kbeach-2]

Richard and Brian,

Thanks for the input. We've been using the copied surface in the family table technique on some other part types for a while as well, but we have seen some issues with those surfaces maintaining color if/when features are added to the model. Since the introduction of color being controlled by material, it sparked interest in also having the ability to control color with a parameter or finish feature.

Thanks,
Kevin

[BrianMartin]

I'd love to see an enhancement to allow a new color (or a new "layer" of color) based on material finish.

What I'd really like is a new visualization/rendering/animation system within Creo. I can't recommend the Keyshot software enough for it's drag-and-drop simplicity. The appearances within this software are effortless to apply and modify. You can layer effects on top of each other.

Surely after all this time Creo should have the same type of easy to use professional visualization tools as other CAD packages. In 2002 Inventor had superior visualization... and we all know back then that software was in it's infancy.

It just seems to me that if third party vendors can pop up to solve these long-standing problems, then PTC can certainly do it, too. I'm not saying PTC should push out third party vendors... just that seeing what these vendors have been able to produce given the void left in the development of PTC's own products should be a wake up call.

In general, I wish PTC was more open allowing more third party development. I think we'd have much more robust tools. But since that's not really the way their business works, they're taking it upon themselves to develop the product and keep it up to date and current with the state of the art. Yet my opinion is that the current visualization/animation tools are really not competitive with other products on the market. It pains me to offer that criticism because I love PTC's software. But one needs only to work with software like Keyshot to realize just how abysmal the new Appearance Manager really is.

Sounds like yet another topic to bring up at the Technical Committees.