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

Community Tip - New to the community? Learn how to post a question and get help from PTC and industry experts! X

NC turn profiles? which update better (creo 2.0)

ptc-3468097
1-Newbie

NC turn profiles? which update better (creo 2.0)

Which of the methods for making turn profiles updates best when you replace models. I have tried several and there seems to be no good way to have things update consistantly. We machine a lot of the same features just scaled to differant size. Sometimes it will update, most of the time it wont. I have even made sure the model coming in is clean and built using the same features as the replaced file. ?? Any ideas?

We use a stock model and a part model. We then create full turn profiles (basically cross sections) of both. Then drive turn profiles from the sketch feature and the project feature. Thanks


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.
5 REPLIES 5

The problem is about internal system ID's (for the geometry) not the features being built the same.

The update you are looking for is possible in only 2 ways that I am aware of:

1. Family table (ideal method and most robust)

2. The "replace part" basically has all the same features and ONLY the size of these features is changed. AND said replace / copy part was created by COPY from the part being replaced. Under this case I would expect the internal ID's for the features and geometry to be the same. Thus, an update should be possible.

If the geometry changes in ways that affect the IDs of the geometry then, a "hands off" copy will not be possible. Or if the replace part is not a copy of the part being replaced. In those cases the ID's the system is looking for are not the same and it is not going to update automatically.

The best solution for dealing with replacment when the inbound part is not from a family table is to use the REF TABLE functionality while replacing the part. This will allow you to map the refs from the "old" model to the new model. The time required and amount of mapping will be directly related to the number of changed ID's across the models for the geometry and features.

Be sure to use the evaluate function when working with the REF TABLE to have the system find what it can. This will save the user from possibly having to map everything.

Just because the part is the same from the appearance of topology, does not mean all the interal ID's used to define the geometry are the same. The same size and position hole created in two different models will have different internal geometry ID's for the holes. UNLESS one part is a copy of the other.

Getting this stuff on a family table will get you the results you are looking for.

Best regards,

Sean

Sean,

We have a master model project underway that I believe will keep the id's the same. Or as close as we can get. Right now we have a bunch of modelers and they all do their own thing. The project should fix that, each feature will have a name, id. I'm thinking this is where we will have the ability to fully update.. hopefully plug and play then.

Hi Doug

I am using Creo 1 , we had been using all previous versions as we have been using Pro E since 1997 for our system. All we do is turning.

My predecessor used Sketch for everything, which is 5 times more work and more unreliable.

I am in the middle of converting our methods to suit the new machining interface within Creo and changing everything to turn envolope.

We basicly use a mix of sketch and turn envolope at the moment.

we also like sean has covered above use a mix of family tables to control generation of parts and merged models if we need to add machining features to parts, using merged ref part allows adding features without altering the design controlled in a family table.

I have found that Turn envolope is more reliable when replacing parts as most profiles reattach without problems, it is only when there is added features to the model that it has trouble reattaching.

I strongly advise against using Sketch...Sketch has bitting us so many times causing machine crashes and scrap product that I am on a crusade to purge it from our system, it is unreliable... the problem is the material removal arrow, on anything pre Wildfire 3, the arrow was used to indicate what to keep, not what to remove. we have found, the material removal arrow also like to flip by itself when you regenerate the model, without warning, it is so inconsistant in its behaviour.

we have also experienced since Creo profile that don't fail but regenerate incorrectly, eg boss faces machining tapered due to the way it was constructed and referenced picking up the wrong end of radius etc.

it is also more work, turning envolope is much easy and quicker and using the new reference collector box on profile cut, we can fully control and duplicate all our movements methods.

I will add a reply highlighting how below

Peter

HOW TO USE TURN ENVOLOPE AND END POINT COLLECTOR WITHIN PROFILE CUT

while sketch allowed the freedom to create any type of profile, turn envolope only allows us to pick to points on the model, while you can edit the shape by right clicking on the profile and use line connect, it is difficult stop a profile on a mid point of an arc ( which we do a lot ), or stop before shoulders due to the tool is too big.

What we are doing is add a datum plane to where we want to stop the profile, then select that datum as the end point reference.

See image below

stop+datum.JPG

Using this method, we can duplicate every profile that was done in Sketch.

Peter

Thanks guys..

We used sketch for everything.. Found out recently that turn envolope it way faster.. much less clicking. However it held us up on exactly what your talking about, having little control and just end points. We were draging the tool motion but this does not update to the next part, could be anywhere..

I didn't even think of the end point thing like your saying.. Knew it was there but never really know why or how to apply it..lol.

Will try it today.. Thanks Peter..

Any other tips and tricks..much appreicated..

Top Tags