Projection View Area Size Issues!

[USER_09]

I make big machines like Booms for heavy equipment.  We use reference curves to plot relevant coordinates while drawing piece parts.  The reference curves could be quite large.  For example the boom could be 200 feet long in total, but I'm modeling something that is 6" X 6".  When I go to draw the part, the whole curve area is represented, even though the curve is hidden  in a layer, and I only use it as reference.  It makes projection views very difficult because sliding left, right, up, down, for the next view creates the huge outline from the curve and makes me zoom out like 400X just to get the view to drop in the drawing.  My question is.  Does anyone know how to get rid of the curve reference so that my projection view only has a small margin around the view instead of 400X area?

** just upgraded to Creo 9,

[KenFarley]

I used to have this kind of problem, where I was forced to make partial views for models made in this fashion. I am not happy with this technique because it has a tendency to behave poorly if I make changes to the parts. Views will omit chunks of the parts if I've made the part larger, etc.

There isn't any way I know to make the construction or helper geometry be ignored when putting views on drawings. It defaults to the amount of area necessary to contain all of the geometry in the model.

I don't currently have this problem, however, because I went to a top-down design methodology. If you have the advanced assembly module (or whatever they call it these days) license, you can use skeletons to build the definining geometry, then reference that skeleton geometry to build the parts needed.

We don't have the advanced assembly module, but I use a standard assembly, define all my design constraining sketches and such in that assembly, then build the parts I need within that assembly.

My answer is pretty useless for solving your current problem, but perhaps is something to consider if you have more designs to execute.

[USER_09]

thanks for the prompt reply. 

---

@KenFarley wrote:

I went to a top-down design methodology. If you have the advanced assembly module (or whatever they call it these days) license, you can use skeletons to build the definining geometry, then reference that skeleton geometry to build the parts needed." I went to a top-down design methodology. If you have the advanced assembly module (or whatever they call it these days) license, you can use skeletons to build the definining geometry, then reference that skeleton geometry to build the parts needed."

---

@KenFarley wrote:

I used to have this kind of problem, where I was forced to make partial views for models made in this fashion. I am not happy with this technique because it has a tendency to behave poorly if I make changes to the parts. Views will omit chunks of the parts if I've made the part larger, etc.

There isn't any way I know to make the construction or helper geometry be ignored when putting views on drawings. It defaults to the amount of area necessary to contain all of the geometry in the model.

I don't currently have this problem, however, because I went to a top-down design methodology. If you have the advanced assembly module (or whatever they call it these days) license, you can use skeletons to build the definining geometry, then reference that skeleton geometry to build the parts needed.

We don't have the advanced assembly module, but I use a standard assembly, define all my design constraining sketches and such in that assembly, then build the parts I need within that assembly.

My answer is pretty useless for solving your current problem, but perhaps is something to consider if you have more designs to execute.

---

This is an interesting answer.  We are trying to improve our methods of using Creo more efficiently.  It seems like there is always a "Solution" for sale, when it should be a feature, not a fee!  Can you tell me more of how you were able to leave this methodology, or the steps to do so? Please / Thanks.

[KenFarley]

Here's a previous discussion where I elaborated on the method I use for making parts with what I call a "master assembly". It's a way to get the advanced assembly capabilities without having the module and using skeleton geometry.

https://community.ptc.com/t5/3D-Part-Assembly-Design/Top-Down-Design-Question/m-p/595149 

There are probably other discussions of the same topic with other methods. You can search about in the forums for them.

[tbraxton]

Can you confirm that you have the AAX license or equivalent? This would include the functionality of top-down design tools such as skeletons, copy geometry etc. If you do have access to the top-down design tools, then it would be advisable to use them in the context of defining a workflow for your organization.

[USER_09]

Could you give me the keystrokes to find out?  I work for a small company with scant tech resources.  We have no I.T. nor any windchill admin.  We do it on the fly.  I have no formal training, just a few online tutorials and some solid OJT.  2 years.  I don't follow all the terminology advanced users are referencing.  The only reason we use Creo is because our larger customers like Caterpillar use it.

[tbraxton]

If you can use this copy geometry command, then you should have the license for top-down design tools.

To Create a Copy Geometry Feature (ptc.com)

[USER_09]

Indeed I do kind user.  help me with the words to bring this idea to the team.  Some know more than I, but are way busier.  We have some users that were on Pro-E (or what ever it was called ) at the beginning.

[tbraxton · Accepted solution]

This video will provide an overview of the top-down design tools.

Creo Parametric - Top Down Design (TDD) Overview (youtube.com)

You can search top down on the Youtube channel in the link above and learn the basics of what is available. There are specific videos for the various top-down specific functions.

[USER_09]

I appreciate the help.  The Admin is already pressuring me to post this is  as a solution, but I still need to "educate" myself on this before I would close it.  Not everyone was trained formally, and I sense some snark from the admin side.  "oh noob user, sigh".

[USER_09]

Edit, the admin clarified, and apologized.  All is good in the universe.