Community Tip - Learn all about PTC Community Badges. Engage with PTC and see how many you can earn! X
When references are lost for drawing view orientation, the view is re-oriented. Somehow this was intended, like there was a meeting and they said - "We can leave the view orientation alone when the references go, or we can just ruin the appearance of the drawing. Votes for "ruin"? Votes against" The ayes have it."
The TAN concludes "PTC development is considering an enhancement ..."
My vote is that the drawing orientation not change, and not lose all the dimensions. There can be a selection to freeze the orientation.If the orientation is re-established and the orientation part of the transformation matrix is very similar to the frozen one, then the dimensions depicted in that view and related views are retained at their prior locations and with their prior adjustments.
The current way to avoid this problem is to use datum planes or other datum features as view orientation references, especially those established in the model before any other features. Unless they are deleted these datum references are unlikely to change and therefore unlikely to fail in orienting views.
Ya Can't have your cake and eat it too. Pro/E is a parametric tool. That's what you bought in too, to get real world prototyping capabilities. The models are not complete unless they can stand up to actual physical characteristics. If you don't constrain the models in accordance to actual physics, they fail. Too few constraints in feature creation, assembly, or orientation and Pro/E will let you know. Of course you can bypass those principles, but Junk in is Junk out. I prefer to have Pro/E let me know when I've overlooked or broken the laws of physics. My parts and assemblies and even drawings make use of the laws of physics as checks and corrections for providing something that will work when manufactured.
One of our cardinal rules....."No, you can't release that part when a similar on exists elsewhere."
Doug, you could not have hit that nail any more square on the head.
In Reply to Doug Schaefer:
They need someone over the UI that will say, no, you can't have a special UI when a
similar one exists elsewhere.