When generating annotations many leaders want to go behind the geometry (see yellow mark on leader 1 and 2). I find that annoying. Is there a trick to making the leaders go like leader 3, in front of geometry? I would prefer just to right click on the leader and make it one or the other.
What version and build of Creo are you using?
I just tried it on Creo2m220, 3 components stacked up and put BOM balloons as well as a Note balloon and all my leaders are on top of the geometry.
I expect it has to do with the attachment point. If it is on the visible side the leader will be entirely visible; if it is to the hidden side it will will change font to show that part of the leader is hidden.
This looks more like an illustration program than Creo Parametric.
It's Creo Illustrate 3.1 M010 and I will investigate what you said about attachment point - maybe there is a setting/prefs/conf about that. I cant do anything with the leader except moving the ends pointing on the geometry and the balloon. Moving that sometimes makes it go in front but then it doesn't point to the center of the object. Maybe it snaps to another surface wo the application telling me about it. I need to take control of this.
It's based on as David said the attachment point as well as where the balloon is relative to that attachment point in space and whether the leader passes through or behind geometry (dashed means it is passing through or behind). Try rotating the view to see where the balloons are in relation to your parts and to see what parts the leaders are passing through or behind.
Just to clarify what Steven was saying. Visualize See image below ABOUT that sub-section of the community.
Toby Metcalf Is the name "Visualize" something that PTC chose? Seems like an arbitrary name that means nothing to nobody????
Illustrate and Creo View are included...they are not really similar, right???
Good day Stephen,
I am not sure how the Vidualize sub community name came about; I am sure there was collaboration between Ryan, community members, and some from within PTC.
Are you suggesting the name be changed?
After posting, I did a google for "ptc visualize" and the top link was Leveraging Design Data Across the Organization | PTC which perfectly matches the Visualize community (see image below) ,but I don't believe that users put it all together. In my mind (crazy things happen there, you shouldn't delve into that topic), Illustrate is the odd man out on the list of things in Visualize. The other "apps" are viewers. Illustrate is tech illustration. Not by any means the same thing. Using that logic, you should put the drawing mode in visualize too since it's just another way of looking at the 3D model.
Not sure if it needs a name change or a restructure or something else, I just know it's not an intuitive place "as is".
Two things to take a look at.
1. When the name was announced:
2. The confusion that exists with the existing divisions not aligning with PTC products:
...each place is using categories and sub-communities in exactly the opposite way. The Creo place uses categories for products and sub-communities for topics while the Windchill place is using categories for topics and sub-communities for (only two) products. Since product ideas seem to be tied to categories and not sub-communities, does it make sense to have the categories be PTC products or product families and the sub-communities to be topic areas that can potentially span across products.
It's confusing to have multiple products being discussed under the same category/sub-community. The user interfaces and modeling techniques are often completely different and most users are only familiar with one of the products. Most of the sub-communities under Creo are primarily for Creo Parametric, but that is not obvious. Look at how many Creo Direct questions get asked...
OK, after investigating you might be right - "Visualize" might be a better place (and the "Technical Illustration" space). What about the "Illustrate" category then - what is that for?
You are correct Stephen, the goal of tags and categories it to make answers and types of content easier to find.
The difference between the two is:
Both are to help organize content.
As discussed here, sometimes nomenclature interferes with this and there are differences in what that category should be.