Commandments of ProE- 2nd attempt

ptc-169947 · ‎Sep 13, 2011

Looks like this went out empty the first time. Second try.

Hi all,

I remember a while ago someone posting something called the commandments of ProE (or something like that), but it had the word commandments in it.
It was basically a best practices document which I recall as being pretty good. Each line started with thou shall (or shall not). I only say that in case it rings a bell for anyone.
I'm working on a best practices document for users at our company. Although I already have a wealth of info (much from this thread), I was curious as to weather or not anyone remembers that particular document, and if they happen to still have it.

Thanks,
Stefan

Brndn_4 · ‎Sep 14, 2011

This one was on my wall for the longest time. *attached*

In Reply to Stefan Mueller:

Looks like this went out empty the first time. Second try.

Hi all,

I remember a while ago someone posting something called the commandments of ProE (or something like that), but it had the word commandments in it.
It was basically a best practices document which I recall as being pretty good. Each line started with thou shall (or shall not). I only say that in case it rings a bell for anyone.
I'm working on a best practices document for users at our company. Although I already have a wealth of info (much from this thread), I was curious as to weather or not anyone remembers that particular document, and if they happen to still have it.

Thanks,
Stefan

nrollins · ‎Sep 14, 2011

Brandon,

Thanks for this - It has been years since I have seen it. And, while God's
original list won't ever need a refresh, this one does.

I grew up "religiously" adhering to this one, but now, with the Wildfires
and likely Creo (haven't seen it yet),

there ARE NO MISSING REFERENCE WARNINGS!

This has rubbed me the wrong way since I discovered it. I can only guess
that PTC thought it was burdensome for the new user to see warnings.
Ignorance is bliss! (until you have to dissect someone else's model)

-Nate

dgschaefer · ‎Sep 14, 2011

Ignorance is bliss until that missing / alternate reference suddenly
becomes invalid and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.
Maddening when it's a feature that is no way related to the area you're
working on, but that the assumptions that Pro/E was using finally became
too tenuous to solve and BAM, you're trying to fix a feature you had no
idea was broken.

Doug Schaefer

--
Doug Schaefer | Experienced Mechanical Design Engineer
LinkedIn

nrollins · ‎Sep 14, 2011

I never thought of this before - it's a long shot, but a wide audience might
know something. Is there a config option to control "missing ref" warnings?

rreifsnyder · ‎Sep 14, 2011

I actually miss the old days when Pro would fail on missing references. They were usually a trivial fix if you caught it when it actually happened. Now you might be trying to track down what happened to a model that was actually changed some time ago. I know the other software vendors used to beat up Pro for this, but I liked it.

Rob Reifsnyder
Mechanical Design Engineer/ Pro/E Librarian
L
Mission Systems & Sensors (MS2)
497 Electronics Parkway
Liverpool, NY 13088
EP5-Quad2, Cube 281

JohnGetty · ‎Sep 14, 2011

There's one in every crowd... You can turn on Modelcheck to check for failures on save/check-in/regeneration/etc... That way you're alerted earlier in the process. You can't cure another user ignoring their Modelcheck warnings, but a sys-admin can prevent check-in of the file if the model has errors. At least you limit the exposure.

cfly · ‎Sep 14, 2011

I've learned to regenerate until I get a green light before saving
everything; since I started that, I have had no surprises upon opening a
model.

efefefefefefef

Applied Research Labs

University of Texas at Austin

Carol Fly

Mechanical Designer

(512) 835-3397

Fax (512) 835-3259

efefefefefefef

_____

BobSchwerdlin · ‎Sep 14, 2011

In Pro/E WildFire 5.0 I actually turned on the config.pro option:
regen_failure_handling resolve_mode
This forces WF 5.0 to use the old method of handling problems. Several co-workers have been burned by missing refs due to not properly handling these modeling errors with the new WF-5 way of handling failures, but I have been steady because I am FORCED to correct these issues now, before they go to manufacturing. No regrets.

I also turned on the Simplified Rep option:
new_wf5_simp_rep_ui no
This forces the old selection paradigm, which makes more sense to me. Your mileage may vary.

Bob Schwerdlin
Design Engineer,
Dukane Corp.
2900 Dukane Dr.
St. Charles, IL 60174
630-797-4974 direct
-

DeanLong · ‎Sep 15, 2011

I personally like the new method of handling failures for a number of reasons.

1. No more Click, click, click, click, click. Feature 1 done. Click, click, click, click, click. Feature2 done.Click, click, click, click, click. Feature3 done.Click, click, click, click, click. Feature4 done...etc...........................................................

2. I can now see how much pain I have to look forward to. If I see 3 or 4 red features in the tree, I attack! If I see 50, well I take a rest room break, get a fresh coffee, sharpen my sword and then attack.

3. Moving back and forth between my before failure model and my current model evaluating featuresis much faster.

🐵

DamianCastillo · ‎Sep 16, 2011

I also prefer the Red Feature and the lack of the Resolve Mode dialogs. I review all models before they are approved for final release, so I can make sure we have good models.

"Too many people walk around like Clark Kent, because they don't realize they can Fly like Superman"

magnus.salomons · ‎Sep 20, 2011

In Reply to Dean Long:

I personally like the new method of handling failures for a number of reasons.

1. No more Click, click, click, click, click. Feature 1 done. Click, click, click, click, click. Feature2 done.Click, click, click, click, click. Feature3 done.Click, click, click, click, click. Feature4 done...etc...........................................................

2. I can now see how much pain I have to look forward to. If I see 3 or 4 red features in the tree, I attack! If I see 50, well I take a rest room break, get a fresh coffee, sharpen my sword and then attack.

3. Moving back and forth between my before failure model and my current model evaluating featuresis much faster.

🐵

Second that!

ptc-1932745 · ‎Sep 20, 2011

Your last statement brought up the most painful thing about repairing
failures.

When significant failures happen in my models I end up opening a
'pre-failed' version of the model alongside the failed version, prevent
it from regenerating, and then walk through the features to resolve the
failure. This is no fun really unless you have two licenses of Pro-E
running, and then hope you have dual monitors.

I'm working in WF5 M090 or (Creo-Elements-Pro) and the ability to see
what the feature looked like before it failed (ala Solidworks) would be
a tremendous help in resolving failures. But at least I can suppress
and move on quickly.

And as long as the system warns me that I have unresolved failed
features, and/or suppressed features, I have no problems saving those
files. Now, I would hope that there is a trigger in Windchill,
Interlink, or whatever not to let me promote that model to available,
shared, or ready for use status without resolving the issues. I don't
use these systems, but Modelcheck will let you know that features are
suppressed, or failed, etc...

Usually with failures, I am trying to do drastic things to a model, or
assembly. Maybe I'm adapting it to a new situation, etc... Having to
stop to resolve regen issues immediately, really screws up my thought
processes.

Christopher F. Gosnell

FPD Company

124 Hidden Valley Road

McMurray, PA 15317

DeanLong · ‎Sep 20, 2011

Chris,

I find it very useful to "Save As" before I make any changes to my parts. Next time save your part, XXXXXX_B4. This way you can avoid the whole "failed model in session" deal and just have a second part open. Flip back and forth between windows and see the failed features as they were before the failures. Another great benefit of this method is the ID's, feature numbers and refsare the same from part to part. Now if you delete and/or add features it's easy to see the differences.

Assemblies get a bit more tricky and laboriousbut the same philosophy holds true.

Dean

In Reply to Christopher Gosnell:

Your last statement brought up the most painful thing about repairing
failures.

When significant failures happen in my models I end up opening a
'pre-failed' version of the model alongside the failed version, prevent
it from regenerating, and then walk through the features to resolve the
failure. This is no fun really unless you have two licenses of Pro-E
running, and then hope you have dual monitors.

I'm working in WF5 M090 or (Creo-Elements-Pro) and the ability to see
what the feature looked like before it failed (ala Solidworks) would be
a tremendous help in resolving failures. But at least I can suppress
and move on quickly.

And as long as the system warns me that I have unresolved failed
features, and/or suppressed features, I have no problems saving those
files. Now, I would hope that there is a trigger in Windchill,
Interlink, or whatever not to let me promote that model to available,
shared, or ready for use status without resolving the issues. I don't
use these systems, but Modelcheck will let you know that features are
suppressed, or failed, etc...

Usually with failures, I am trying to do drastic things to a model, or
assembly. Maybe I'm adapting it to a new situation, etc... Having to
stop to resolve regen issues immediately, really screws up my thought
processes.

Christopher F. Gosnell

FPD Company

124 Hidden Valley Road

McMurray, PA 15317

bgruman · ‎Sep 20, 2011

Dean, I'll second that!
What you describe is exactly how I work every day while re-building parts.
This technique is a lifesaver when your working "insert mode" on a 1500+
feature model. Even on simpler models of 500 features or less it can be
very handy. BTW, When I'm in that mode, I'm very thankful for tools like
Dual 24" Screens, and PickPic!

Bernie

DamianCastillo · ‎Sep 21, 2011

I use a similar method as Dean.

I normally don't do a save-as when making some major changes to a model, but if I get to a point were it's hard to understand the original features references. I simply open the model with the versions filters on and open the version before the current model. Pro/E will tell you that a model with that name exist, would you like to rename. I this point I name the model Verify.

Pro/E opens the "Verify" version of the model and now I can see how the original features were made in comparison. The great thing about this method is that when I am done, I don't ever save the "Verify" model that is in session, so I never create extra files.

"Too many people walk around like Clark Kent, because they don't realize they can Fly like Superman"

DamianCastillo · ‎Sep 21, 2011

It seems that the explanation I gave on my method is confusing some people. I created a Youtube video to demonstate what I am doing. I don't know if this would work when using Intralink or Windchill. I am in the process of implementing Windchill 10, so I will need to see how this would change if at all.

http://goo.gl/Kvbtk

"Too many people walk around like Clark Kent, because they don't realize they can Fly like Superman"