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

Allow fillets (rounds) & chamfers in assembly mode

Allow fillets (rounds) & chamfers in assembly mode

Allow fillets in an assembly! If you are doing cuts in an assy, and then want to fillet an edge in that cut, you should be able to do so. I realize that a fillet ADDS material, but in real-life, if someone is machining an assy, they can add a fillet after a cut operation. Fillets should be the last op to any machining, but if machining in an assy in Pro/Creo, you can't do it.

17 Comments
ChrisMcKee
Newbie

Agree 100% - Rounds/fillets or any "Add material" feature should be allowed on any Assembly Created Feature.

VladimirPalffy
Amethyst

Chamfer feature is good idea too - many customers ask for this functions

I voted down, because I not be one for assembly features (regeneration errors at opening assemblies, if references for assembly features are missing ...).

KrisR
Newbie

3D modeling should imitate, as close as possible, real-life creation of components. In real life, you CAN add chams and fillets inn assemblies. If you change the reference for a feature, in real-life, them you must update the feature to continue.

Stating regeneration errors, I feel, is not best modeling practice. ALL other 3D packages allow fillets and chams in assemblies, because that's how it is in the real life world. If the reference changes, you fix it. That's the price to pay to create 3D models and goes with the territory.

gchampoux
Newbie

I understand that PTC purposefully left this out of assembly mode because you cannot add material to an assembly. However, this logic is flawed. The same could be said about parts as well, yet these additive feature are allowed. I know that PTC wants to protect us from ourselves, but that is not their job. They should allow these additive features, and display a warning when they are indeed adding material, At that point PTC has done their job. It is ultimately the user's responsibilty to proceed, or not.

HugoHermans
Bedrock

I voted down as well.  My users are encouraged not to use assembly features at all.  Assemblies are to assemble parts, stop.  All the modelling should be on part level, and a skeleton is a part as well.  Here, the finishing of a welded assembly is done on part level, keeping the rough assembly in place.

StephenWilliams
Sapphire II

I voted up because I sometimes need to do machining after welding or even one case I have done machining after bolting (not something I would recommend but it worked for my specific case). I do agree that assembly features have some downside. A few years ago I did some testing on regeneration speed and assembly features significantly slowed down regeneration. I also agree they are prone to failure due to either poor practice or "glitches" in regeneration.

That being said, I think there are valid uses for it and it is a powerful feature. I only use assembly feature when absolutely necessary. As Gerry said, PTC should not be in the business of protecting us from ourselves, it's our job to figure out the best way to do the job with the tools at hand.

danderson
Garnet

Voted down do to the following reasons...
-There are other Pro/E modules that will not work with assembly level features (example CFD programs like Flo_EFD)

-Creo Simulate, when dealing with welds where the assembly needs to be analyized as a solid model (non sheet metal mode) these features cause issues

-Using flexible modeling pratices (cast, welded, and then machined) you can enclude all weld and machined features in the casting (supress them) and make the casting flexible in the machined level to resume them as needed for each weldment or machined level.  works for drawings and you can have differernt values for the same parts if needed using varied items.

BenLoosli
Sapphire II

Adding fillets/chamfers to an assembly level cut should be allowed provided it is a child of the cut and itself. Boring a hole for a bearing to be inserted into a plate on the side of weldment, you should be able to fillet the bottom of the bore to the side, assuming a stepped hole.

The key to this enhancemnt is that the 'feature' as a whole is a material removal process. Adding a feature that adds material to the assembly should not be allowed, except within certain modules, welding, of the software.

I realize that you could do the bore as a revolved sketch with the bottom corner fillet, but that process is more complicated than a hole and a fillet child to the hole.

Dale_Rosema
Sapphire I

When talking about "adding" material to an assembly, this discussion talks about a piercing on a tube that cannot be done in Creo, because you cannot "add" material - which the manufacturing process does not do:

Re: Piercing a tube to create a boss.

cmartin-2
Newbie

I'm battling with this as well. I have many holes that need to be bored at an assembly level, after which they require a chamfer.... Can't believe that this feature isn't available.

PTCModerator
Topaz I
Status changed to: Acknowledged
 
Jaime_Lee
Community Manager

Allow fillets in an assembly! If you are doing cuts in an assy, and then want to fillet an edge in that cut, you should be able to do so. I realize that a fillet ADDS material, but in real-life, if someone is machining an assy, they can add a fillet after a cut operation. Fillets should be the last op to any machining, but if machining in an assy in Pro/Creo, you can't do it.

JohnK55
Regular Member

I thought this was possible if you had the advanced assembly extension , I'm sure I've done this when creating a machined castings, the usual way I do it is to put the blank casting into an assembly then add the machined features.

Does anyone know of another method.

NV_9362546
Newbie

If not adding, allow removing chamfers and fillets on assembly. It should not be too difficult to add to programming code an algorithm to detect if internal or external edge is selected. So many other useless addition are passed as improvement yet this is missing since at least version 2

Chris3
Opal

Some of the use cases mentioned in this idea can likely be handled with Multibodies now.

jwagh
Pearl

This idea is LONG overdue. Also, if you are machining a large assembly, it can't be done with multi-bodies. Managing BOMs with multibodies is also new and we would prefer to just keep it simple by having the model tree generate the WTParts in Windchill.