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

Allow to set individual simplified reps for parent and child views in Creo Parametric

Allow to set individual simplified reps for parent and child views in Creo Parametric to Pro/ENGINEER 2001 it was possible to use the Represent View function to simplify individual views by removing features from the model for them.

It was replaced by using Simplified reps and in most cases using Simplified Reps is more efficient (can be reused for multiple views).

However, when it comes to flexibility, using Simplified Reps has the disadvantage, that it is not possible to use a simplified rep in a detail view or another child view, when the parent view uses the master rep - or vice-versa.

It should be allowed to set simplified rep individual for views as an alternative to following the parent view (similar to layer states following drawing or being individual).

Note that this is desired for assemblies AND parts.

(Related Product Idea to allow redefining the simplified rep of part views exists: "Redefine a master rep general view and convert it in a simplified rep view for a PART drawing" at


While we are working on a project to allow switching the rep of a drawing view of a part in Creo 4.0 (see my comment in: Redefine a master rep general view and convert it in a simplified rep view for a PART drawing), one of the limitations of this function will be that all child views must be of the same rep as the parent view.

Logically it seems to make sense to me that a detail view should reflect exactly what the parent view looks like. Allowing the parent and child views to be of different reps seems like it would open the door to a lot of confusion (and possible complaints about buggy software) because the views don't match. I know that the drawing standards sometimes allow for certain shortcuts to be taken in a pure 2D environment and thus such discrepancies between parent and child views might not strictly violate the standards. However, just because a standard that was written in the days of pencil and paper (or 2D CAD) allows for such shortcuts doesn't mean that it is actually good practice. Unfortunately these standards haven't really been updated to account for the case where a solid model defines the geometry of a drawing view.

So, is it really desirable to have parent and child views that potentially don't match?


Why not??  How about having a setting that enables this functionality?

I am concerned about this case because I don't think there is a "standard" which stipulates that detailed view on a drawing should match the parent view.

This is yet another case where PTC software designers impose rules about how things should be done - yet I think their overall philosophy should be to "give your users more options".

You know that people will just use a work-around: add the simplified representation to the drawing / make a main view of it / create a detailed view from it/ erase the main view.  Now tell me, which drawing would be more confusing to the engineer that has to revise something years later?


A big case I can see for using simplified reps in detail views is if objects need to be removed for clarity. Now sometimes they are removed from the parent view as well, but not always. When working in tight spaces, or with a lot of cables and piping runs, you can't always take a cross section at just the right spot. Today we have to remove components individually when all this could be done with simplified reps and we would have a clear record of what was hidden.

These are the closest I could find that might support simplified rep usage in views:

  • ASME Y14.3 - 8.6.1 : "Selected lines may be omitted from constructed views when greater clarity is gained..."
  • ASME Y14.3 - 10.1 : "Conventional representation enhances view creation economy and clarity by using simplified representations of an object. While it does contain deviations from true orthographic projection, it consists of abbreviated delineations that are generally recognized and accepted as standard basic drawing practice. Conventional representation as defined by this Standard is only used when true geometry representation is not required."
  • ASME Y14.3 - 10.2 : "Individual details may be shown in numerous ways on orthographic views and those conventions differ from some of the conventions used for pictorial views. The conventions given in paras. 10.2.1 through 10.2.9 are noted as to applicability when the convention is limited to either orthographic or pictorial views. The object of the conventions is to present the details in universal and easily understood methods. The conventions are not applicable to models except when specifically indicated as applicable."  (The last sentence is an interesting exclusion though)

We just had the reverse happen as well. Some of our very large structures use mesh grating. Fully modeled mesh grating on large structures turn into black blobs of ink on the drawing so instead we usually use a solid slab model to represent the grating. Though we also have to show a detail view of how the grating is attached to the structure with BOM balloons calling out the fastener stack. So our parent views show a solid slab, and we want the detailed view to show the grating. This can be done with envelopes in simplified reps. However our engineers instead make a separate model showing only a piece of detailed grating and the fasteners and clamps used. They then add that to the model to make that detail view. The balloons get added manually or with a secondary parts list that's hidden. To me this is far worse of a deviation than using a simplified rep. There are other ways, but no matter what something has to get "faked" in to get the desired end result, or you deal with the full detail repercussions. In models you have LOD, and I could be wrong but don't think that exists for drawings.

Having a finely detailed model also hurts us in drawing retrieval performance. Some drawings take 45 minutes to open. Some of our larger drawings we've had to break up into multiple files because it would be impossible to open and work with on high end machines. Hopefully that will be improved with future releases of Creo.

I personally would have no problem using separate views for simplified reps, but not being able to use BOM balloons across the views is painful. I would say it's the single biggest reason we don't use simplified reps everywhere, because no matter what we're going to show the Master Rep on the drawing and manually hide any parts that should be excluded. (Allow BOM Ballons from Master Rep Repeat Region to be displayed on Simplified Reps)

While I'm touching the related ideas for replacing the model of a drawing view with a related model,

Redefine a master rep general view and convert it in a simplified rep view for a PART drawing

Allow changing the simplified representation in a drawing view of a PART

I thought I'd chime in again on this idea since it's related to the overall concept but calls out a specific capability that we didn't implement in Creo 4.0 F000 when we added the Replace View Model command.

In Creo 4.0 F000 it is possible to replace the model of a view with a related model (Simplified Rep, Merge/Inheritance, or Family Table). However, as I mentioned above, views that are dependent on one another all need to be replaced together. I read through the comments above and I agree that some valid cases can be made why you might want one view of a model to show something slightly different from another view that it might have a dependency with it.

I'm not philosophically opposed to the idea of implementing this in the future, but I think it does need to be carefully considered because there are likely some things that the drawing does that are based on the assumption that dependent views are the same model/rep. Or at least where there is other functionality that similarly prohibits making dependent views look different from the parent view. I'm thinking here of the Component Display command that forces you to change the display of a component in the parent view and not in a detailed view. If we allowed Replace View Model command to allow such discrepancies, then we probably should consider lifting the restriction for Component Display (as just one example). The other thing to consider is that the Replace View Model command considers replacement by simplified rep to be more-or-less the same thing as replace by family table or merge/inheritance. So, while it might seem like a good case can be made for allowing dependent views to have different simplified reps, does the same apply for these other cases? I don't really know, it's just something to consider. Anyway, I can put this on our backlog as something to think about in the future, but I can't say now when we might (if ever) end up doing it.

In the meantime, while the ability to have dependent views with different model/rep is not available today, there are some workarounds that can achieve a similar result although not in as straightforward a way as if the capability were there using the regular functionality.

If you have a projection view, for instance, you could just convert that to a general view. This would eliminate the dependency between them and allow you to replace one and not the other. You can align the two views as well so they will move together if you move the "parent" on the sheet. I know this "technically" isn't a projection view, but it gets the job done and is simple enough to do and easy enough for someone to understand later.

In the case of a detail view, you can create a general, partial view that mimics the detail view, but this solution is admittedly a little more clunky mainly because of the need to fake that detail view callout on the main view. The alternative approach is the one mentioned in a previous comment where you create two "sets" of parent/detail views and just erase the unwanted parent or detail view respectively. This would be a little more confusing for someone else to pick up later and figure out what's going on. If it's just components in an assembly view that you want "removed" for clarity, then you could use layers to hide them in the detail view without changing the rep.

I'll check in on this thread if anything changes. I'll set the idea to Under Consideration so it should keep accepting votes, but indicates that we are thinking about it...

Community Manager
Status changed to: Acknowledged