Bounding Box as a Feature
Please make a feature in Creo Parametric representing the smallest area or volume in which a design can fit, bounding box.
Please spend a few minutes looking at this video from SolidWorks, it is very simple and easy to understand.
Chees Erik Sallingboe
Good idea - can be used for 3D pronting
I believe the machining package can do something like this by automatic stock size.
Also close to this is in Tools - Investigate - Model Size.
I suggest that the Model Size also print out more of the box properties not just the diagonal size like it now does, especially since it renders the box and knows the size already. If this function was moved to be an Analysis item then maybe we get the option to create it as feature or saved like other analysis items.
This feature exist in Creo View, but it doesnt always show the "minimal" bounding box. If a feature is developped in Creo Parametric, it need to show the 3 lengths (X,Y,Z) of the minimal bounding box, this box is usefull (for example: to calculate a storage volume necessary for an assembly)
Yes, Creo View can do some part of the job, but we like to have it X,Y and Z as attributes in Creo as well as in Windchill.
I think, this Request from many Companys, and it must be quite simple for PTC to make a feature like this in Creo
BTW, please let the idea be spread out in your organisation
ill transfert the idea to other colleagues to get their support on this topic
If this was a simple as creating Length, Width and Height parameters for use in drawings and BOM that would be spectacular!
I just did this in toolkit. It would be great if PTC implemented a direction function.
What I had to do.
if (model has copy geoms) -> create a shrinkwrap
then compute the ProSolidOutlineCompute for all rotations about x, y, and z sweeping from 0 to 90 degrees.
I do a two stage pass and get the bounding box to within 1 degree.
Bounding box as model parameters (diagonal, x, y, z) would be nice as well. Today they are available via Jlink.
If this gets implemented there should be a geometry only option.
Good news: There is a new feature in Creo 7.0 called Enclosure Volume, which creates surface boundary box around model.
Bad news: No boundary box parameters (x,y,z) are created.
Worse news: For Enclosure Volume feature to work, you need license for Generative Design.
Worst news: Have not found it... yet. 🙂
Well, you are right, there is a new feature in Creo 7.0, Enclosure Volume
But as you are pointing out there are some bad news as well.
Actually, I thing there are to few improvements in Creo 7.0, and the Bounding Box should be very simple for PTC to implement
set to "under consideration" as we can envision to enhance the Enclosure Volume feature to provide full Bounding Box functionality.
Still, note that Creo 7.0 with multibody and the Enclosure Volume feature allow you to get to it quickly.
Thanks for status change.
Sorry but the Enclosure Volume feature do not give the needed result, please look at the video from SolidWorks and the freedom the feature have.
It the calculation is too complicated (to find the minimum bouding box), there should be an option to only re-calculate it when needed, such as in mass properties.
If using the shading triangulation boudingbox, the minimum on X, Y, Z is already calculated, so those parameters should always be provided after each regeneration to be able to use the with, length and height in a BOM.
HelloKnowing that modelcheck can give these 3 values in a single parameter. It should be possible to separate them into 3 parameters.
Today a designer needed to verify that segments of a piping assembly would fit inside a box for surface treatment. The way the parts are positioned inside that box never correspond with the default x-, y, z-coordinates of the Creo models. A search for a 'minimum bounding box' brought me here, but apparently without a helpful solution...
I think this feature should be provided both as parameters only, or also as a volume (with a quilt as in the Enclosed Volume) or better yet, as a solid construction body), with the option for the body to be shown in wireframe mode, or a semi-transparent shaded one.). Sometimes, having the dimensions is enough to use them for a Bill of Materials stock size dimensions, but if we rely only on the parameters values, we cannot visually inspect to see if the results are accurate. It's better to have both options, as a feature with a solid body geometry and also with 3 parameters (length, width, height, or Size_X, Size_Y, Size_Z).
Also it's important for the feature to have the option to be parametric, meaning, that the result is always regenerated and accurate (with a tolerance value). Leave the option to move the feature to the footer of the model tree, if we need only the final value to use in a BOM. If the feature is left in the middle of the model tree, we can get wrong results, if we add material later. But sometimes, we may want intermediate results, so, the feature should have the option to also be in the "middle" of a model tree.
The feature should also provide the option to give an offset in X, Y, and Z dimensions, as it does when calculatng the workpiece in MFG mold module, ie, leaving an offset for the stock around a machined part.
And since Creo has multibodies, the feature should also have the toption to include all solid bodies, or user specified ones, or excluding certain bodies from the bounding box calculation, if we want to calculate stock dimensions for different materials in a single part.
About the way to find the bounding box values, if we select the automatic regeneration update (as in weigh calculation), to avoid slowing down too much regeneration times, the bounding box vertices could be less accurate, and indeed use the triangulation of the surfaces used to send the triangles for the graphics card to shade the part. Most of the time, there is no need to have too much a rigorous calculation, specially if we have the option to give an offset around the calculated values to define the stock dimensions. It's better to have a very quick algorythm, even if less accurate, than a rigourous one, that takes too much time to update, and thus, cannot be used in "real-time", after each regeneration, thus, having to be manually invoked for all the parts in an assembly when trying to define the BOM, unless there is a way to automate this process.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.