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

Creo-MBD -- enhance/improve PMI functionality

Creo-MBD -- enhance/improve PMI functionality

Creo-MBD -- enhance/improve PMI functionality

Requirement 1:
Attach symbol instance to PMI/dimension via offset placement based on a stable link in Creo Solid Mode

More generally: More generally: attachment of annotations to other annotations via offset placement should be possible in solid mode.
If for example there is an PMI/annotation of type dimension in a part,then it should be possible to attach a symbol instance to this dimension via offset placement, so that this symbol is placed in the same placement plane as the dimension and with the same orientation. If the dimension is moved, then the symbol instance should also automatically be moved, so that the relative position is not changed. The relative position can be changed by moving the symbol instance.

Requirement 2:

Enable above functionality in Creo Toolkit
After implementation of requirement 1 as described above, the existing Toolkit functions for creation of symbol
instances should be extended, so that the creation with offset attachment is possible. In this case the placement plane for the symbol instance to be created should be the same as for the annotation, to which the symbol instance is to be attached. The explicit specification of the placement plane via function !ProDtlsyminstPlaneSet"
should not be necessary.

Requirement 3:
Implement user based attributes for PMI

Requirement 4:
Enhancements of requirements 1,3 are maintained in exported neutral data file formats JT, STEP, means:
- Relation between PMI and attached symbol is existing in exported formats
- user based attributes are available in exported formats

Relevant Use Cases:
- Labeling of PMI´s/Annotations/Dimensions for characteristics/QS post processes
- Enrich data set of PMI´s/Annotations/Dimensions for MBD post processes

More detailed information see also attachment

6 Comments
FerdinandBreitl
3-Visitor

In general: Allow to relate symbols to other annotations in MBD

Mfridman
15-Moonstone
Status changed to: Implementation In Progress

Hi @FerdinandBreitl ,

This product idea is currently under implementation.

 

While I understand the need to mention the data exchange aspects in the context of this MBD enhancement request, I do think that it should be also reported as a separate product idea for data exchange export/import as the support in STEPap242/JT for user defined parameters (attributes) is most likely required not only for this purpose.

 

if possible please submit another idea for this data exchange aspect

 

Best Regards,

Michael

FerdinandBreitl
3-Visitor

Hello @Mfridman ,
regarding MBD as a method you cannot devide CAD functionality and export functionality. The medium in MBD is the model, so everything you specify in the model must be able to be transported via neutral data formats without losses in human readability and semantic information for automated IT processes. If this is not the target of PTC, people will (must) stick to drawings or will consider alternative design solutions for mechanics.
You can summarize like this: no matter, how PMI´s have been created in Creo, all must be exported/represented without loss as graphic and semantic objects in STEP and JT neutral data format.
As I know from other systems the current neutral data formats allow a proper export aligned to common boards or committees.
Regarding neutral data export the request is in kernel not an enhancement, it is the wish to fulfill the standard.
Regarding Creo MBD handling and functionality we have elaborated a precise list in the meantime to communicate with you how to improve Creo PMI-handling. Because of different ways to create PMIs and the associated consequences we also want to know the longterm PTC approach to avoid data loss/corruption for our present design work.
This is why I see no benefit to seperate topics, or ceate new one´s, sorry.

Best regards
Ferdinand

----------------------
@kschaefer 
@tbusshoff 

@grohm 

Mfridman
15-Moonstone

Hi @FerdinandBreitl ,

I think that I did not explain myself properly in my previous comment, but I do fully understand your request and need for a robust support of MBD data via data exchange formats.

What I meant was that having support for user defined parameters may be also a request that is coming from other MBD needs and not necessarily only from the ability to relate symbols to other annotations in MBD. This is why I initially suggested that in addition, it would be good for us to have another product idea, so that we can see how people are voting for the data exchange request for parameter support, aside from this MBD capability. I did not ask to split it from this idea.

Anyhow, I do fully accept & respect your decision to keep this aspect as part of this product idea if it is preferred that way

 

Best Regards,

Michael

FerdinandBreitl
3-Visitor

Hello @Mfridman 
OK, thanks for explanation.
Will prepare a separate topic for "user defined parameters on PMI" with further use case aspects.
Best regards
Ferdinand

Mfridman
15-Moonstone

Hi @FerdinandBreitl ,

Thank you for your understanding, it would certainly be good to see additional use cases where annotation owned user defined/system parameters are expected to be used by downstream consumers (while this is enabled via neutral data exchange formats)

 

Thanks,

Michael