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

Improve the weld module

Improve the weld module

Below a list of problems I ran into when using the weld module. I will update this list when I find more.

 

  1. It's not possible to flip weld annotations in 3D, only in 2D. So when using MDB it looks ugly (PTC case)
  2. The tail of the annotation stays on even if you turn off the sequence ID and the note (PTC case).
  3. Creating a sold weld is nice because you can use it in Simulate. But when you create welds in a way you also get weld annotations that can be used you ran into the problem that the welds interferere in the corners and therefore simulate can't mesh. Putting it into one set solves the issue in Simulate but then the welds are not houw they are placed in the real world and therefore the weld annotations are incorrect.
  4. Creating a double weld with unequal lengths gives an incorrect weld length in the annotation. Because it simply sums up the weld length and divide by 2. So a weld which has a length of 50 on one side and 40 on the other gives a weld annotation stating that the weld length is 45 on both sides.(PTC case).
  5. It's not easy to adjust the number of decimal places. Probably something you didn't notice when using ANSI or live in the US but quite annoying when there is 30.000 stated where it could be just 30 (and it also should actually be 30,000 but that's another discussion). To change this by default you have to actually change the weld annotation. And if you have ever tried that you know how hard that is (I've done it) and how much work it is. There is a config.pro opting called weld_dec_places but I cannot find what this setting does.
  6. Updating weld standards is almost impossible.
  7. Using a centralized place for your customized weld annotations is not possible.
  8. Adaptive weld annotations should be nice so you doesn't have a weld annotation that has a line that is WAY to long for the text that it uses.
  9. Not possible to exclude/disable features from assembly Simplified Representation (see article and Product Idea )
  10. The number of fatal errors is really high when using solid welds (see for one example case)
7 Comments
Garnet

3a. When placing welds at a corner (quite common) the welds interfere (that's why it's unusable in Creo Simulate) when using the interference check. This makes also the interference check less usable (lot of interference while it's not really a interference).

Garnet

11.

It's not possible to use welds in simplified reps. Therefore there is no possibility to create a good step by step weld instruction because there is no possibility to hide or suppress welds that are placed in the next step. (PTC article, although the best workaround is not noticed there and that is the use of layer states. Group welds, create a layer which is filtering on the name of the group using rules, make it associative, then save the show or hide state of this layers by using layer states).

See also this related product idea. 

Garnet

12.

Make a user interface of the placement of the weld symbols (when using symbols that are not referencing to weld geometry) like done with the Geometry Tolerance in Creo Parametric 4. So get rid of all the menu's that needs to expand end check marks that needs to be clicked, make it visual.

An excellent Product idea already created by @fferlito and can be found here.

Sapphire II

I like the list.

From the "voting" standpoint, putting all your ideas in one post doesn't work. Users may not care for all of your ideas although most of just usability issues and not preferences.

PTC also doesn't like the big list ideas since they can't close out an the idea if they update the software for just one of your suggestions.

From a user standpoint, keeping all your enhancement requests in one post makes sense.

My suggestion would be to put each of these in a separate post.

Garnet

I understand what you mean but splitting them up won't help either because probably then none of them get enough votes to get to the upper regions. 

My main goal is give insight in how terrible the weld module is and that PTC needs to focus on this and make it more usable. When splitting them up this insight is less noticeable. Also the usability is not solved when PTC solves one point, they need to fix a lot more.

 

Sapphire II

In all honesty, votes don't really matter. PTC sets the priorities based on other factors, sometimes as simple as what they can quickly and easily fix.

I do not disagree at all with your method and your goal.

I haven't used the welding module since probably the 90's or very early 2000's. It was horrible and just made a huge mess of the models and provide so little benefit for such a large time investment. Completely turned me off to even trying it since. I would say weld assemblies are my primary function, so that's pretty sad that I won't touch the module that is supposed to directly pertain to my job.

Participant

I would like to give a +1 to everything on the list.

Also would add: 

- Unable to create multi-pass welds (weld-on-weld) in the model.

- Unable to create solid bevel weld (V-weld) for a plate against a surface

(Well, at least I can't.  Maybe there's a clever way, or a tricky workaround.  The point is, creating these common welds is not intuitive when following the instructions and training material on welds)