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

Community Tip - When posting, your subject should be specific and summarize your question. Here are some additional tips on asking a great question. X

Multiple holes per each hole tool use

Multiple holes per each hole tool use

Allow for more than one hole to be created per hole feature. This is standard in all other 3D programs.

14 Comments
BrianMartin
11-Garnet

Depending upon how this was implemented, I could get behind it. Respectfully, I don't think we've provided a good enough justification for this feature so far.

One editorial comment... I've seen multiple justfications that profess "other CAD programs do it this way". In my opinion, that's not a good enough reason to make a change.

One of the worst things an engineer can say when attempting to justify a design or a process is "we've always done it that way" without further backup. That statement connotes a lack of thought and careful consideration.

Enhancing the system and expanding upon it's capabilities is a good thing. I believe these ideas will be more valuable if we examine WHY they should be incorporated. What will be the ramifications of incorporating this feature. What tradeoffs must be made... because all changes are not necessarily positive.

KrisR
1-Newbie

I see no drawbacks to having this. And you see....?

BrianMartin
11-Garnet

Well, I have questions about how this could impact our current way of working... and other options related to holes. For example:

  • Currently we'd use a pattern to create multiple holes of the same size/shape. What becomes of this?
    • Do these new multi-hole features possess pattern capabilities?
    • If so, how does this affect grouped patterns of holes?
  • Would all the holes in the "multi-hole" feature be the same size/shape?
    • If so... what happens when you want to change just one?
    • If not... doesn't this kill the potential for patterning? What are the ramifications for assembling hardware to a multi-hole that has multiple shapes/sizes?
  • Couldn't this same functionality be provided with a "Redo" button of sorts. In piping mode you can create a pipe extension feature, drop a point, and continue with an additional pipe extension feature via the use of a nifty "redo" button. What if you could drop one hole, hit a redo button, and then drop another one. Wouldn't that also work without breaking the current workflow... or is this idea different?
  • If one hole in the multi-hole fails, do they all fail?
  • Can these multi-holes have different depths, too?

These are complexities I think we have to consider. Simply changing the way you drop a hole doesn't necessarily add value. Perhaps it does... but there are probably other ways to achieve this same effect without changing anything. For example you could simply sketch a cut, add threads, and save it as a UDF. 

I'm not saying is necessarily a bad idea... but I think we need to discuss how it would work. At least I'd like to know your vision for how it might work.

thanks!

-Brian

KrisR
1-Newbie
  • Currently we'd use a pattern to create multiple holes of the same size/shape. What becomes of this? 
  • Do these new multi-hole features possess pattern capabilities? Yes
    • If so, how does this affect grouped patterns of holes? As I see a group, it's just a "folder" for holding like-features. I don't see this changing.
  • Would all the holes in the "multi-hole" feature be the same size/shape? No 
    • If so... what happens when you want to change just one? Options are available to change just one hole.
    • If not... doesn't this kill the potential for patterning? What are the ramifications for assembling hardware to a multi-hole that has multiple shapes/sizes? Assy for multi-hole allows single or multi-hole hole selelction.
  • Couldn't this same functionality be provided with a "Redo" button of sorts. In piping mode you can create a pipe extension feature, drop a point, and continue with an additional pipe extension feature via the use of a nifty "redo" button. What if you could drop one hole, hit a redo button, and then drop another one. Wouldn't that also work without breaking the current workflow... or is this idea different? It's a bit different. It's allowing a good deal more flexibility for hole creation per hole tool usage.I see "redo" being the same size and shape.
  • If one hole in the multi-hole fails, do they all fail? Typically multi-hole would be used to holes that have the same references but different placement and sizes. So, it is possibly they would fail.
  • Can these multi-holes have different depths, too? Absolutely!

I hope this clarifies for you. Multi-hole is a good thing and I've often used it in Catia, Inventor and SW.

James62
10-Marble

How about if you stay in hole tool while creating multiple holes just by clicking on axes where you want to put them to and once you leave this tool it would generate multiple hole features of different sizes and with different references.

The very same result that you can achieve in Creo / Pro/E in such an unproductive way these days.

All these patterns of holes and mirrored holes or mirrored hole patterns are pain to change if you have to do that on a plate with 500+ hole features. I would like to shoot the 500+ holes out in one-like feature. How Creo handles this feature is not what I really care about.

I mean why do I have to?

Another problem arises when you want to reference multiple holes to the same item(s). Let's say datum planes using the two drag handles. Right now you have to reference each hole feature separately. So the changes to be made can get pretty tedious.

I would be happy if it was possible to just place a hole freely on a surface without having to waste time with the drag handles and doing all this zoom out and zoom in hassle.

All these ref patterns for holes and the possibily to use them while placeing bolts sounds amazing productivity wise but how often do you get to use that one? The definition of table pattern which usually comes prior to that takes just way too long.

I could understand the reasons from Brian why he voted down on this idea, even though these seem to be too general to me. I am also aware that this idea needs some further clarification.

I would like to ask for the reasons from people who also voted down to be stated in here cause I really don't really understand why would you want to vote down on this one.

KrisR
1-Newbie

Honestly, my opinion on that, Jakub, is thus;

I feel people vote things down when they don't want or aren't accepting to change. I've heard many time in PlanetPTC..."well we've been doing it this way for years, so why change?" When I hear that, I want to bang my head on the table.

If a software developer and its users aren't open to change, then the software will never evolve, because each time it does, people will complain that "something" changed and now they don't like it.

I can understand if a change happens and it is a determent to functionality; I'm all for avoiding those types of changes. But something that would add more function to a seriously LACKING feature in Pro/Creo, I would think would be a GOOD thing. But who am I to say?

BrianMartin
11-Garnet

Hi Jakub...

I am totally against having 500 holes in one feature... that's just far too complex for my liking. But I wasn't totally against Kris' idea... I felt I needed to see it in action. I don't trust the standard hole functions in Creo as they are... I would be wary of multiple versions of them wandering around in the same feature. But again, I thought that perhaps I just wasn't understanding the great benefit Kris was proposing.

With respect to reference patterns... I absolutely DO use them all the time... practically every single day. If you're used to using them, you build them into your model so you can take advantage of them later when adding hardware. I also take advantage of hardware groups and UDF's. UDG's (User Defined Groups) are a cool new development I also plan to use to help with hardware placement and patterning.

I didn't vote down the idea because I'm "stuck in the past"... I just don't see the great value the way the idea is presented. I posed some very direct, specific questions about how the new multi-hole feature would impact patterns. I don't think the answers to those questions were very reassuring. From what I see... patterns would be gravely affected. Multi-hole would destroy grouping, too. Groups are not merely a folder for other objects! There are patterning ramifications to groups and patterns of groups.

So then... I have some grave concerns about how a multi-hole feature would work....

However... I've taken the time to go back and evaluate Creo's hole options. After digging into it deeply and trying some other ideas, I can now see what Kris is asking for.

For a demonstration, go to the Create Datum Point Tool and go around dropping points on a surface, Creo will allow this without selecting the two perpendicular references. After dropping a dozen or so points, drag the handles to two edge/surface dimensioning references. Creo will create an independent dimension to each point.  Complete the feature.

Create hole and drop it on top of one of the points and then pattern (by point), you'll get a pattern of holes. But in this example, all of the holes must be the same size and depth. You can move them by dragging the points, but you can't have independent hole sizes or depths.

If the holes could vary in size and depth, we'd have a close approximation of what Kris is after. She's asking for all of it in one feature (rather than dropping points and then patterning). But you get the idea.

So then... I like her idea more now that I understand it. The original idea was literally a dozen words long. Most people are just not going to understand what you're trying to communicate in a dozen words. I took time out of my day to go back and decode what was being suggested... but how many other people will do this? I think we need to better explain the ideas being presented or else not be offended when those ideas are voted down.

I had to do a performance evaluation for an employee. He refused to do his part of the evaluation asking repeatedly "what's in it for me"?  When forced to complete his evaluation, for each category "Work habits", "Punctuality", etc... he wrote only two words: GOOD GUY. Literally for "Strengths and talents" he wrote "Good guy". Weaknesses? Good guy. Areas of improvement? Good guy. He was offended at his raise that year... but I had no input to go on! He expected me to fill in the blanks for him and just give him the benefit of the doubt.... much the same as this idea.

I've changed my vote... but in the future we need better descriptions of ideas!

Also, in my estimation, a companion tool to multi-hole would be a simple "repeat" function for features much like the repeat function in assembly mode. To be able to drop multiple holes, you should be able to pick one hole and simply repeat it with the option of choosing a new placement location for each copy. But I'll add that as a new idea in a separate topic.

James62
10-Marble

Thank you for the heads up and thanks for changing your vote, Brian.

I'll be trying to incorporate the point pattern into my mindset... I mean toolset

The idea to use repeat command for features much like it works in assemblies sounds good. I find Feature Operations --> Copy feature too tough to use.

And yeap, It's slightly off topic.

BrianMartin
11-Garnet

Yeah Feature Operations copy is very, very old. There's some cool stuff you can do with it but it's days of usefulness are numbered. The REGULAR copy/paste command or copy/paste special command is ALMOST what we need.

I tried creating one hole and then creating multiple copies using copy/paste special but was very disappointed in the results. After messing with it for an hour or so, I have to agree that Kris' idea has merit.

I'm still very worried about how this new feature would impact patterns and groups of patterns but with careful consideration for those issues, I think PTC can still give us a multi-hole feature. I'll try to have this added to the Technical Committee's list of core modeling enhancements.

BrianMartin
11-Garnet

FYI Kris and Jakub...

I just took your multi-hole idea and potential ways we can use the current Creo tools to give you those capabilities directly to the PTC developers. I think they understand what we're asking... and they've noted my comments. We received positive feedback... but we'll see what happens. I promised I'd take some of these ideas up the chain of command. wanted to make sure you knew I followed through on that promise for what it's worth.

Thanks!

-Brian

James62
10-Marble

Great, thats some good news.

Thanks Brian.

KrisR
1-Newbie

Great to hear - thanks!

PTCModerator
Emeritus
Status changed to: Acknowledged
 
olivierlp
Community Manager
Status changed to: Archived

Hello,

We are archiving your idea as part of a general review. This action is based on the age of your idea and the total number of votes received, as per this announcement.

You can always post a new idea with all the details required in the form.

Thank you for your participation.