«All Solid Surfaces» in «Publish Geometry» doesn’t run like all other Creo functions. For example, «All Solid Surfaces» in «Copy» depends of model tree location (parametric design).
If we want to have part geometry, it is already possible to «move to footer» the publish geometry
This functionality makes sense to me - it publishes as the part exists, and the part only really "exists" in the state at the end of the regeneration. If a set of geometry in an interim state is desired, a copy feature can be created at that point in the tree and the copied surfaces added to the publish geometry.
I would agree that it is confusing. A preferred enhancement in my view would be to have publish_geoms automatically added to the footer to more clearly indicate their functionality.
Final designed parts can exist in multiple states. It might be nice to publish out multiple versions of a Master Model in incremental states of build. Think of it as an alternative way of building model variation to go along with Family Tables and Simplified Reps. What about casting model vs machined model? These could both be driven by the same model using Publish Geoms at different locations in the model tree.
Possibly worse than the issue of lost opportunity, current (lack of) functionality confuses new (and possibly experienced) users. Why does Pub Geom act asynchronously when every other parametric feature builds on the previous one(s).
It should be noted that this problem is not limited to the "All Solid Surfaces" selection. The Pub Geom seems to incorporate all modifications to a quilt regardless of relative tree position.
The outcome you desire can be accomplished by making a copy of the surfaces or curves at the state in which you want them published at the proper place in the tree and publishing that.
Thanks Doug. That does work. PTC also gave me the same response. For some reason it still irks me that I have to clutter up my model tree in order to work around the counterintuitive behaviour of the pub geom. It's possible that they may have designed it to always reside in the footer (which is how it acts) and then something went awry.
The publish geometry feature has been around longer than the model tree footer, I believe. Probably 15 years at minimum, likely longer. (This PDF seems to indicate that it debuted with release 2000i which goes back to 1999 I believe).
That longevity is one reason why I'd say not to change it. I also understand the logic here. The point is to publish certain geometry of this part. This part only exists, really, in it's final, fully regenerated state. Think about workers on two shifts sharing a document. The second shift guy would only get what was saved at the end of the first shift, not the interim saves throughout the day, unless the first shift worker saved a copy of the document in an interim state. That's pretty similar to the logic here, although I do recognize the disconnect between the feature's position in the tree and it's functionality.
Publish Geometry Features Should Automatically Go To the Footer
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.