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

Redefining Failed Features

Redefining Failed Features

When a Datum Feature, let's say a datum plane, fails due to a missing reference, I am presented with the definition dialogue box, in which the failed/missing references are highlighted with a little red dot.

What Should Happen:

I click on a reference of the same type as the failed/missing reference and click OK. The object regenerates without a problem.

What Actually Happens:

I click on a reference of the same type as the failed/missing reference and the remaining good reference(s) are removed from the dialogue box. I curse, click Cancel and try to remember/write down the good references in case it happens again.

I try again, Right-Click, Remove the failed/missing reference, press and hold CTRL, click on a reference of the same type as the failed/missing reference and click OK. The object regenerates without a problem.

The software knows what is wrong, it knows what reference it requires, it knows which reference has failed. Why, then, does it not accept the first appropriate click I make as the replacement reference and just work?

Just one more instance of unfinished/badly-thought-out interface software, I am afraid

WF4, M220

I hope this has all been fixed in C2, M050, but...

4 Comments
dgschaefer
21-Topaz II

If you know what is failed or missing and want to repalce it, select 'reroute' instead of 'redefine' from the quick fix menu.  You can then select 'missing refs' and simply pick the new item. Pro/E will as you if you want to perform this reoplacement for this feature only or for all children.

In Creo (and WF5 I believe), the failure mechanism is different.  Features can be left 'hanging' ad the reminder of the model regenerated.  You can then RMB on the failed feature and select edit references to accomplish the same thing.

JWayman
1-Newbie

Yes, Doug, of course it is perfectly possible to go the way you suggest, and I frequently do.

However, once I find myself in the dialogue with one red dot on my constraints, it just isn't right that the software behaves the way it does. Whether or not I should be there in the first place is a separate debate!

I still maintain that what it should do and what it actually does are fundamentally different as described.

It's hard to believe there were sound reasons for making it do what it does, so it just seems like another unnecessary annoyance.

Software Engineers are afflicted the same way we Mechanical Engineers are:

If we do a great job, nobody notices - nobody is interested in the really clever stuff we did to get to the resultant widget; conversely, if anybody notices what we have done, you can usually bet it's because we cocked it up and it has therefore become a nuisance.

WF5 and beyond, with their 'Never mind if it won't regenerate, just check it in' possibilities seem like a terrifying prospect of potential anarchy to me! Perhaps I should start another discussion to see how people handle ensuring things are not checked in without their regen issues resolved.

Another day...

dgschaefer
21-Topaz II

I see what you mean, but I also understand why it works like it does.  You're entering the 'redefine' or 'edit definition' environment. That environment should work the same no matter how you entered it or under what circumstances.  In any other circumstance, redefining a datum feature (or simply creating one) requires the control button to select more than one item.

An argument could be made (and I guess you're making it) that in failure mode new functionality should available to enable simple correction of what it wrong.  Maybe adding a replace button to the redefine dialog, like they did in sketcher, would be a worthy enhancement.  I would say that changing the fundamental rules or functionality of the redefine mechanism wouldn't be desirable, however.

PTCModerator
Emeritus
Status changed to: Archived