Sweep tools are WOEFULLY inadequate. Please make them functional like they should be.

[ginashvili]

One of the saddest disappointments with Creo is your sweep tools - both of them.  I don't know how one could arrive at fundamental modeling tools so limited and inadequate, it's ridiculous. 

Example #1:  In your swept blend tool I want to sweep 1 - yest just ONE - section over 2 rails (trajectories), that is currently impossible.  Really productive stuff, non-existant.

Example #2:  Your surface tools don't recognize basic boundaries and need to be told where to "trm at" to even make tangencies possible

Example #3:  In the Sweep tool it appears to be impossible to just use an existing surface edge at a sweep section, it makes you sketch one while active in the tool.  That's not frustrating, that's just plain crazy.

Example #4:  Basic surface controls like boundary influence shifting are also missing.

[TomD.inPDX]

George, the Sweep tool is actually very powerful but indeed, it is only one of the many tools one can use for the operations you describe.  Boundary Blend and Sweep Blends are the other alternatives for even greater control.  None of these are intuitive on the face of things, but their capabilities are much greater than you might have experience with.

When working with surfaces, it is quite common to make "sheets" of material where they are defined by intersecting through a merge operation.  In fact, this makes the design much more controllable and certainly more sustainable.

Again, I am not going to defend PTC on how they implemented these tools and it certainly is not a new problem.  All of Creo could use a serious face lift in context sensitive help.  The Learning Connector is not even close to the mark as for guiding someone through feature creation.  When features such as this have so many options, intuitive guided in-context help is virtually a must.  Unfortunately, this is what drives PTC's education income.  In my book and my budget, this is a non-starter.  That is why I participate in the Community instead.  There is a huge knowledge base right here!

Just out of curiosity, what software are you comparing this function to?

[ginashvili]

Antonius I'm an 18-year advanced level Alias Studio user.  Our company is forcing us into ProE, that's the ONLY reason I'm doing this, and trying to turn Creo, from a dysfunctional disaster of a program it is today to something you don't have to constantly fight with to get your day job done. 

I have more than enough experience to figure things out, and I have plenty already, but current sweep and swept blend tools are both, as I said above, are woefully inadequate.  No, they're not "very powerful" by any stretch of imagination if you compare it to serious, intuitive, and flexible modelers like Alias and Rhino.  Untill they dramatically improve their surface tool (including boundary blend too) I'm not calling them powerful any time soon.

[TomD.inPDX]

Understood.  You might look into the advanced surfacing extension for the type of work you are doing.  Parametric modeling is far removed from Alias and Rhino; I would even go so far as to say polar opposites.  I would hate to try and do serious surface modeling with a core creo setup.

I would see about getting a VAR into your company and having them review your needs and see if PTC cannot remove some of the pain.  If you already have the advanced surfacing module, then it may behoove your company to get a requirements-specific course on how to achieve what you are needing.

There is a lot I've learned to do with core Creo with regard to surfaces.  There are even hidden features that extend the capabilities even further (older discontinued features).  But Creo is -not- Rhino, and it never will be!

[ginashvili]

Advanced surfacing extention - do you mean the Style module?  We do have that.  Evolution over basic tools, yes, but I still consider it inadequate/inferior to what Alias has to offer.

[dgschaefer]

I have to disagree, the VSS tools are quite powerful.  Difficult to understand I'll give you, "woefully inadequate" I won't.

Your example #1 is very possible, can you start a new thread with the geometry you'd like to create and I'm sure we can help you through it.

I don't understand what you are getting at in example #2.

Yes, the sweep tool requires an internal sketch.  You can "use edge' to capture existing geometry, but that's only going to work well in a constant section sweep.

Maybe you're right in example #4, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

This is Creo, not Alias.  I'm sure it's missing some very advanced surfacing techniques that you are used to. It's also operating under a different set of assumptions and parameters.  If you try to drive it like Alias you're going to be frustrated.  I use Cero & SW here and if I try to drive one like the other it drives me batty.  It can be hard to make the switch.

There are lots of highly knowledgeable people here that can help you figure out how to make Creo do what you want.  I'm confident that it can do almost all that you're looking for, you just need to find the right tools.

Oh, and yes, Interactive Surface Design Extension (ISDX) gives you the Style feature. 

[ginashvili]

Ok Doug, may be you're perfectly satisfied with those tools, but I'm not for very simple reason - if you were driving a top class mercedes for almost 2 decades, and then were forced into driving a combine, you might not be in love with combine's comfort and controls either.

To make a long story short I'd love to take you up on your offer for my example #1 - I think I tried every way under the sun to make it work, but could not.  Simply, how would you drive an existing section - whether its a sketch or a surface edge - down the 2 rails?

Every time I tried it, it's asking for another selected section.  Not letting me finish the surface with just 1 section no matter what.

Ability to do that in Alias is VERY powerful and has a ton of use and application in surfacing.

Thank you for your help,

GI

[dgschaefer]

The Mercedes may be more comfortable, but it's lousy for harvesting corn. In other words, different tools have different strengths.

The key there is "an existing section", that's not possible (and not what you asked originally).  The VSS tool requires an internal section to define that and it makes sense to me that it does. 

The tool allows you to sweep a section along any number of trajectories, typically with one (or a projection of one) being the "normal" trajectory.  The orientation and position of the sketch being swept is tied to the definition of the normal trajectory.  Once the origin is defined, Creo presents you with the intersection of the various trajectories through the section as reference points.  You can then define a section around those trajectory intersection points.  Creo then sweeps that sketch along the trajectory maintaining the relationships to the trajectory as defined in the sketch.

An existing set of edges has no defined relationship to the trajectories, it only has an existing shape.  Many things could be assumed from the relationship between the shape adn the trajectories, but that assumption may not be correct.  Makes sense to put it all in the VSS.

So, Creo has no basis for maintaining that sketch along the trajectory.  You can use the "use edge tool" inside the sketch and Creo will try to recreate those used edges at every point along the trajectory, but as the sketch plane pivots along the trajectory the used edges will be in very different places as projected on the sketch plane.  The exception to this is use the "constant" option, the Creo copies the geometry once and sweeps it, unchanged, along the trajectory.

Trying to describe this in words is tough, if I understood the geometry you're trying to create, perhaps I could provide an example part doing it.  I'd again suggest that the product suggestion area isn't the right place to do so.