Creo Parametric Ideas

Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. 1. What product and version are you running? Creo Parametric 8.0.8.0 2. What is the problem? Reference:  Case: 15985425 SPR: 13172667  Article: 351209   When we convert a model from one unit to another, any regular "Real Number with units" parameter gets updated properly. Both the unit and the value changes. However, the mass properties units only get updated, the number stays the same as the old unit. For instance, if the value for PRO_MP_VOLUME is 1in^3 and then the model gets converted to metric, the parameter will now show 1mm^3. The value should be updated WITH the unit automatically, like a regular parameter. Having mismatched data like this, can cause serious issues downstream. 3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. We need to regenerate the model after the update, before we get the correct values. However, until a manual regeneration is done, there is a significant error in the parameters. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Describe how your idea would work in context or how it would apply to a practical situation. We use mass properties and there is a risk that the incorrect data could be sent to Windchill due to this issue. The idea is simple. When the model unit is converted, the mass properties value should be updated with the unit. 5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) Incorrect data in Windchill can cause countless downstream errors, including supply chain, legal, purchasing, etc. Hundreds of users, and hours could be affected. In addition, there could be contractual issues where we assume a certain amount of material is being procured, but the truth is very different. ... View more

Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. 1. What product and version are you running? CCX in all Creo version 2. What is the problem? with SAX it was possible to set a CTI value using Material Parameter. We lost this capability in CCX. it was very useful to standardize and automatically apply a CTI to a model.. 3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. no workaround, we need to specify CTI parameter manualy at each model. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Describe how your idea would work in context or how it would apply to a practical situation. the Idea is to implement a lost feature. 5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) that affect all CCX users; they loose time and standarization   ... View more

1. What version of the software are you running? We are currently working with Creo Parametric 7.0.11.0. 2. What is the problem? We need a way in Creo to search for all features in a part that do not currently have children. 3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. We currently know of no other option than to laboriously go through the model tree feature by feature. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Describe how your idea would work in context or how it would apply to a practical situation. Our calculation engineers prepare FEM parts that are later processed in ANSYS. These FEM parts usually consist of hundreds of curve and surface features. Sometimes it is necessary to simplify these models and delete features that are no longer needed. In most cases these orphaned features have no more children. But finding them is not easy. Therefore, the calculation engineers would like to have a way to quickly identify features without children. 5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) The number of users affected in my company is about 300. ... View more

Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. 1. What version of the software are you running? Creo 7.0.8.0 2. What is the problem? In most cases, NASA users need up to date mass properties on our parts, including family table parts.  Our users frequently fail to Calculate mass properties in the Model Properties.  We need to be able to use Modelcheck to flag this condition. 3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. No. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Describe how your idea would work in context or how it would apply to a practical situation. If Modelcheck had a check for this, then users could be alerted that the mass properties of their parts are out of date, so that they could be advised or required to fix it before checking in to Windchill 5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) ... View more

1. What version of the software are you running? Creo 9.0.5.0 GD&T Advisor 6.2.2.30   2. What is the problem? This is an improvement proposal for GD&T Advisor. To improve user experience, and to better select annotations (after tolerance features are created) the selection should automatically switch to "Annotations" and not to "Geometry" or "Surface". • Already existing behavior: Starting creating tolerance feature, it switches to “Surface” (this is correct). • Missing behavior: After creating a tolerance feature, it should be switched to “Annotation”. This is currently not the case. Annotations that are placed in front of the model cannot be selected. It is necessary to set the selection filter to "Annotations" manually each time.   3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. No workaround available.   4. What is the use case for your organization? Describe how your idea would work in context or how it would apply to a practical situation. Standard designer's work, modifying and validating dimensions using GD&T Advisor.   5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) Having to switch to “Annotations” every time, causes users to lose a small amount of time every day. With approximately 5000 users however, that lost time sums up to significant amount of worktime, causing company to waste money in effect.       ... View more

Creo Simulation Live starts to solve  a model even if this is not fully constrained; it would be useful to have a warning for this situation   ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Company: Manufacturer of hydraulic components for hydrostatic transmissions. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 8.0.4.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Hello everybody, In detail analysis, in the Global Interference dialog, in order to identify the models, it will be good to have the possibility to add a paramter, in our example, the PTC_WM_NAME WIndchill parameter: 4. What is the use case for your organization? Identy quickly the models in interference. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Time saving in interferences' analysis. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. We design and manufacture high-end electronics. I am the CAD Manager / PTC SME. Stakeholders for this idea include our Creo user community. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 8.0.6.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. The Creo Mold Extension development seems to have been stagnant for many years. Our design engineers need a little more functionality out of the tool than what it currently offers. The one big feature that we require is a warpage analysis. We have to use another, disconnected, tool because this extension can't give us everything we need. We would prefer to work within the creo environment, but unfortunately we have to skip this PTC offering.    Moldex, the company that makes the extension, has standalone tools that have a litany of modules and capabilities. Most of that functionality is geared for the manufacturing vendors. However, they should evaluate which other features the design engineers could use and port that into the extension. They can start by comparing their feature offering to those of their competitors, like Moldflow Advisor Ultimate, which is also geared toward the design engineer. We could also benefit from quickly generating design scenarios as well.  4. What is the use case for your organization? Our design teams need to use another non ptc tool, because the offering provided by ptc is coming up short. We believe this can be easily remedied, since the company that provides the extension has this capability in their other solutions. Out design engineers run through a mold analysis before a design goes to the vendor, to try to minimize DFM and iterative process. Warpage is critical for our usage of a mold analysis tool.  5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? By using a PTC tool, it would help reduce translation time from the different tools, and decrease the overall process. It would also make it easier to learn, as it is all within the same design tool.  ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Mining and infrastructure heavy equipment R&D department. I'm a mechanical designer. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? v6.0.6.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. I often create cross sections to quickly check a structure's properties, like area or moment of inertia. With the variable-width font it is hard to read the results. Opening the information window solves this but it's an extra and unnecessary step. See attached screenshot.   I suggest that the cross section properties dialog uses the same fixed-width font that the information window does. 4. What is the use case for your organization? See above. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Less clicks, less time spend formatting the information I need, more time spent being productive. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. We design and manufacture high-end electronics. I am the CAD Manager / PTC SME. Stakeholders for this idea include our Creo user community. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 8.0.6.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Reference: Case - C15984139 SPR - 13206241 Article - CS352120   We noticed discrepancies in Mass Properties reporting when viewing the results from the Analysis Ribbon vs the Model Properties. If a submodel, within an assembly, has PRO_MP_SOURCE set to Parameters, then the Geometry report from the Model Properties will use those parameter values. However, from the Analysis Ribbon, the Computed  value will NOT use that value. It would seem that the Computed  from the Analysis Ribbon is the same as Geometry from the Model Properties and the Assigned from the Analysis Ribbon is the same as Geometry and Parameters in the Model Properties. The verbiage is not consistent and definitely confusing. Having assigned values get used in a report called Geometry is even more confusing. The idea would be to make the verbiage and behavior clearer, consistent and understandable between the 2 mechanisms.   4. What is the use case for your organization? We have been trying to work out the specifics with setting up mass properties for assemblies. However, it is taking us years to work through some tickets due to confusing behaviors, options that don't really do anything, etc. It is holding us back from getting a clear understanding of behavior. If the SMEs are struggling, then users are surely going to struggle. We use a lot of PCBs in our products, all of which will require alternate mass properties. Now, the Geometry in the Model Properties will report those alternate values, but the Computed will not.  5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? It would enable us to computer mass properties for our products easily and store them in Windchill. It would save a lot of manual effort down stream. ... View more

Suggestion: if you select an edge of a part, it should be possible to show the length, radius, diameter... of it automatically in the status bar without starting the analyzing tool. Also the distance or angle of two selected edges, surfaces should be shown automatically in the status bar. In most cases this is sufficient enough. If you have to do more complex measurements you can start the analyzing tool.     ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. We design and manufacture high-end electronics. I am the CAD Manager / PTC SME. Stakeholders for this idea include our Creo user community.  2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 8.0.4.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Reference: Article: CS368069 Case: C16139073 SPR: 13778030   ANY organization which uses Windchill and wants to start calculating mass properties via mass_property_calculate is going to have this problem. The issue itself isn't with the Windchill integration, but with the fact that Creo flags submodels of an assembly as modified when mass_property_calculate is set to Automatic, ONLY in specific scenarios. If we have an assembly pulled from Windchill and turn on mass_property_calculate AUTOMATIC, the assembly only gets modified - which is good! Anything submodels won't be flagged as modified. Great! EXCEPT!...   Any model that is brought into session AFTER the initial load. For instance: 1 - Some of us have a config to load in base models into session along with the model itself. Therefore, parts that use forms - the formed models will flag as modified! Parts that have merge features - the source model will be flagged as modified! (then flagging the downstream parts as modified). 2 - The generic of the object loaded in session will be flagged as modified, which will flag all instances as modified! 3 - If you make a simplified rep of the assembly, erase from session, and then bring them back - they will also be flagged as modified; even if they weren't before!   This is a administrative nightmare. The only solutions forward are to: 1 - Update 40+ years of legacy data to avoid the issue - not going to happen. 2 - Let conflict windows popup for all users and have them manage this issue in their workspaces until this is going to be fixed - Not going to happen. 3 - Give up on using the tool the way that it was intended and use a workaround (analysis feature in footer) - the only possible solution.   Please have this addressed, because there really is no way to use this functionality designed as-is for a company that has legacy data in Windchill. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Our organization wanted to start tracking mass properties in Windchill and we couldn't use the tool as it was intended due to this issue. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? This would allow us to get the necessary data from the cad to the downstream teams to allow for proper material analysis, procurement strategies, competitive sourcing, weight, etc. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Construction industry, lead engineer R&D department. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 7.0.5.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. The measure summary window is always in front of the "All reference' window. Placing the Measure Summary window in the ribbonbar will solve this problem and also placing the the measure options in the ribbon bar is more convenient and in line with most other functions.    4. What is the use case for your organization? Saves time and frustration that the result of the measure is not hidden behind a window. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Saves time and frustration. ... View more

I've been working with motion envelopes a lot over the last several years.  This is an incredibly useful tool and my organization creates and uses them frequently.  However, they're difficult to create, difficult to use, and difficult to update.  It's time PTC gave this tool an overhaul with the end-users in mind.   Ribbon toolbar Replace the pop-up dialogue box with a ribbon based menu. Separate this from the Playback tool. This is where I should be able to select mirror planes, body options, frame of reference options, output options, etc. More envelope output options Option to export a separate mirror part instead of, or in addition to, the regular envelope part. Option to add a mirrored envelope to the same body as the regular envelope or add it to a separate body. An ability to select the mirror plane. Option to export and assemble the envelope to the mechanism assembly it came from. Option to update an existing envelope if it was associated to the mechanism model in this way. Aligned output options between MDX's envelope tool and BMX's Motion Analysis tool. BMX's Motion Analysis tool has the ability to create an envelope feature directly in the feature tree of the mechanism it was generated from. MDX's envelope tool can't do this. It only exports to the startup folder. Both tools should have the same output capabilities. Change the frame of reference Add an ability to change what reference frame (coordinate system) the envelope uses. Currently, the top level coordinate system, or the ground, of the assembly is used. There's no option to change it. I want to be able to change the coordinate system/reference frame used and have the resulting envelope represent the motion of parts with respect to it, not the ground. This is similar in concept to a "paper part" in the Trace Curve tool where the paper part serves as the frame of reference for the motion. I know of at least two Pro/Workarounds© to do this, but they're labor intensive and I don't want to have to use them. I want Creo to do this for me. See this post from 2010 (@PAULKORENKIEWIC): https://community.ptc.com/t5/Analysis/mechanisms-trace-curves-and-designing-the-largest-parts/m-p/38... Add a smoothing function All envelopes have jittery facets that shouldn't be there. Even flat surfaces have raised and recessed facets.  And because of how Creo merges coincident surfaces into a single surface, this seems to be a cause of export failures. An optional smoothing operation should be added to the envelope tool. The user should be able to turn this option on or off with the understanding that smoothing adds computation time. Sharp edges should be preserved. OR just make the envelope tool better at generating smoother, less jittery surfaces without an added function. See my post here: https://community.ptc.com/t5/Analysis/Motion-Envelope-Refinement/td-p/199024 Add an option to update existing motion envelopes Currently, envelopes are stand-alone objects with no connection to the mechanism model they were generated from. Methods for updating an existing envelope depends on its part type: If an envelope was created as a "Part", then the only way to update it is to manually overwrite it with a new envelope which is time consuming and cumbersome. If an envelope was created as a "Lightweight Part", then you have the same option of overwriting as with a "Part" type envelope, but also by copying and pasting the "facet" object. Still time consuming and cumbersome. There should be a way to update existing motion envelopes via the motion envelope creation dialogue box, regardless of the part type or other options selected (mirror solid, mirror body, mirror part, etc.) This could be an option in the envelope tool which the user can choose in order to link the created envelope to the mechanism model it was generated from. Envelopes which have been linked to their generating mechanism would then have the ability to be updated later. Add an ability to create compound motion envelopes directly Currently, the motion envelope tool can only process one analysis file at a time. If a compound envelope is needed, then the user must create one envelope, assemble it into the mechanism, and then create a second envelope using the first one. Time consuming and cumbersome. You could generate a compound envelope with a single motion path, but this would not capture the entire possible range of motion and this becomes extremely cumbersome with more than two DOF's. The envelope tool should have the ability to process two analyses at the same time in order to generate a compound motion envelope in one go. Order of precedence matters when creating compound envelopes (which analysis is used 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) so the user should have the ability to specify this or more ideally, Creo should automatically detect the correct sequence. Add debugging tools When an envelope fails to export, what do I do? Where is the problem geometry? What are possible solutions? Currently, the user is on their own. If I was able to export a part-type envelope without the solidification feature then that could be a way to get past an output error, do the export, open it in Creo, and attempt to repair it manually with the IDD. The Invert Triangle Pairs tool is effective at resolving export problems, but it's difficult to tell where problem areas are. When Fix Triangle Pairs is started, mesh statistics should be plotted on the previewed envelope and color coded. Better yet, give an option to have Creo attempt to repair bad geometry. Better yet, make this automatic when an export fails. Creo attempts to fix suspicious geometry and attempts to export again. If it fails again then it prompts the user. But if Creo is able to identify and fix bad geometry, then why should there be an error in the first place? Enable edge display for envelope previews. Currently, you can only see shaded with no edge display. Putting this here since displaying edges during the preview could help the user ID problem areas. The only immediately obvious way to see the envelope edges when troubleshooting a bad envelope is to export a lightweight part. However, you can see the edges when you enter the Invert Triangle Pairs tool. So it is possible to display them during the preview. So let the user control that with the regular edges/no edges display option. Creo should detect if an exported envelope is going to fail upon solidification. And it should tell the user where/why so the user can fix the problem with Fix Triangle Pairs if Creo can't itself. Add envelope statistics The number of "triangles" is reported when an envelope is created and that's it. What's their average size? How long did it take to generate the envelope? How many triangles have a good aspect ratio and how many are warped and how severely? Plot the statistics on the previewed envelope as color coded values for aspect ratio, etc. This could be a tool for debugging, help with spotting problem areas. The Motion Analysis tool (BMX) Envelope creation by this BMX tool seems to take much longer than the MDX tool Let's speed it up, please. The ability for this tool to put an envelope quilt in the feature tree of the mechanism it was generated from is too valuable for this slowdown to happen. RegenRequest When the analysis feature is changed from "Always" to "Read Only", the envelope quilt feature should be retained. Currently, it disappears.  If it was retained, then publish geometry can still reference it Better yet, this tool should be able to export a standalone envelope quilt feature that exists independently of the analysis feature that it came from, but still be able to be updated by it. Component Selection Component selection for the envelope ignores assemblies and grouped parts.  In order to select the parts contained within them you must select them all individually. MDX's envelope tool at least allows the selection of assemblies. Update Interval How does this work, exactly?  Documentation is not clear. http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/index.html#page/model_analysis%2Fbemod%2FTo_Create... At first, I thought it was overriding the frame rate in the mechanism analysis definition.  But that's not the case. Then I thought it was how frequently the graphical display was being updated. But that's not the case either. It appears that this controls how frequently the measures are updated. Can we get better documentation of this? Better documentation The accuracy of an envelope depends on shading quality and the absolute size of collected objects in addition to the envelope accuracy setting Nowhere in the help files is it mentioned that shading quality affects envelope accuracy. Is this an error? I've never encountered the parts below in formatted in bold comic sans. http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/index.html#page/simulate/mech_des/results/ToCreate... 1) Click <symbol>. The first time you create a motion envelope with a result set, a message box appears for you to confirm that you want to create a frame file named result_set_name.fra. 2) Click Yes. The Create Motion Envelope dialog box opens. "About Motion Analysis" http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/index.html#page/model_analysis%2Fbemod%2FAbout_Mot...  This page says this tool can create "A graphical display of the motion envelope" which is true. However, it does not mention that the tool can actually create an envelope feature. This is a huge oversight since the ability to create an envelope feature inside the mechanism it came from is huge.  This is a way to automatically update envelopes instead of the manual way via MDX's envelope tool. http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/index.html#page/model_analysis%2Fbemod%2FTo_Create... This page is the only place that mentions the ability to create an envelope feature and it does so only indirectly and in passing. Motion Analysis Update Interval Documentation The following two pages have slightly different descriptions about what the Motion Analysis update interval does.  They both say this controls how frequently the "graphical results" are displayed. What exactly does "graphical results" mean?  In my experience, the graphics window is updated with every frame as per the analysis definition, regardless of that this update interval is set to. http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/index.html#page/model_analysis%2Fbemod%2FTo_Create... "Update interval—Enter the number of frames between two update events. This number determines how often the system updates the graphical results." http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/index.html#page/model_analysis%2Fbemod%2FTo_Create... "Update interval—Enter the number of frames between two update events. This number determines how often the system updates the graphical results of the computation."     1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Industry:  wheeled machinery Role:  product engineer Stakeholders:  Every end-user who uses this tool and every designer who designs parts around other moving parts and depends on accurate and up-to-date motion envelopes 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? Creo 7.0.4.1 Windchill 12.0.0.4 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Generally speaking, the problem we need to solve is the difficult and inefficient process of creating and updating motion envelopes. Refer to the above text for all the detail you need. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Every organization that creates motion envelopes would benefit from improvements to this tool, not just mine. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Time saved inefficiently operating the program which can instead be spend on design work ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. marine/automotive 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 5 moving to 8 in a few weeks 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. when changing windows for a part to a top level assy the window takes a while (several minutes) to activate.  would like a tool that runs analysis and tells us in a report what parts need to be updated and best suggestions on fixing them.  i would like the report to list the last known user in file history.  this could speed up large assemblies and save a lot of wasted money in waiting.  there are many new users who may not know best practices.  4. What is the use case for your organization? saving time and therefor money 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? saving time using the software. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Space industry, senior CAD and systems engineer, Our company and customers 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 6.0.6.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. In when performing an analysis on a component using Creo Simulate, through Creo Parametric, one can view the Results window. However, one is forced to close this window to go back into both the Simulate environment and to the CAD environment to make alterations. It would in many cases be good to have the results window open when going back to make changes, such that one can look back at the results window to see where these changes should be made. As a second step, one could envision a "Refresh" button in the results window that reruns the associated analysis and updates the results accordingly. A dialogue box can inform the user of the time it took for the previous analysis, as that is available in the analysis results in order to make an informed decision on continuing with the refresh or not at that time. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Every new component and assembly that is designed 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? It could shorten the time needed to develop a product. ... View more

The Compare Parts functionality in Creo Elements/Direct is very powerful. It quickly and acurately shows the differences between 2 parts in 2 adjacent viewports, helped by color coding. It's also easy to take measurements between the 2 parts. The Compare Part By Geometry in Creo Parametric is unreliable, slow, and hard to use. It would be great if the Compare-functionality of CED would by copied to Creo Parametric Thanks, Jaap ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Not relevant to the subject idea 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? Not relevant to the subject idea 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. We have seen this specified as a contract deliverable requirement for defense contracts.  There is currently no way to geometrically represent the LMC or MMC in Creo Parametric.  The LMC and MMC states could be represented by transparent overlays or by separate representations.  The nominal dimension must not be changed in order to illustrate the LMC or MMC state. 4. What is the use case for your organization? In order to support design reviews and detailing using Model Based Definition, Creo Parametric should be able to illustrate LMC (lease material condition) and MMC (max material condition) based on defined dimensional tolerances.  A default tolerance parameter could optionally be supplied by the user. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Benefits of implementing this suggestion include: Substantial errors in tolerancing can be easily verified by visible review. Minor errors in tolerancing can be identified by a subsequent interference analysis. Model Based Definition requirements to illustrate LMC or MMC state can be supported. If used during a design review, costly errors may be avoided prior to manufacturing. Allows for simple determination of tolerance issues in assemblies prior to more detailed subsequent statistical tolerance analysis. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Satellite design and manufacturing. Senior designer and mechanical team team. Stakeholders are our company. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 9.0.1.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Using Generative design is key to minimizing mass and overall cost. Using the Contacts function is great in simulating a component that is held by the generated design component. I use this to simulate the supported component and specifically where screws are used to connect the parts. Running an opitmization sometimes results in no material placed around some of the contact points(screw interfaces). Even though they may not be required from an optimization point, they may still be required to be used. Thus it would be good to have a function to enforce material to certain sections.  4. What is the use case for your organization? To fulfill fixation requirements 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? It may simplify the design process and generate better structures. ... View more