Creo Parametric Ideas

Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Can the Tool Motions tab dropdown dialog box be resizable? 1. What product and version are you running? Creo4 through to Creo + 2. What is the problem? Scroll too small when editing tool motions in the dashboard tab dropdown. 3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. 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. 5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) ... View more

I am a user of Creo 8.0.7.0 Manufacturing I have been using PTC Manufacturing software for 20 years and have hit this limitation of the software many times, recently the topic has come up via the PTC community proving I am not the only one having the same pain. Within manufacturing there are many parameters but not all can be used/referenced for relations, enabling access to more of the parameters (that we know exist) would allow for a higher level of automation and improved consistency. POCKET_NUMBER is an interesting example, it is very valuable to manufacturing, it represents the tool # for the CL data generated but it is a little mysterious in the way it exists and that is OK, we would like more of these. If it is not possible to enable all parameters (model tree, process manager, PPRINT, XML templates, Pro/Report) to be used in the relation editor perhaps as a group of users we can build a list, here are a few to start: •STEP_NUM – the NC sequence number, Step # in process manager •FEATURE_ID – this can be output for PPRINT but not accessible in any other way •NC_SEQUENCE_NAME – another that can be output via PPRINT but not accessible via relations editor •TYPE – this can be added a column in process manager and lists the NC Sequence type but cannot be referenced •OBJECT_ID – this is a column that can be added to the process manager •AXES – 2,3,4,5 this can be added to the process manager •NC_SEQUENCE_CSYS – the pro/report symbol is &mfg.oper.ncseq.csys and MFG_NC_REF_STEP_CSYS is the parameter in an exported XML template or ORIENTATION column from process manager •NC_SEQUENCE_RETRACT – this is also a column option in process manager •COMMENTS – this column can be added to the process manager but it would be nice if we could populate with a relation ... View more

Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. 1. What version of the software are you running? 8.01 2. What is the problem? I would like to use an existing part/assembly as the material for a new part file and at the same time have CREO import the files geometry as if using the merge feature and have the first item in the new part's browser be that file. Further detail; to start a new part I would like the ability to select an existing file as the start part/template file. Along with this, if an existing part is selected, as suggested, I would like CREO to recognize this referenced part/assembly as the new part's material with option to utilize the materials library as is. For example if an existing part is allowed as the template/start part it would be beneficial for CREO to automatically default the material parameter to no material needed. 3. Are you using a workaround? If yes, please describe it. No, there is no work around. It is possible to use the merge feature to reference the part needed, but CREO/Windchill cannot push the merged part as the material to GEMS. This must be manually added to the EBOM. 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.   Well, there are three scenarios where time could be greatly cut down if the function I described above could be implemented. Process drawing sets: Forging, Rough-out, Machining which each successive step using the part prior. Weldment process drawing similar to No. 1. (Prep/Weld/Machining) Modification drawings, where an existing inventory item needs to be modified by some process (machining/welding, etc.). I also believe as should you that this ability would impact your entire install base as the other prominent CAD system have had at least partial ability as I’ve described above. For instance, the derive component feature in Autodesk Inventor works in just this way. 5. What impact does this problem currently have on your organization? (Number of users affected, hours of lost productivity, etc.) Here at SLB I’m told we have an install base of 1300+ users, which is spread among several subsidiary entities. Hours saved? Annually perhaps in the thousands companywide if the majority of users have just a couple instances like the ones I described above. When you consider how long it would take now to create a merge and then must manually create a reference in GEMs to represent the material for a simple part that’s under a re-work scenario. I also believe as should you that this ability would impact your entire install base as the other prominent CAD system have had at least partial ability as I’ve described above. For instance, the derive component feature in Autodesk Inventor works in just this way. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. I work in collaboration with a design for manufacturing group. My task is to list some rules established in order to avoid some manufacturing problem when we design particularly in sheet metal. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? I am currently running creo parametric 7.0.2.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. My goal was to automate sheet metal rules in creo parametric in order to have some errors or warnings displayed automatically when we don't respect rules established. I have already searched some sheet metal rules in model properties in the sheet metal module but the verification is manual through the window "model information" where we have design rule-violation check.  I have also found the tool "check rule" in files>prepare after previously added relation like MC_MODEL_TYPE ='sheetmetal' but it only display some added rules. Those rules haven't any effects in the model. So I suggest the automation of the sheetmetal rules through "Model check " or a mapkey to create automatically the verification of rules. Furthermore, if it is possible you can add other rules or let user add other rules. You can also categorize some existing rules like  minimal distance between rectangular hole and bound , between circular hole and bound etc... For example of rules I want to add: "if the length of a rectangular hole is superior to 15*thickness, the minimal distance between hole and bound is 5*thickness"  4. What is the use case for your organization? This allows some designers to apply some design rules established inside the organization in sheet metal. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? This represents the design quality ... View more

Current Situation 1. First step after adding a new bore design feature to a part is to define the position of it. 2.a) In the next step you can define the diameter of the in this case not threaded bore and add a chamfer to it. If this sequence is fulfilled the chamfer diameter is chosen automatically to a useful diameter. For example in case of adding a chamfer to a 10 mm diameter blind hole, Creo predefines this chamfer diameter to 12 mm. This works only if the hole has no thread.   2.b) Contrary to this procedure Creo is choosing a completely wrong chamfer diameter if the bore is threaded. For example if you want to create a M5x0.8 thread and then klick on the chamfer button the predefined diameter is 11.20 mm, which is by far too big.   Could-be situation Maybe there could be implemented the same functionality for threaded holes as it is well done for non threaded ones. This would save time, especially when there are a lot of different threaded hole diameters in one part, because it would not be necessary to change the chamfer diameter permanently.   PLEASE VOTE FOR MY IDEA 😉 ... View more

The way Creo deals with Appearances needs further improvements.   One of them, is the parametric colors assignment based on feature selection or even parametric surface selection methods susch as seeds and boundary. Currently we can use selection intent, including seeds and boundary to assign colors to surfaces. But this is done in a one time way, not as a parametric association between input and output. Meaning, if we redefine some features and new geometry is created, the new surface geometry is assigned the default color appearance, forcing the user to have to repaint whatever surfaces his features generate. Then, there is the problem of inconsistencies.   2. Copy Geometry feature now allows the user to control the copying of appearances from source geometry, which is fine. But if we use "Merge/Inheritance" or "Cut", we cannot control the supression (or not) of the appearances, meaning, the source model always controls color appearence, and we cannot force new colors in an inherited model, even sometimes its the intended behaviour. So, Merge / Inhertiance / Cut should also have the an option to: a) Copy appearances once, b) Copy appearance always c) Do not copy appearances.   3. Mirror geometry, weather be it Mirror Part Body, or Mirror feature, or Mirror Quilt, in general does not copy color appearances, even if this might be the desired behaviour. Allow the mirror feature/geometry/part/Body the option to mirror also the surfaces' color appearances, with the option of "Once", "Always", or "Never". Flexiblel modelling seems to be the exception, and when copying bodies or geometry in general, does keep the new geometry with the same colors as the original.   4. Patterened geometry, or patterened features, also do not pattern the source surface geometry color to the new instances, even when this would be the desired behaviour. Allow the option in patterend to copy the appearnces to the newly generated geometry surfaces.   5. Some generated geometry, should have the option to be color coded, such as hole geometry, with different colors for the threaded surfaces than the for drilled surfaces.   6. Body boolean operations currently also do not assign colors from a tool body to a destination body. We would like to use tool bodies as a way to transfer colors from the tool body to the target body, so that we would only need to color the tool bodies once, and have those colors applied always to a boolean cut (or more rarely, to a boolean merge or intersect operation). In the case of a boolean operation, if the colors of the source tool body and target body have coplanar surfaces that have assigned different colors, leave the option for the user to select if there should be surface simplification or not (eliminating co-planar faces and common edges).   Instead of having so many options to copy color appearances, maybe the better option is to introduce surface coloring as a regular feature in the model tree, where the user could Seed Surface select several surfaces at once to be painted the same color, and having this selection being parametric, and with a time stamp in the model tree to make the process more clear. Or at least, as a specialized feature tree (such as there is a special model tree inside the Style feature) in the Appearance menu, that would let the user reselect, or make Edit Definitions in his process of selecting those features to paint.   I think the adding "Coloring" as a regular feature in the model tree has some additional benefits if used in conjunction to another feature that I propose, the activation and deactivation of some surface modeling options on a feaure by feature basis, instead of a global part selection one. One of the localized options that could be inserted as a feature (a time stamp) in the model tree, is the "Accuracy" (which is an option in several CAD packages, namely, NX and Catia), and also the simplification of geometry. Creo always simplifies geometry whenever possible to elmiinate extra coplanar faces and uneeded edges, which is useful for 99.9999% of the time. But there are situations in which we may specifically want that a few features do not perform surface and edge simplification, to allow precisely to have coplanar surfaces with different colors, where the edges specify different coplanar surfaces (or even cylindrical surfaces in threaded holes), to allow coloring what the user wants as separate geometry, but which Creo always simplifies. In Creo Manufactoring Mold Cavity Module, the extracted parts have the option to be painted with different colors if the surfaces come from the reference model, or from the parting surfaces, which is the intended behaviour. But if the user has to make a feature in a cavity or core, such a draft, or an extrude, that "touches" or modifies any planar or cylindrical face that is split in two, and assigned the two different colors, the co-planar surface separation is removed and suddently simpified to a single surface, even though the user would want to keep tham color coded differently to have a clear edge separation in the parting line. There is a config.pro option that the user can select to turning on and off the "Simplyfing geometry", called "mold_split_dont_merge_same_srfs", which is useful, but only works as long as those extracted surfaces are never included in any of the Creo general modeling features, and another problem, is that this is a global config option. We should have the possibility to activate and deactiivate this behaviour (simplyfing geometry), but localized in a context, ie, activating this option in a "options change feature", then modeling a little bit, then deactivating this option in another "options change feature" to activate the normal geometry simplifying behaviour. Inside this "options change feature" we could also make a localized accuracy change, to be restored to the normal accuracy value later, and thus allow us to better control the behaviour of the software. With localized options defined as a feature in the model tree, and parametrized surface selection for assigning colors also as a feature, instead of the regular Appearances assignment methology, advanced uses would not be su frustrated and not loose so many time due to the current way that Creo deals with surface coloring. Regular users could continue to use current methods, but please allow powe users to assign the coolors, and control surface division and merge on a more granular manner, and in a more parametric way. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Power systems, Product design engineer, power network operators 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. Making a sheetmetal part. Create a flat from the base Planar feature. Mirror that flat to create a U-channel. Need to make a small adjustment to the original flat to increase relief, change bend position, etc. Mirrored part CANNOT UPDATE. Forced to delete mirror feature, and recreate tens of features because subsequent features were reliant on now deleted geometry.  What a terrible software experience considering the cost of Creo, and how widely used it is. This is basic functionality, but you can't even handle updating a geometry feature. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Reducing suffering experienced while doing my job. Helping PTC accelerate their product innovation. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Making people less frustrated with your software. ... View more

Have you ever replaced a round with a chamfer, or redefine a radius significantly so that it causes a failure downstream of the change?  I do it every day.  Most commonly, I change a model feature and it creates failed "surface sets" in the Pro/NC manufacturing features.  In the attached image you see the result of changing a round to a radius.  There are several failed surfaces (Round 7) because it is no longer in the model.  For me to fix the Mill Surface or Mill Volume that these failed surface sets are a part of, I as a user have to select, right click and delete each of the missing items.  Wouldn't it be great if I could "ctrl - select" a whole bunch of them?  There could be hundreds of these to delete in order to preserve the Feature without starting over.  Left Click select, Right Click, Delete.  Left Click select, Right Click, Delete....   This is one of the most inefficient processes I find with Creo Parametric.  You can go to a model and "mult-select" features to delete.  You can go into a Pro/NC model tree and multi-select operations, sequences and mill geometry to delete.  At the surface sets or references level, its a tedious one at a time procedure. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Festo / CAM /Manufacturing  2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? Creo 7.0.8.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Tool order is by time stamp in the where-used-list: "when do you added an tool?" Better order by channel/tool number like tool manager. We have problems with our interface Creo-Paramatric: the transfer of the tool list to TDM is wrong because the order is not by channel/tool number. 4. What is the use case for your organization? better order for interface CREO-TDM (tool list) 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? ... View more

With the rise of additive manufacturing and increased use of 2D manufacturing processes, such as waterjet cutting, PTC really needs to step up and create an intuitive and efficient process for creating gears using available gear data like the Machinery's Handbook and gear data generator software.   PTC, please develop a GUI for for the development of gears, spur, spline, helix, etc., both internal and external.   References: Product Development: GUI for for the development of spline gear tooth (internal and external) sketch using spline data from a drawing or machinist handbook. https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Modeling-Questions/Product-Development-GUI-for-for-the-development-of-spline-gear/td-p/171509?art_lang=en&posno=1&source=search ... View more

When creating a draft there is no way to define the default draft angle. There should be a way to at least define a different default value, maybe even a list of default values. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. Design systems / assemblies to address client challenges - from initial concept to delivering final product. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? 8 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. A system Parameter containing the working directory path would allow a drawing to be 'parametrically' documented with the directory file location in which that drawing was developed.   A requirement of some quality control procedures is to know and record the file directory of the source of the document.  A Creo system parameter that can be accessed within a drawing would allow this to be parametric instead of having to enter the path manually.  This would be a 'Creo' system parameter - available within drawings without the use of any product data management. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Currently, the entry of data indicating the working directory path is a manual operation.  This could be automated and better serve quality control procedures and proper documentation 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Minimize and assure adequate documentation is timely and accurately available within the design and documentation phases of a project. ... View more