Creo Parametric Ideas

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 Ticket: 16620599  When running modelcheck regenerate on the drawing, the drawing is not updating to the extent where any lost orientation references of a general view are not in the message log. We can't use modelcheck to flag that as an error. Only when the drawing opens do we see in the message log: "Geometry needed to orient the general view "new_view_1", on sheet 1, is missing." We would want modelcheck to flag this, but we would need it in the message log first. It does work when there is a lost reference for a detailed view. For instance, the below message appears when running modelcheck: "The geometry which serves as the origin of the detailed view "A", on sheet 1, is missing."     If we run modelcheck regenerate WITH the model, the message goes appear. However, that would mean the model needs to get regenerated and modified. When working with Windchill, this isn't always the ideal scenario. We would like some way to check this without needing to run modelcheck with the model. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Sometimes an engineer might not understand what is happening to their view and end up redimensioning without the correct orientation. This will ensure the user is aware of the lost reference and will need to rereference.  5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? Instead of recreating dimensions with an inaccurate orientation, they will be aware of the cause and fix the view first before recreating the dimensions. @lwestbrook  ... View more

ModelCheck is able to check which tolerancing standard is selected on PRT and ASM (see https://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/r7.0/usascii/model_analysis/modelcheck/start_config_options/tolerance_type.html#).  This start configuration of ModelCheck is also needed for DRW since these properties should not differ.    Also there should be a check for the version that is selected (toolkit-value will be available for 7.0.8 https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS359079).      Field of usage: Using the right syntax ruels for GD&T:  https://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/r7.0/usascii/#page/whats_new_pma/detail-setting_syntax_tolerance_check_version_2.html   ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders.  We work for Schneider Electric multinational company that specializes in digital automation and energy management.  My role in the organization is Mechanical Platform Solutions Architect and our stakeholders are all  of our Business representatives who spoke for all company designers. 2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? Creo Parametric 8.0.2 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. we have a model check configured to review and mark an error if a flexible modeling feautre is present. however there are use cases where we have imported model coming from neutral files or other CAD systems and we want to apply a condition if an imported feature exists it does not mark an error if flexible modeling are founded. there is a similar functionality with Pipe features https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS102512 4. What is the use case for your organization? We want to identify flexible modeling features and mark an error if they exist but also allow the usage of this features if they come from imported feautre (neutral files or other CAD Systems, Creo unite, etc). 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? It will ease the adoption from people coming from other CAD Systems. ... View more

Bounding Box as a Feature Please make a feature in Creo Parametric representing the smallest area or volume in which a design can fit, bounding box. Please spend a few minutes looking at this video from SolidWorks, it is very simple and easy to understand. Bunding Box   Chees Erik Sallingboe ... View more

Creo Modelcheck has no simple functionality to check the 3D model and say if it's a solid or not.   I can't believe that this check criteria is not a product specification for Creo Parametrics (see CS336589).   The existing SLA_INFO checking is not working. Here the explanation from PTC: "although the model obviously has mass properties (so to say Solid YES) at the same time it sometimes cannot be fully triangulated like an ordinary solid (SLA_INFO NO)."   Please vote to make the Creo Modelchecker better!👍 Thx😉 ... 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? 8.0.5.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Modelcheck has the ability to check for the usage of certain symbols. However, a 'balloon note' does not seem to be a symbol. Which means, if we want the user to have a specific smart balloon symbol, and they used a balloon note, it won't be flagged by modelcheck.  4. What is the use case for your organization? We now utilize a smart balloon process. However, with any good process, we require checks and balances. We want to make sure new hires and those not familiar with the process to be informed that there is an issue.  5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? This will prevent the user from spending time creating manual balloons, then having the drawing rejected and spending even more time doing it with the smart balloons. This could definitely impact a user's productivity and a project's schedule. @lwestbrook  ... 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? 8.0.5.0 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. Creo already gives an indication to the user that their GD&T is not valid. This is done either by a red underline or by using GD&T Advisor. However, modelcheck should flag an error if there is a blatant non-compliance. For instance, modelcheck should flag this:   It would also be great for ModelCheck to have a separate check for any GD&T not created using the Advisor.  4. What is the use case for your organization? Like all organization's, employees come and go. Which means that we hire engineers with different skill levels of GD&T. As they learn, we want to make sure they don't design or release data that is blatantly wrong. Something so obvious, can be checked by an automated system, and does not need to be caught by a person later and spend time reworking. 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? This would quicken the release/review process. This would ensure proper design intent on the drawings. This would ensure the parts are manufactured and inspected correctly.   Since Creo already does the check, it would just mean that modelcheck needs to read that data and report on it.   @lwestbrook  ... View more

It's currently only possible to use ModelCheck REGEN_DIMS to check for broken drawing dimensions in ModelCheck Regenerate (flavor of Interactive mode). Please allow this check to be used in all other ModelCheck modes (Interactive, Save, Regen, Batch) as it would helpful to check for drawings with broken dimensions in all modes. ... View more

1. Describe your environment: What is your industry? What is your role in your organization? Describe your stakeholders. I am an IT person who supports engineers and product designers using PTC products for an industrial automation company.  2. What version of Creo Parametric are you currently running? Creo 7 and Creo 9 are currently being used at my company. 3. Describe the problem you are trying to solve. Please include detailed documentation such as screenshots, images or video. We are using Windchill with Creo and are in the process of setting up ModelCheck within our environment to check Creo files for correct parameters, units, best practices, etc. Our company currently produces Creo files in both Metric and US dimensions (Creo Default) and we have found that ModelCheck does not support the checking of models with more than one system of units. We would like to request that ModelCheck be updated/enhanced to support multiple units in its checks. 4. What is the use case for your organization? Our company is global has many legacy Creo files that were created using PTC default units to support NEMA standards and metric files for products used all over the world, 5. What business value would your suggestion represent for your organization? This would allow our legacy and new files to both be handled by ModelCheck when users check them into Windchill for release. We are hoping that ModelCheck could determine the units of each Creo file and perform checks based on the units of each model checked. ... View more

New function in ModelCheck, delete all emty layer in the prt, asm and drw mode. ... View more

To increase the overall model quality, we would like to prevent incompletely regenerated models (traffic light status is yellow) from being checked in to Windchill. Therefore it would be very helpful if there were a ModelCHECK check (see also PTC article CS39546).   As of today, only the config.pro setting "regen_solid_before_save prompt" can be used to inform users about incompletely regenerated models when saving. However, since we also use the config.pro setting "dm_auto_conflict_resolution yes" to suppress annoying and superfluous conflict messages from Windchill, the setting "regen_solid_before_save prompt" does not work for us either, since this message is also suppressed. ... View more

Below are a list of some of the items on our company checklist that are not covered by modelcheck. We would like to see some of these implemented. I know some have their own product idea, but I'm throwing everything in here:   No Weak Dimensions All Orphaned Dependencies Broken Features set to Read Only Any un-embedded datums or sketches should be named No 0 dimensions for scenarios where they could be constrained to coincident (in sketches, holes, datum planes, etc) Only Locked Dimensions, where applicable All dimensions should be named when used for relations or family tables All features should be named for family tables Sheetmetal flatpattern won't fail No nested family tables Patterns should be set to Identical, where possible, instead of General Remove unnecessary relation comments Any sheetmetal features not using the default sheetmetal parameters for bend radius, etc... First Assembly component that is externally referenced First Assembly component that is not using default or coincident with default datum planes Checking subcomponents in assembly for proper naming convention Checking subcomponents in assembly for proper parameters (windChill location, based on naming convention and release state) No Assembly Cuts Assembly not to be in Exploded View Assembly not to be in X-Section View Drawing/Annotation Notes to only be used from a certain list, where the notes contain more than one line Drawing General Views to not reference Geometry Model Name should be the same as File Name and Number (3 columns in WindChill) . I had to create a separate idea for this...   In addition: Better Support for use-case scenarios where some instances of family tables are released and others still being worked on or tweaked from the generic's family table. How can we run modelcheck without flagging all instances as modified. Allow an option for ModelUpdate or Custom Checks to go to the ALL tab by default Allow mapkeys to work within browser pages and change the ModelCheck tab/buttons Allow condition file to incorporate more than 2 statements and include multiple AND/OR with parenthesis Allowing the condition file to see information about the drawing's model (parameters, model type, etc) Update HTML look to be similar to WindChill 10, like the current looks like WindChill 9 Have the condition file be able to not add parameters or add parameters based on certain situations (will help the family table scenario above - for generics) ModelUpdate run on other modes besides Interactive Check for Material Names that should NOT be using ModelCheck be run from within WindChill (like the View addon can create dxfs...) ASM_CREATE_VIEW ability to create ISO views - more complex views EXTRA_LAYERS - Allow for a list of layers to be in the layer tree, without forcing its creation, such that everything else can be deleted PRT_PARAM_MAP won't actually map if PRT_PARAMETER is also available for the same parameter STD_DRW_DTL_FILE based on model units OVERLAP_INFO - Support Geometry lines, not view border UNUSED_SHEETS to support formats MCREGEN_VERIFY_FT_INSTS for parts as well (see above about released instances) DIR_REPORT to be a separate location than the actual HTML files for the ModelCheck browser. Any non-local path will fail give an error when running modelcheck Move out as many config.init options to another location that can be modified while running Creo AND can be set with a condition.init MATERIAL_NAME support for subfolders in the material library. 9/5/17 - Allow ModelCheck reports to be added as an attachment to the CAD Document in WindChill automatically. 10/18/17 - Have the Circular reference error actually spell out what is wrong and what the loop is. At LEAST using the same words as the .crc file. We would appreciate better wording than the .crc. Currently it just lists the model, which is very confusing and doesn't help much. The Creo 4 notification window doesn't help much in this area as well. We need to move away from the .crc file to debug circular references. Modelcheck AND the noficiation window should be better used for this.   From Comments Below: mlockwood-2‌ - ModelUpdate option on a per-check basis (buried features to not be deleted) especially since buried feature check is more wrong than right... (And Erased Views)   I'm sure there is more that I'll think of later. But this should be a good starting list ... 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

Please allow ModelCHECK to at least read the values of the mass properties Parameters like PRO_MP_SOURCE and PRO_MP_MASS, PRO_MP_ALT_MASS etc. Like this the users could find out if a model hast set its mass properties to valid settings. Often, there are imported models that get a material file set, but keep their mass source settings to PARAMETERS, and then all mass properties like center of gravity or inertia etc are not consistent. Or in the course of development, this or that material is used and the source may also be set to PARAMETERS at some point, but then geometry and maybe material changes before release, then it's also not consistent. Allowing ModelCHECK to at least read those parameters would give the possibility of finding files that are not according to standards at all and preventing errors beforehand. Since this parameter is not automatically designated (and cannot be set via ModelUPDATE) one cannot simply run a report in Windchill as with other parameters.   ... View more

Currently ModelCHECK is not available in Performance Advisor's dashboard "Functional Area Usage > Functionality Usage". Also see PTC's document CS252752.   As we use ModelCHECK quite extensive, having it listed in the list of "Functionality Usage" would be helpful! ... View more

Windchill customers use more and more an advanced publication technique for their CAD assemblies, especially when the assemblies become large. It’s positioning assemblies. Basically, the worker opens an empty representation of the assembly, list the first level objects, get their position and stores them – it’s super fast.    But this mode has some limitations : https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS130991?&language=en&posno=1&q=positioning%20assemblies%20assembly%20cuts&source=search • Process Steps • Flexible Components • Harness Features (identified using the out-of-the-box recipe setting adapter/harnessFeatList= , i.e. empty) • Other Assembly Level Features (identified by using the out-of-the-box recipe setting adapter/assyFeatList=911 915 916, i.e. Hole, Slot and Cut, respectively).   Until the latest releases of the publishing adapters, having a mix of Creo Parametric and any 3rd party cad model (using Unite) was also not supported.   To keep a good performance, there’s an extended positioning assemblies method that can help. This one let the worker opens the assembly in a predefined rep and it uses the positioning assemblies workflow for everything it can, and creates dedicated portions of the viewables for the remaining objects (such as 3 components that are cut by an assembly level cut).   OOTB, the users have to set attributes on the CAD assembly to chose what type of publication will be used.   That’s where modelcheck can play a good role. For instance, there’s a OOTB modelcheck control that can detect and count the number of flexible components in an assembly. Unfortunately, there’s no such controls for the other types of limitations (the assembly level features control that exist now can’t be used as way too many objects are detected as assembly level features (spools, annotations, …). Same for the process steps or the harnesses.   The idea is that modelcheck detects all those cases, creates some attributes based on the checks and then we can automatically switch the publication mode based on simple relations or logic. ... View more

As a request by @lwestbrook, I am breaking up the massive Modelcheck idea thread here: https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/New-ModelCheck-Ideas/idc-p/692247#M13722   For this idea have a modelcheck error for Circular references actually spell out what is wrong and what the loop is. At LEAST using the same words as the .crc file. We would appreciate better wording than the .crc. Currently it just lists the model, which is very confusing and doesn't help much. The Creo 4 notification window doesn't help much in this area as well. We need to move away from the .crc file to debug circular references. Modelcheck AND the notification window should be better used for this.   Also see https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/Better-debugging-for-circular-references-besides-crc-file/idi-p/488493 ... View more