Template for "process plan" assembly

[Mat]

Hi there,

is there a way to declare a template for process plan assemblies?

When I try to create one, "use template" is grayed out:

The main problem is, that there are no pre-defined orientations, which makes it unnecessary inconvenient to create drawing from that later.

I am using Creo 10.0.7.0

[Catalina]

Hi @Mat 

Thank you for your question. 

Your post appears well documented but has not yet received any response. I am replying to raise awareness. Hopefully, another community member will be able to help.

Also, feel free to add any additional information you think might be relevant.

Best regards,

[Mat · Accepted solution]

It seems, that PTC did not planned the use of a template for that module.

But is not quite surprising, if You look at that several decades old, unmaintained piece of "software".

It's a shame, that PTC also demands an additional fee for this "premium" product.

I guess it's time to look for some PTC alternatives.

[GeertKeizer]

How is this a solution? The problem I have now is that custom parameter, we use on drawings, are not available now, this means tha I have to add them manually every time I make a process plan.

It would be very convenient to make use of a template for this.

[Mat]

I understand Your frustration. 

The "solution" is not to expect any help from PTC.

PTC will not fix the problem they caused.

The only option is to switch to products, that are not "deformed" by PTC.

[BrianMartin]

Consider making a mapkey called "Process Template" and have it prompt to create a new assembly and then add the necessary custom parameters/views.  In cases like this when there's very little chance for intervention from PTC, working around the issue with a trail file or mapkey is often the most efficient solution.

In my job, we often receive models from outside vendors or from colleagues in different organizations. I've created mapkeys to add our custom parameters, layers, pre-defined views, and simplified reps to update those models to comply with our standards. It seems like such a thing would help in this case. I'[m sorry there's not a more elegant solution.

Thanks!

-Brian