I have been testing Creo 4.0 for suitability before the whole office switches over, as my role controls the whole process, If we can't use it with the manufacturing, the design team don't get it.
I have a couple of issues with the dumping of Vericut and the replacement with Module works, that is preventing the office from switching over.
Our process has tight QA procedures and accreditation that needs to be meet, and part of that is design verification with Vericut, where we run the simulation of the program and then full dimension check , and gouge tolerance calculation of the model in Vericut to verify that the program is correct to the design.
Module works can't do that.
We do have the full license for Vericut 8.0 and can run it as a stand alone program, we now have more work to do as Creo now won't put out the default files to start with.
Is there a way to out put the part as .DSN and the stock as .STK, if so we can work with a template to achieve what we need to do.
Maybe having the option to save part and stock files in these formats would help business like ours that still have to rely on Vericut.
Also, when running Module works, I can section the stock piece, but the part isn't sectioned, this needs to be fixed.
and when saving the cut model as a part, and reusing it in the 2nd operation, ( a big plus for module works ), the next time I tried to simulate the 2nd operation, it locked up on Memory (98% usage). when saving the cut part, Creo needs to convert it into a PART format that isn't so large for the memory to manage.
I see a lot of benefits in using Module works, but PTC needs to make an effort to support business that still rely on Vericut.
Save option for the required file formats will be a big help please...
did you ask CGTECH how to transfer Creo manufacturing data into VERICUT ? I hope they can provide a solution .
There is a Creo(ProE) to Vericut interface developed by Cgtech. You can find more information's about this interface on Vericut help. Look for "Converters and Interfaces / ProE to Vericut Interface".
We use the interface but it is hit or miss if stock/part/fixtures/tooling get brought in correctly if at all. We did not have these problems when using the embedded vericut to create files. That being said I still think it is esier to use the interface and then fix what needs fixing.
Thank you for the feed-back. We didn't bought the license for the interface and I didn't had the change to do any testing yet. We are still on Creo2 /M120 using the embedded version.
If we can't find a solution with Creo, then I guess we will have to look at the Vericut interface option, at the moment we hadn't explored that because Creo was doing what we need to do.
At one point, I even patched a previous version of Creo to run our full license version of Vericut when selecting Material removal simulation, a bit of a pain to set up , but once done it worked perfectly.
I don't know if that is even possible now, and I don't want to loose the functionality of Module works, as I can see some benefits in using it as well.
Outputting the files in STL formats don't work to well for us, as our parts have a lot of compound radius and curves that don't translate well in STL format and Vericut.
As for tooling, I already have saved databases in vericut of all tooling required, I just load it up after the base file was generated from Creo. This is a big issue with Creo and the way it manages tools, if Creo loaded the work cell from the work cell directory ( where it saves it to if you have the options set right) when you open a manufacturing file, then there won't be a problem, at the moment it saves the workcelll it in the manufacturing file.
This is a hassle even more now that we need to use moduleworks, as you can fix a tool in the workcelll and save it back to the directory , but every time you open a manufacturing files, you have to go and fix it in the file as well ( as it doesn't update). This is a pain when you a managing a system with over 3000+ manufacturing files.
Hadn't worried about it in the past as we dumped to vericut, and loaded a saved database from Vericut. now it is a problem.
I know I am going on about this..
But I think what I am trying to say is PTC hasn't made my job easier with this change.....they have made it harder...
The key feature we need to use is the compare function for our QA process, as shown below, Vericut can compare what the program cuts against the design model and generate a report for us.
this is the compare function set to 0.25 for gouge and excess
this is the compare function set to 0.05 for gouge and excess showing errors when set to this tolerance
We need this level of functionality from module works, as well , this is why we need the models exported from Creo more accurately than can be done with a STL file.
I feel your pain but there doesn't seem to be any desire to improve the situation from either vericut or ptc. Hopefully Moduleworks will improve to the point of being reliable and useful soon but I don't see it.
At the last VUE exchange I was told that Vericut 8 no longer requires a specific license to import STEP files. I just did a quick test and I got a clean model that I was able to import in Vericut. It seems to be an option to go around STL limitations.