cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Visit the PTCooler (the community lounge) to get to know your fellow community members and check out some of Dale's Friday Humor posts! X

Fix & Improvment requests

mekaneck
1-Newbie

Fix & Improvment requests

Below is a list of issues I have been compiling for a few months that I view as serious deficincies that prevent Pro/E from being a useful and user-friendly modeling / detailing package. None of these issues are requests for advanced functionality; rather, they are for correcting glitches & oversights that seriously cripple effecient modeling & detailing practices. If there are workarounds for any of these issues (I'm certain there must be), please let me know. Keep in mind everything I have listed below applies to modeling and detailing simple parts. No advanced modules needed. MODELING: 1. When a coordinate system name is changed, it doesn't update in the relations editor (we use the relations CG_X = mp_cg_x("","default","") to locate a center of gravity csys). 2. Can't do an "insert here" on the insert mode while the insert mode is active (should be able to right-click anywhere on the model tree and have "insert here" as an option, even when the insert mode is already active) 3. Axes cannot be created by referencing another axis. (can't easily create one axis on top of another, like the functionality available for coordinate systems, datum planes, and datum points.) 4. Axes cannot be created by extruding a sketch of axis points. (The closest option is extruding a surface that contains axis points, but this makes an unneeded surface feature and requires an unnecessary depth dimension) 5. Simple planar cross sections can't be redefined (to reference a different datum plane, for instance). The "replace references" functionality should be made to operate on cross sections. It would also be nice if cross sections showed up in the model tree, or were assigned a feature number. 6. Reference patterns cannot "exclude" instances. (example: if bolts need to go in all but one hole) 7. A single feature should be able to use multiple reference patterns (adding the same feature to multiple different axis patterns) 8. Sketch should be able to "use feature" in addition to "use edge". (example: an offset cross section is being sketched, using the edge of an extruded surface as a referece. If entities in the surface are deleted/redefined, the "use edge" will lose references, and cause the cross section to fail. "Use feature" would not fail.) 9. Features should be able to reference multiple reference patterned features if they are all referring back to the same original pattern. (ex: an extrusion feature is referenced to an axis, and the axis is part of a pattern. Then the extrusion feature is reference patterned. An new cut feature is created on one of these instances, and it references both the axis and the extrusion. It cannot be reference patterned!) 10. 360 degree revolved sketches should not need a sketch plane, and/or references should be allowed in the "sketched" hole feature. There should also be no dimension which shows "360". (ex: In order to model & pattern a complicated hole which needs to be drilled beginning at one surface/datum plane until it is 5mm from another surface/datum plane. Currently the only possible way to do this is to set up a sketching plane and pattern it as well... very messy, and unnecessary) 11. Can't make a datum curve a cosmetic feature. All datum curves, whether created by equations, cross sections, intersects, etc. should be able to be converted into cosmetic features so they can be "erased" on a drawing. 12. Rounds are not robust enough - should be able to select two or more entire features, and the round feature will round the intersections of the selected features. DETAILING: 1. There is no tangent leader option for a surface profile GTOL, instead we have to trick pro/e by using a different GTOL, attaching it with a tangent leader, then switching back to surface profile. 2. One radius dimension cannot be attached to multiple radii on a drawing (this should at least be available for shown dimensions when one round feature references several different edges, or when a sketch has multiple radii which are constrained to equal each other) 3. Can't redefine aligned section views back into a standard section view, or redefine other view types. 4. Can't reposition a cross-section plane and expect the drawing to update (even with shown dimensions) 5. Can't change the scale for an auxilliary view, have to convert it to a general view first. 6. Can't change the layer status or hide cosmetic features on a detail view (without changing it on parent view) 7. When showing a cross section of a revolved part through the part's centerline, axes used for locating radius centers have to be created in the model as additional features. (ex: revolve a rectangle with two rounds so it looks like a hockey puck. If you dimensioned to the center of the rounds, you need to create axes in the model, so when the cross-section is shown in the drawing, the dimensions actually go to something.) 8. Can't change the size of multiple axis cross-hairs at the same time, or make multiple cross-hairs the same size. 9. Can't insert a jog into a GTOL which has a tangent leader 10. There isn't any easy way to align separate notes or tables (or anything else) to each other. Snap to grid doesn't work, snap lines only work if you want the items related to a view, and many lines are required if line spacing between separate notes is required in addition to left-aligning. Best I have found is showing a gid and placing items as close to the grid points as possible (zooming in very far). 11. When modifying an existing sybol on a drawing (not creating a new one), there should be an option to create a duplicate symbol. This would be much easier than placing a new symbol. 12. Error: can't show a detail view of an aligned cross section (when plotted, it will plot some hidden lines as wireframe). When plotting a detail view of a planar cross section, curves disappear. 13. Error: When deleting an entity which is related to another drawing object, sometimes the entity doesn't really get deleted (it disappears for a second, then reappears. It can still be clicked on to unrelate it, then it will disappear) 14. There should be some method within a drawing to create extension lines from part geometry. (If a feature is dimensioned at the location where two angled surfaces come together, and later that corner is rounded, the dimensions shown in the drawing will go to nothing. There should be an easy way to extend lines from the geometry (parametrically!) so it is clear the dimension goes to the intersection of the lines.) 16. Can't add text below a GTOL that is attached to a shown dimension (without using separate notes & relating them) 17. Leaders for hole callouts go to the line in the callout where the shown dimension is. There should be an option to force the leader to connect to the first line of the callout, regardless of which line the shown dimension is on. 18. The ordinate dimensioning functionality needs work. Dimensions and baselines can only be moved between views or shown/erased if they are linear (not ordinate), otherwise they may take other dimensions with them that use the same baseline. If a baseline fails, all the dimensions fail, and there is no way to redefine a baseline (can only delete it and start over). 19. For ordinate dimensioning, baselines should be easily created by picking a surface or a datum. (Shouldn't have to use one end of a dimension as a baseline, because that dimension could be deleted or fail later on). I usually create a zero dimension using base datum planes, convert it to a ordinate dimension, then omit one of the zeroes. This is painfully tedious. 20. When using shown dimensions on patterned features (a hole pattern), the dimensions for the patterned feature should be easily moved from one feature to another, rather than having to erase the dimensions and re-showing them on another instance. 21. Should be allowed to select multiple axes and make the cross-hairs all the same size 22. Should be allowed to select multiple cross-section hatchings so they can all me made the same (detailing a cross-section of a clutch pack is extremely tedious). 23. Partial views should not be required to show an ordinate dimension's baseline in order to show the ordinate dimension. 24. When showing dimensions from the side view (a cross section) of a revolved feature, there needs to be a way to select which side of the axis to show the dimensions. 25. Shown dimensions from a revolved feature should be able to convert between linear dimensions and radial dimensions. (i.e. if a cylinder is created via a revolve feature, the "radius" dimension used to create the revolve cannot be shown as a radial dimension in a view showing the face of the cylinder (the circle). It will show as a linear dimension. Diameter dimensions are easy, radius dimensions are not possible. 26. Using the "gtol datums std_asme" drawing setting: When a dimension with a GTOL and an attached datum flag is between two horizontal extension lines, the vertical leader lines go directly though the datum flag. There is no way to move the datum flag left or right, nor any way to clip the extension lines.
This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
22 REPLIES 22

"Rick Auch" wrote:

6. Reference patterns cannot "exclude" instances. (example: if bolts need to go in all but one hole)

Rick, Well, welcome to the club, and that's quite a list for a relative newcomer! Most of us who have been around Pro for any length of time (Rev. 12, early 90's for me) have our lists and pet peeves. In fairness that is no doubt true of almost any package as complex as Pro. However, I do agree that, in spite of many long strides in recent years, there are still substantial smoothness and ease-of-use issues with Pro. Naturally, I won't endeavor to address all of your 38 "issues". This forum is not the place for that. Besides, you should try to feed the things you are most serious about into "proper channels" for consideration by PTC developers. That said, I would make the following observation. It seems to me that your issues fall into several categories: (1)functionality that is there, but you haven't found yet, (2)problems with "work-arounds", (3)irritating things the software really doesn't do, and (4) a few things that it may really not be reasonable to expect. For example, one thing that could be much better which you have run into with your axis-relative-to-axis complaint is a more thorough allowance of all reasonable references in any situation; I'm frustrated sometimes that I can't use an Axis in a UseEdge situation. On the other hand, when you complain about not being able to "use a feature" in Sketcher, I urge you to explore the difference between UseEdge/Chain and UseEdge/Loop, the latter being easier and more robust. Just a few comments. You will continue to want to scream sometimes; I know I still do, but, big picture, you have in your hands one incredible, powerful, and deeply capable piece of software. David

David, thanks for the comments. You're probably correct that there are other channels which I should take some of these issues to if I want them resolved, however some of them I'm sure are oversights on my part. I have been using Pro/E since 2000i2, so I do have at least a little experience, but I continue to get frustrated when new versions get released offering additional functionality without addressing some of the existing fundamental issues. When I get this list widdled down to real and critical issues, I'll probably take these through another channel. For the purpose of this forum, anyway, I'd appreciate comments on the things I listed above which are oversights on my part. The useEdge/Loop is a good suggestion for a workaround until a better solution comes along. Kevin, thanks for the comments, but there are no black dots available for selection in a reference pattern. This procedure works for all ther pattern types though. If I'm obtuse and am missing something please let me know. Thanks.
Kevin
10-Marble
(To:mekaneck)

Are you using WF2 or earlier? In WF3 and WF4 when defining and editing a reference pattern there is a dialog box that opens in the pattern definition and you can select instances to remove. The only one that can't be removed is the pattern leader.
mekaneck
1-Newbie
(To:Kevin)

Aha! Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am using WF2. WF4 is planned to roll out next year where I work, so that will be a fix I'll look forward to. Now if they can just allow removing the pattern leader too...

Rick Just a comment to the DETAILING 22. Create a mapkey that loops trough all xhatches in a view and set them identical (or in my case, change the angle for every other hatch to 45 or 135 degrees.

Modeling #1: Their answer is that it's "intended" functionality, string variables and all that: http://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?n=/112565.htm Also, creating CSYS at COG is much easier starting with WF3.

Modeling #2: I'm confused about what you are asking for here. Why doesn't just moving the red Insert Here arrow around work for you? Modeling #3: Agreed. Should be universal capabilities of this kind. Modeling #4: I think this was true in WF2, certainly in WF3: You can create Axis Points in a Sketch only if it is an Internal Sketch. I don't know why unless it's to keep External Sketches maximally flexible by having them create no "3-D" features or datums.
Kevin
10-Marble
(To:DavidButz)

For #9 in modeling the way around this is to group the axis and the extrude, pattern it, and then create the cut and reference pattern it. For #5 in detailing an auxilliary view is a projection view so you don't scale it.

Modeling #5: Agreed Modeling #6: Already discussed. Modeling #7: I'm not sure I agree with your "should" on this one. This might be a great place for a UDF. Modeling #8: Already discussed. Modeling #9: Sometimes this works; sometimes it doesn't, not always obvious why, in my experience. Of course you can pattern Groups, but that doesn't always solve your problem nor is it as flexible as you would like. In defense of the software, the arbitrary case requires strict restrictions on references to be sure that they are only attached to the patterned features you intend to follow, another layer of bookeeping for you and the system.

Modeling #10: I can imagine something more flexible here, but you don't have to pre-pattern Datum Planes for a pattern such as the one you described IF you create your Sketching Plane "on-the-fly" as a Datum Plane internal to the feature. In other words, Start a Revolved Feature, initiate the Sketch, THEN create your Sketching Plane; it's offset dimension will be available for Patterning. Modeling #11: Why don't layers do what you need here? Modeling #12: I don't envy developers of ANY modeling software when they grapple with Rounds; there are an infinite number of geometric potholes to stumble into. I actually think that Pro has made great strides in dealing with many difficult Round situations over the years. I expect more advances in the future. For the example you mention, Surface-to-Surface rounds can do a lot if applicable to your situation. Enough from me. I'll let others address your Detailing issues if they are so inclined.

Thanks guys for your responses so far. Every little bit more I can learn about this program is a help. Hugo - good point, a mapkey skipping a section would be easy enough to run several times in a row Kevin - #9 modeling, I think that's the only workaround I've found, but it doesn't always sove the issue (nor is it very clean!) #5 Detailing - I use the auxillary view to create removed section views, which can (per ASME Y14.3) have a scale. If you know of a better way to create this type of view let me know. David - #1- Well, at least PTC is aware of this, but them stating it is "intended" functionality is a bit of a cop-out (I'd call it "unfortunate but working as programmed"). There should be some workaround such as a function string(CG) (like excel's "address" function) which could be used in place of "CG", and therefore it would update with the coordinate system name change. But if this is easier in WF3 maybe it's a non-issue now. #2- Moving the red arrow can take an exorbitant amount of time in a lengthy model tree. I use a mapkey to activate the "insert mode" in both assemblies and parts (through edit>feature/component operations, the pre-WF functionality) so that I can put the insert arrow anywhere I want without dragging it, but once the insert mode is active, you can only cancel it, there is no choice to place the arrow somewhere else. So I am left with either cancelling and regenerating the part/asm, or dragging the arrow for 30 seconds or so through a long model tree to the next place I want to put it. Another analogy to excel - imagine if, to insert a new row, you had to drag a new one from above row #1? Not a big deal, until your spreadsheet has more than 10 or 20 rows. #7 - A UDF would probably work, but what if all the subsequent features are to be dependant on the first? #9, yes I wouldn't like to be the programmer trying to make this happen. But I still won't give PTC any slack here #10 - I'll have to play around with this, I though there was some reason I wasn't using datums on the fly here. #11 - Layers get me by for now, but they make detailing much more tedious in certain situations. I have some parts with multiple layers with one curve each, because I need to only show one curve in each view. If they were cosmetics, they could all be in one layer, and I could just erase the unneeded curves. Thanks for taking the time to help me out here.

Now I see your point re: Insert Mode. You're right. Auxiliary View: after you've created it, bring up its Properties and change it to a General View, then change its Scale.

Sorry, I see you already knew that.

Rereading your Detailing complaints, I have to agree with almost everything you say. Both Ordinate dimensioning and GTOLS have been fairly awkward forever. One small thing relative to your revolved feature "hockey puck". You can pick Center from the ATTACH TYPE menu to go to the centers of those radii without ever having an axis there. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

#9 I agree it will depend on the complexity and what you are trying to do. I just tried an example where it didn't work too well. However, depending on what you are trying to do a different modeling approach may be more appropriate. For the example I had it was more appropriate to model a single instance, copy the surfaces, create a solidify feature, then pattern the surface copy feature and reference pattern the solidify feature. Not saying I disagree with you patterns need to be more user friendly just wondering if creating references to multiple features that need to be patterned is appropriate or can it be modeled in a different way that still accomplishes what you need. #5 Removed sections are not direct projection views like auxiliary views. If the view you are creating is off an auxiliary plane and you want the view scaled I would create a saved view in the model that is in the orientation you want and use it to create a general view with the section.

David - getting the dimension to show isn't the problem, it's that I want an axis to appear so that it's clear what the dimension is going to. On a hockey puck it's fairly clear without an axis, but on a more complicated part there can be dimensions going out into space. Kevin - Removed sections need to be oriented just like auxilliary views, otherwise something like "rotated 60° CCW" should be stated under the view title. (If you happen to have Y14.3, section B-B in figure 26 is what I'm talking about.) In order to keep the relationship between the orientation of the removed view and the section plane, the view needs to be created as an auxilliary view (at least this is the only method I know of). Creating a view in the model that captures this relationship would be quite difficult and would require at least few extra planes/axes in the model.
Kevin
10-Marble
(To:mekaneck)

I understand the type of view your trying to create. The reason though that an auxiliary view isn't scalable is that it is a direct projection from another view like the front, top, side, etc views and has the scale of the view of which it is a projection. Removed section views are not direct projections from another view and therefore can have the same scale or be scaled. Take a look at Section 3.8 on page 20 of ASME 14.3. As far as difficulty I would say that is relative. It would also depend on the geometry. As far as having to change a view from auxiliary to general I would say is a personal preference, doesn't really bother me . It could cause grief if you are having to reorient views.
mekaneck
1-Newbie
(To:Kevin)

Yes, the only thing that's causing grief is section planes get moved (when the pertinent feature gets moved), so a view needs to be re-orinented. The act of switching from an auxilliary to a general view is hardly even an annoyance, but the fact that it breaks the parametric link for the view's orientation is really the issue. Since it is easy to remove the alignment of an auxilliary view, this should be the perfect way to create a removed section, but I just need to be able to change the scale! I did go through and create a view in the model such that I could create a general view in the drawing that would update with a change in section plane orientation. I needed to create an extra axis and an extra plane, and type in a relation in the relations editor. Not too difficult, but certainly tedious and messy with some of my drawings that contain 5 to 10 removed views.
Kevin
10-Marble
(To:mekaneck)

I would say I would like to see them add a Removed View type.

Rick You dont even have to run the mapkey multiple times, you can just create one that repeates the xhatch change. My mapkey runs the same function 20 times. (Covers most om my cross sections mapkey fh @MAPKEY_NAMEFix Hatch;@MAPKEY_LABELfh;\ mapkey(continued) ~ Select `main_dlg_cur` `MenuBar1`1 `Edit`;\ mapkey(continued) ~ Close `main_dlg_cur` `MenuBar1`;\ mapkey(continued) ~ Activate `main_dlg_cur` `Edit.psh_dwg_props`;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;\ mapkey(continued) #NEXT XSEC;#ANGLE;#45;#SPACING;#VALUE;1;#DONE;
dhermosillo
14-Alexandrite
(To:mekaneck)

#26

PTC claims to have fixed it, but I just ran into it again in Wildfire 5.

Here are a couple of reports:

Datum leader lines pass thru an attached GTOL symbol when displayed on a drawing in Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 3.0

https://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?n=CS19347

Wrong placement of leader line with Pro/ENGINEER

https://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?n=CS41542

Top Tags