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

MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

Hello Brian,

First of all, thank you for taking the initiative once again. You have a nice thread over there so far. I couldn't find the time to read the whole thing yet, but I surely will.

This thread about annoying things with creo sure is a massive gripe. What else do you expect just by reading it's title? I expect from it to be nothing else than that. So, it's really nice to see you trying to show people the way that things about creo can actually be changed. PTC might not be just some bull doo doo walking for the money, and they may take some feedback after all. Actually, I have yet to see that.

Oh, well. To say at least something constructive. I've figured out how to close the annoying measurement window with so tiny "x" that it's hard to click onto. The solution is using a mapkey once again. In this case the mapkey creation can't be activated while the measurement window is opened. So it's necessary to create mapkey that first opens and then closes this window, and then delete the opening line of the mapkey in text editor from the config.pro/mapkey.pro.

~Jakub

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

This reminds me of when Wildfire first came out and everyone loved 2001. While I also find the tabs in drawing mode a pain, I'm slowly adjusting to it. The love for Wildfire 4 is misplaced in my opinion, I strongly favor Wildfire 5 and/or Creo over Wildfire 4. PTC does seem to get ahead of itself, they seem to implement some changes too soon and at other times too slowly. Some changes appear to be made with the attitude that they will improve or fix it later, but leave other things way too long.

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

I like the added functionality of WF4, especially in flexible parts at assembly, but I think the 3D curve through two planar curves is a step backward. And, I really didn't like the WF interface at all (lead vs. follow workflow was a total joke), but it's not as hideous as the creo nightmare. My fave interface was the last version before WF, 2001 or whatever. Simple, word-based menus (not indecpiherable icons), that took up little screen space, unlike the nightmarish ribbon. The mapkeys worked better. Honestly, if I had the ability to choose revs, I'd stick with WF4 ONLY because of the flexible part thing, AND I'd dump Windchill which has been a total nightmare at all 3 companies I've been at that used it, ad go back to Intralink.

Instead of the system fighting me at every turn, wasting tons of my and my users time, I'd have a fully-functional CAD station and vaulting system....

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

I'm fine with respecting other people's preferences, as I read your opinion I'm kind of wondering about the type of work you've been doing, companies that you've been working for and what your "role" is in an effort to understand your position. I worked on Wildfire 5.0 for awhile and I really considered it a major step backward to work with Wildfire 4.0. There's been quite a few enhancements and new/improved functionality, especially since 2001. Apparently people are unaware of some of them or their significance, or companies simply aren't leveraging the tool. I was working one place that moved from 2001 to Wildfire 5.0 and the entire group was pretty oblivious to the vast majority of the enhancements, stubbornly wanting to use it exactly the same way they had used 2001 for years. The place I used Wildfire 4.0 had extremely limited Pro-E administration or standards, so they weren't even leveraging Wildfire 4's functionality.

I've always been the type that tried to work with what I have to work with rather than struggle and frustrate myself with what it doesn't do. Don't get me wrong though, there are things that have irritated me, I remember telling someone that I think they change some things, simply to change them, with no real benefit or purpose. For example, when I started working with Pro/Sheetmetal I was taught to use flat instance and have always preferred it over flat-pattern, while it's still there with Creo 2, it's a bit hidden and clunky now. I have mixed feelings about the ribbon as well, I thought the ribbon in drawing mode was the worst thing about Wildfire 5.0, and was a bit disappointed to see it implemented across the board when I first saw Creo. I've slowly adjusted to it and find it a bit faster than going thru all of the menus of 2001, I always liked Pro-E's menus. The first 3D CAD program I was taught in school had a cheap knock-off of Pro-E's menu system which was really difficult to work thru, and Pro-E's worked. The new interface is pretty highly, and easily customizable, you can pretty much make it be what you want it to be.

I can't provide factual proof, but I'm of the belief that the ribbon thing is driven by Microsoft, and software companies conforming to that standard and to be Microsoft certified/compliant.

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

I agree with all of your gripes, and others in the comments. I have some to add:

1. When I edit definition of a feature, the view position and orientation changes automatically. I have to move the view back to where it was as it was already in the best position. I would prefer turning off the auto changing views, as they waste time. I have set animations to 0.1 second, and no. of frames to 3 so that these view changes don't waste any more time than they already do.

2. When I create a new sketch or extrude, revolve etc. the sketch often defaults to an upside-down or flipped or 90 degree rotated view. It should always default to have the X or Z axis horizontal, and the Y axis vertical, or swap the Z and Y axes depending on which axis is perpendicular to the plane, and it should face the surface/side of the plane I clicked on. As, unless I'm mistaken, it currently seems not to pay attention to the coordinate system or the direction on the surface from which I clicked - it is not intuitive.

3. The measurement tool was easier to use in Creo 1.0 than Creo 2.0. Holding Ctrl does not seem to enhance it's functionality. It is still not very easy to click the parts I want to measure, and often goes through all the edges before surfaces, I would like to prioritise surfaces. It used to be easier to select a projection plane, for measuring the distance between two features in one axis, but now it doesn't seem to work properly. The measurement tool has also caused Creo to crash several times for me recently.

4. I have assemblies where parts are constrained in all 3 dimensions and rotation, but Creo does not think they are fully constrained, and it will not allow any more constraints as that would over-constrain the part. Therefore I have to leave the part in "packaged" status.

5. When I remove a feature earlier in the model tree, some later features fail even though they are in no way referencing the deleted feature. When I edit definition on these features and do nothing, then accept changes, they regenerate with no problems, but they would not regenerate without the edit definition. Why can't Creo do this automatically? It seems to assume the feature should fail as it is later in the model history.

6. Round - this is very unstable and often does not allow me to make a round of the desired radius, limiting me to very large or very small radii. The order in which rounds are added seems to make a huge difference. Most of the crashes that I have encountered have been while changing a dimension on a Round. Creo also often hangs for a long time while trying to preview a round, and then when I accept the feature it takes even longer to render the confirmed round - why process the same thing twice? Other softwares I have used are quicker and more robust when Rounding.

7. Helical cut - why do I need to create a separate sketch outside the feature? I should just be able to select a rotationally symmetric surface, it should automatically identify the axis, and I then just need to create one internal sketch for the cut profile.

8. Blend protrusion - why do the profiles need the same number of lines/vertices? A circle has 2 sections and a square has 4 - why can't it work out where to connect them? I don't see a problem as long as one can be divided by the other. Other softwares can do this automatically, and with more refined blending options. Early Creo 1 had more blend options than the current version.

9. I can reference features in an assembly outside the part I am editing, but if the part I reference changes in size, the child does not keep up with the change. I know there is a publish geometry option and skeleton part for this purpose but these take time and planning to set up, and I often don't know what the final part will look like until I am well into the assembly details. If the external references worked properly, and updated, it would save loads of time.

10. References are easily lost, this is my biggest gripe with Creo. If a surface is referenced, and then that surface is cut away or covered over by another feature, the reference no longer exists. I would prefer it if the old surface could maintain it's reference so that the child features could still regenerate - in essence, create reference "wormholes" or "hyperlinks" between features.

This would save an enormous amount of time, as currently I have to update every child to reference another surface. I can delete the broken reference and click "solve" in the references window, which will auto dimension the child feature to another reference, as a quick fix, but this ignores my original design intent. I can also create model planes, axes, etc, and reference everything from those. However, this is more difficult to control, as these cannot be constrained in as much detail or complexity, and this creates more problems.

I think CAD software should be a tool to aid the designer, and the software should conform to the way the designer prefers to work, not the other way around. Creo is great if you don't want to change anything fundamental, late on in the design, and you know exactly the form you want the final part to take. But is a nightmare if someone wants a fundamental feature changed or removed that everything is linked to, making it easier to remodel from scratch rather than try to modify it.

11. Drawings - Creo is model centric, and drawings are an afterthought. This would be forgiven if the modelling was problem-free, but it's not. Drawings are labour intensive, BOMS and tables and BOM baloons take a long time to get the formatting all the same and enter all the data. Why can't I change all of the BOM baloon arrow head styles simultaneously? All dimensions have to be positioned manually, nothing that could be done automatically is automatic, e.g. leader line breaks where lines overlap. Tolerances are frustrating to add - you have to keep going between the tolerance options to trick the software to allow you to display them how you want. It's often easier to use all manually created dimensions and notes, and bypass the problems of model dimensions, which can't be moved to places that make sense, and often can't have Gtols added to them for unexplained reasons.

Cheers,

James

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

Hi James,

I agree many things aren't perfect - but to comment on a few of your points specifically:

1. When I edit definition of a feature, the view position and orientation changes automatically. I have to move the view back to where it was as it was already in the best position. I would prefer turning off the auto changing views, as they waste time. I have set animations to 0.1 second, and no. of frames to 3 so that these view changes don't waste any more time than they already do.

Assuming you have active maintenance, get voting:

http://communities.ptc.com/ideas/1002

2. When I create a new sketch or extrude, revolve etc. the sketch often defaults to an upside-down or flipped or 90 degree rotated view. It should always default to have the X or Z axis horizontal, and the Y axis vertical, or swap the Z and Y axes depending on which axis is perpendicular to the plane, and it should face the surface/side of the plane I clicked on. As, unless I'm mistaken, it currently seems not to pay attention to the coordinate system or the direction on the surface from which I clicked - it is not intuitive.

I'm guessing that you're not explicitly picking both your references (sketching plane and horizontal or vertical sketching reference. Having learnt way back on 2000i^2, I'm still in the habit of opening 'Sketch References' and selecting both, rather than just picking a sketch plane and letting it guess what I want to use for the second reference.

Also, again when I first learnt, we were taught that planes have a front (used to be yellow) and a back (used to be red) - if you understand and accept this you'll get on much better with Creo. If you go through the explicit reference selection, you get an option to flip the view direction in case you do want to sketch on the back of the plane.

3. The measurement tool was easier to use in Creo 1.0 than Creo 2.0. Holding Ctrl does not seem to enhance it's functionality. It is still not very easy to click the parts I want to measure, and often goes through all the edges before surfaces, I would like to prioritise surfaces.

Regarding selection sequence: long-standing gripe!

http://communities.ptc.com/ideas/1026

7. Helical cut - why do I need to create a separate sketch outside the feature? I should just be able to select a rotationally symmetric surface, it should automatically identify the axis, and I then just need to create one internal sketch for the cut profile.

What if you don't want the cut to follow the surface (e.g. modelling a thread with run-out)? I'd argue that this adds flexibility.

10. References are easily lost, this is my biggest gripe with Creo. If a surface is referenced, and then that surface is cut away or covered over by another feature, the reference no longer exists. I would prefer it if the old surface could maintain it's reference so that the child features could still regenerate - in essence, create reference "wormholes" or "hyperlinks" between features.

I have to say this just sounds like poor modelling practice. The model should follow design intent: how can the design intent be for a feature to be a certain distance from geometry that doesn't exist in the final part?

Creo is great if you don't want to change anything fundamental, late on in the design, and you know exactly the form you want the final part to take.

I have to agree with you here. My training company also worked as freelance CAD modellers, and the guy who taught me said that whenever he had time on a project he liked to build the model twice: once to develop the design until the customer was happy, and then again - from scratch - once he knew what shape he was aiming for. We've used Pro/E in a similar way, scheming in 2D (gearboxes) so that the parts are 98% defined before firing up Pro/E.

However, I'd suggest that this is somewhat inherent to the concept of parametric modelling...

Cheers,

Jonathan

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

Thanks for the reply, Jonathan.

I tried to follow your links, but received an error message!

I'm aware there are workarounds etc. but these are my gripes, and I'd be a happier designer if my CAD software behaved itself, and bent to my will. 🙂

- James

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

1. There is a config.pro setting to turn off going to 2D when entering the sketcher.

2. This is where selecting sketcher references and directions is beneficial.

10. This can often be relieved by being more selective about what is referenced. Whenever possible, select references which probably will not be deleted or modified. From my experience far too many users just select the quickest and easiest references available with very little thought of what will happen if that reference is deleted or modified. There's also the order of features, sometimes reordering a feature to a point prior to it's modification can solve the problem. I don't know how other CAD programs handle this type of thing, Pro-E will sometimes try to find a similar reference, but there's also re-route and redefine.

"Teachers", I've run into far too many incompetent, highly mistaken people "teaching".

Remodeling parts: With bosses and project managers, and the lack of any authority, I've never, ever had the time to be remodeling parts. There's a lot of lost time involved in doing so, any drawings have to be redone, assembly constraints are lost, totally accurate duplication is a risk and any error can potentially become a big issue. From my personal experience it isn't very practical, but if you don't have other people inflicting themselves into your work it might be more feasible. My personal solution is to try to make changes and re-definitions done as well as I can considering the time I have to do them.

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

Jonathan Hodgson schrieb:

Hi James,

I agree many things aren't perfect - but to comment on a few of your points specifically:
.....

1. When I edit definition of a feature, the view position and orientation changes automatically. I have to move the view back to where it was as it was already in the best position. I would prefer turning off the auto changing views, as they waste time. I have set animations to 0.1 second, and no. of frames to 3 so that these view changes don't waste any more time than they already do.

Assuming you have active maintenance, get voting:

http://communities.ptc.com/ideas/1002

I can not visit one single link. I would love to see what is to learn here.

.....

10. References are easily lost, this is my biggest gripe with Creo. If a surface is referenced, and then that surface is cut away or covered over by another feature, the reference no longer exists. I would prefer it if the old surface could maintain it's reference so that the child features could still regenerate - in essence, create reference "wormholes" or "hyperlinks" between features.

I have to say this just sounds like poor modelling practice. The model should follow design intent: how can the design intent be for a feature to be a certain distance from geometry that doesn't exist in the final part?

I mainly logged in to second this point number 10:
I do not understand why many old references do not give us a clue where they were before the reference was lost. I always have to open up an older part (lower prt-number) to look what reference was taken before.
I know it is possible to realize this. It is possible in Solid Works, so... why not here?
Just the way that the old position is shown in red, either a line when that was the case or the old position of the surface.. It would help sooo much!!

Creo is great if you don't want to change anything fundamental, late on in the design, and you know exactly the form you want the final part to take.

I have to agree with you here. My training company also worked as freelance CAD modellers, and the guy who taught me said that whenever he had time on a project he liked to build the model twice: once to develop the design until the customer was happy, and then again - from scratch - once he knew what shape he was aiming for. We've used Pro/E in a similar way, scheming in 2D (gearboxes) so that the parts are 98% defined before firing up Pro/E.

However, I'd suggest that this is somewhat inherent to the concept of parametric modelling...

Cheers,

Jonathan

Sorry, I do not have the time and knowing how to write in the Quote above better than that.

Always looking up where the old references were is really time consuming.

Also it is really a no go just to come up with some new name, name it "Creo" and just do an overhaul of the UI while many things under the hood do still not work!

I do not like the new look and it did not make my work faster.

Just ONE BUG example of so many but yes, I also think that PTC gives not much about existing customers..

In Creo 2.0 M90 Version (i bet it is still in the M100):

1) make a Combined View and make also a cut through an assembly with some parts.

2) Make a 2D Drawing out of this with this combined view.

3) Go into the Assembly and in the definition of the Cross-Section you already used in the 2D drawing and exclude there some parts from being cut (Ansichtsmanager -> Querschnitt -> Definition editieren -> Ausgewählte Modelle ausschließen).

4) Go in your drawing and watch what happens... It is NOT updating correctly..

Oh wait, another good BUG (that is known but is not fixed:)

You better save your work or do some drawing for this test, then:

1) open your view-properties (i am sorry if the naming is not correct, i have the german version) and go to the cross-section (or cut selection)

2) select the radio button at the bottom, called someting like single surface (Einzelnen Teilefläche)

3) select a single surface

then try to go back and show the whole part... you can not go back!

Well, I hope PTC is listening even HERE to us. I am not willing to aks for things that have to be implemented. Not for that much money they are getting from us. Some time the day has come customers will leave.. without arguing. Just leaving. And then they tell us "we listen to you" and then its too late!!

Cheers

Re: MOST ANNOYING THINGS WITH CREO

Heiko Heinze wrote:

Jonathan Hodgson schrieb:

Hi James,

Assuming you have active maintenance, get voting:

http://communities.ptc.com/ideas/1002

I can not visit one single link. I would love to see what is to learn here.

Heiko,

Sorry, I've fallen for the forum bug where it breaks links to itself! If the (modified) link above still doesn't work (and you have active maintenance associated with your PlanetPTC account) then copy and paste the URL into a new browser tab.

The forum software has a bad habit of making a link like

"http://communities.ptc.com/communities.ptc.com/ideas/1002" instead of just

"http://communities.ptc.com/ideas/1002".

Cheers,

Jonathan