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

Community Tip - If community subscription notifications are filling up your inbox you can set up a daily digest and get all your notifications in a single email. X

Inventor to Pro/E transition advice

JoshH
3-Visitor

Inventor to Pro/E transition advice

Hi folks,

I have a bit of a challenge that I'm hoping folks in the community can help out with.

I'm trying to figure out how to help a group transitioning from Inventor to Pro/E (WF5).

I can't wrap my head around the whole origin methodology.

 

1. Is anybody still modeling in Pro/E with the same origin methodology as in Inventor?

 

2. Any suggestions on making life easier for a former Inventor user? (training tips, etc)

 

Thanks,

 

Josh


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.
13 REPLIES 13
TomD.inPDX
17-Peridot
(To:JoshH)

Maybe if you explain "origin methodology"

Perhaps you are refering to something closer to a "skeleton" model where you have a common reference for an entire project?

Thanks for the comment,

I'd sure like to explain the "origin methodology", but I can't quite do it.

The best guess I have is that it stems from the old days of Autocad where you were just creating lines in 2D from a defined origin (0,0). The software continued to evolve, maintaining the origin to what is there today, a (0,0,0) origin that everything relates to. I can see that they still define parts based on references (insert/mate/align, etc), but that just enables the software to calculate the position relative to the origin.

My Inventor guy has it in his head that this is the most logical way to do it and that Pro/E's method is "unintuitive". Personally, I hate the word "unintuitive" since what most people think of as "intuitive" is just a learned norm.

TomD.inPDX
17-Peridot
(To:JoshH)

I see. It has been argued by colleagues that creating features relative to some "center" was no longer necessary. ...that Pro|E Wildfire uses a "relative" origin. It must be something PTC hyped and it caught on with some. Personally, I never bought into that and in Creo, it is more apparant that there really is an origin.

The idea is that the default CSYS is the center of the universe. If it is the 1st feature, it places itself where it belongs. If the second feature is a datum plane, it will generate all 3 default datum planes. As far as I am concerned, you now have an origin. Parts should always be referenced from this location. This is the location that parts drop into assemblies from. Way too often I've had a screw, with the origin out in left field drop into an assembly and the assembly extents quadrupled or more. The penalty in performance is significant.

So the short of it is that you simply have a origin and you should use it.

I think we are talking about two different things. Imagine all the features of a single part based off the origin of the assembly that part belongs to.

TomD.inPDX
17-Peridot
(To:JoshH)

That would be the "skeleton" model. You would make one or more sketches that places everything in space and you can create your models using the skeleton as a reference. It is not the only way to work with skeletons, but it is one way. You can also place relevant datum planes and axes in the "skeleton" as well.

Remember that you can create and modify your parts in the assembly. So once you create the 1st few features based on the skeleton, you can work in the parts without the assembly present.

Is there a way to wrap your head around it? I don't know. When I work on collaborative projects, you almost don't have a choice.

Dale_Rosema
23-Emerald III
(To:TomD.inPDX)

Joshua,

Are you talking more about a car door handle being designed at X=900, Y=500, Z=250 versus the front bumper at X=0, Y=0, Z=150 and then you put all the parts "together" by putting all the parts together with a common, 0, 0, 0?

Thanks,

Dale

David_M
5-Regular Member
(To:JoshH)

It sounds to me like Joshua is talking about using a common co-ordinate system, which is absolutely fine. If you model with a top-down appraoch, creating and editing new parts from within the assembly, you'll find a common co-ordinate system to be an efficient method. It will also allow exports of your parts to be assembled easily in other software.

Pro/E's method is whatever you want it to be.

JoshH
3-Visitor
(To:David_M)

Hi guys,

yes, it is a common assembly co-ordinate system without a skeleton model. There are no copy geoms or data sharing.

I've heard other instances of doing this in other software programs. I just don't really recall seeing anything like this in Pro/E.

Many of the parts I've seen imported from Inventor or Mechanical Desktop will have datums located far from the geometry. Open one of these parts and select "Fit to Window" and the part is really small because it's trying to fit these datums in the window.

So, are there problems anybody can see with keeping these two methodologies in the same database? It also seems like it would not work if you're going to use mechanism constraints.

Many vehicle companies design this way. Trucks, motorcycles, cars, tractors. Usually the master coordinate system is the center of the front axle or bumper. All the major systems and components are assembled to it. Depending on the size of the model and the size of the vehicle, it could indeed be a long way off.

Like anything else, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.

-marc

Dale_Rosema
23-Emerald III
(To:mdebower)

I remember guys having transforms that they applied to the part to put it into car coordinates once they were done designing the part locally. The transform usually consisted of an x,y,z and and i,j,k (location and rotation). They would apply this transform to the part only at the end or for various submissions to the customer.

TomD.inPDX
17-Peridot
(To:JoshH)

Now I understand your concern, Joshua. Indeed, when you have features at 0,0,0 and have more feature far away from this location, the system has no way to work "locally" without worrying about where the 0,0,0 is.

There are a few tools that will help, but I do not yet know how to avoid this. You can set up view states and combined views to help. You can also move the spin center to be where the geometry is.

If the files are imported, then you can disassociate the default import Coordinate system and delete it. I also suspect you can avoid setting up the default CSYS and datums too, but I have to play with that some today. I will let you know what I come up with.

I think my main concern is that we are moving a bunch of engineers over to Pro/E from Inventor who are going to try to make Pro/E act like inventor.

TomD.inPDX
17-Peridot
(To:JoshH)

In that case I should not help you accomplish this

Are you using Windchill or other associative PDM software that will be configured to manage files?

There is only one trap, or one savior for your move to Creo. Your organization will have to decide if top-down design will be allowed or not. The idea is that files are dependent on each other (parts tied to assemblies) or if all files must stand on their own.

If top-down design concepts will be allowed, you will want some very strong safeguards in how to use this functionality. In this case, you will want to understand a "master model" or "skeleton" concept.

All too often I've found that some hot-dog engineer will find this "great new way of doing things..." only to lead everyone down the rabbit hole. Get some expert advice from your VAR.

Top Tags