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

Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

SOLVED
Highlighted
Level 8

Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Hello,

 

This is a cry for help (read: rant) regarding layer rules. I have been trying for days now to get them to work but they seem extremely bugged and inconsistent to me. Some rules don't seem to work at all.

 

Sometimes rules for one type of feature work while the same rules applied to another type of feature don't work.

Let me show you an example:

 

I have a layer 02_DEF_PLANES for default datum planes, including them by name. I have another layer 05_PLANES for all other datum planes, excluding the default datum planes by name. This one works.

180922_Layer PLANES Creo Parametric 4.0.png

 

I also have a layer 03_DEF_AXES for default datum axes, including them by name. I have another layer 06_AXES for all other datum axes, excluding the default datum axes by name. This one just ignores the naming rules and puts the A_X, A_Y and A_Z axes from the external inheritance on the 06_AXES layer. Note that these axes are NOT on this layer in the inherited part.

 

180922_Layer AXES Creo Parametric 4.0.png

 

What is going on here?

 

Layer rules also do not apply at all to items from external data on layers with the same name. In my examples datums from the external inheritance are placed on layers where I have excluded them by rules.

 

By now this has gotten me quite frustrated an annoyed. As expected, there is no decent explanation/help on layer rules to be found in PTC documentation. So I'm left to trial and error whatever ideas I come up with and try getting help here.

If anyone can explain the issues above please let me know. Help is greatly appreciated!

 

 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Not exactly, that's why I'm wondering what is being searched by on your 01 and 04 layers. Here is an example of what I'm referring to and see if they make sense to you. I'll include how I interpret what I'm seeing.

 

Layer_Rules.PNG

  1. LAY0001 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Coordinate System, with Attribute Name: *DEFAULT. Datum DEFAULT is placed on layer.
  2. LAY0002 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Coordinate System, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0001. Datum DEFAULT isn't placed on the layer since it's included on LAY0001.
  3. LAY0003 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0001. Datum DEFAULT is placed on the layer since LAY0001 doesn't have a feature on it named DEFAULT.
  4. LAY0004 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Attribute Name: *DEFAULT. Datum DEFAULT is placed on layer
  5. LAY0005 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0004. Datum DEFAULT is placed on the layer since LAY0004 doesn't have a feature on it named DEFAULT.
  6. LAY0006 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Feature, Look By: Coordinate System, with Attribute Name: *DEFAULT. Feature DEFAULT is placed on layer.
  7. LAY0007 searches for a coordinate system with Look for: Coordinate System, Look By: Feature, with Status: Layer: Not Included: LAY0006. Datum DEFAULT isn't placed on the layer since it is part of the Feature DEFAULT definition.
  8. LAY0008 and LAY0009 used OR rule definitions to get items on layers.

In order to make sense of the pics of the layer definitions shown I'd need to see the rules for layers 01 and 04

and what ends up on them.

24 REPLIES 24

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Hello @Wouter

 

 got similar layers structure. You are using "AND" condition for default planes and it´s the core problem (in my opinion). Try to use "OR" instead of this. See following pictures from mine solid_start_part.prt. Plane names are different, but logic should be the same... In general:

1) Default planes - include plane that name is "bokorys" OR "narys" OR "pudorys"

2) Datum planes - inlclude all planes that name IS NOT EQUAL to "bokorys" AND "narys" AND "pudorys"

Keep same logic for coords, axis etc...

layers-planes_rules_logic.JPG

See attached part...

Regards

@mbonka

Tags (3)

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Hello @@mbonka

 

Thank you for your reply. Your rules seem to be setup in the exaxct same way as mine (same logic). See the attached example pictures:

 

Default Planes:

180924_3342_Layer_Properties.png

Other Planes:

180924_3343_Layer_Properties.png

 

The issue I was describing was that sometimes rules for one type of feature work while the same rules applied to another type of feature don't work. I showed only the layer rules for non-default datum planes and non-default axes to show that sometimes the rules ignore items in external inheritance features and sometimes they don't. I haven't found out why yet...

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Example for datum plane:

l think it´s unimportant where from the datum plane is coming (regular solid part, assembly or imported part).

l think it depends on the name of datum plane (top, bottom etc.) - name in model tree.

 

For some inspiration see Vladimir´s "automatic layer" tutorial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA9X4FOQQPE

 

@mbonka

 

 

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Example for datum plane:

l think it´s unimportant where from the datum plane is coming (regular solid part, assembly or imported part).

l think it depends on the name of datum plane (top, bottom etc.) - name in model tree.

 

For some inspiration see Vladimir´s "automatic layer" tutorial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA9X4FOQQPE

 

@mbonka

 

 

Tags (1)

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

I've noticed that as well.  I made a "curve" layer with rules to exclude 2 curves of a specific name.  It will NOt filter those out no matter what I do.  I have to manually "exclude" them.  PITA, but, it's only those 2.  The "rules", while they usually work great, DO seem glitchy in some instances.....like a lot of features....  Smiley Wink

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

Thank you again for trying to help. Unfortunately the issues I have are not related to the feature names but to the way the rules work (or don't work) in general. The video tutorial filters only by name, which is not what I'm trying to achieve.

I'm still trying to a decent set of rules working for my layer setup, but refuse to give up jet yet Smiley Happy

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

So what the rule should be? Pick items based on what (name, ID, type...)? Shortly please Smiley Happy

 

Sometimes it helps when you take a view from above...

l think in generall there can be 2 basic ways to sort items in layers:

1) Pick this, this and this based on this rule

OR

2) Pick everything and EXCLUDE this, this and this based on this rule

 

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

I agree there is no best way, it depends on the situation which way is better (more robust) to achieve what you want.

Re: Layer rules are messed up and inconsistent

I'm still struggling with those layer rules. I'm trying to get coordinate features and coordinate entities to show up on one layer, but not the entities when the feature itself is already on the layer. So a CS feature should not have the CS entity on the layer as well. A sketch feature which contains a CS should not be on the layer, but the CS entity should. While I was working on this I noticed some weird behaviour in the and/or statements.

The first 3 images show the exact same rules as the last 3 images. Only the order is changed and the and/or statements are changed to match the order. These should give the exact same result but the preview shows the don't. Am I missing something or is it a bug?