Pro/E Creo has poor methodology for material assignement and definition.
I really reallyreallylike the way Solidworks assigns materials. I wish PTC wouldfollowtheir lead on this...
*Right at the top of the model tree is the material is identified.
I agree with your confusion Doug. The Pro/E material usage is heavy on the Mechanica side, but light on the manufacturing and other use-cases. (I don't want to bring up the units debate) While ideally I would prefer my solid model to be the end-all, be-all of how to make my part, it just won't work since the material is not controlled. This means the definition of my part material relies on an external source that my CAD model cannot access...and may be changed by purchasing without my knowledge.
Ideally I'd want all my 6061-T6 material to be defined and managed based on what we're actually receiving. While I can set up a standard material file for it, once it goes to the part level, it's managed by the part regardless of what my database (or ERP/MRP) says. Even if I can't do anything to the original material file, if I can replace it by a copy of that file that my higher level systems (PDM/ERP/MRP, etc). are not aware of, that means I probably still don't have control of my material files.
Another kicker is that assuming you do set up this 6061-T6 with your standard finish/coating, what happens if I anodize this part green after it's machined? I guess I could have a green 6061-T6 material (and a red, a purple, blue, etc., etc.). Does that mean I have to have a different assembly/Simp Rep./Family Table, etc. for each color of my product?
I hope this doesn't spark a rant or come across as negative. These are just some questions that have bugged me for quite some time and I can't say I understand why I haven't heard more concerns/complaints regarding the material subject.
Joshua Houser| Pelco by Schneider Electric |Buildings & Business| United States| MCAD Tools Administrator
Have to agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the material files in Pro/E / Creo. We use them to carry parameters, hatch pattern, material characteristicsand forMechanica studies etc..As others have said though,I wish it would lock out the ability to change the density when a material file is assigned (or mess with the settings in the assigned material file). Even if it was a config.pro yes/no sort of thing that could be put in a config.sup. Other thing that has bugged me is the fact that while a x-section willuse the hatch pattern associated with the assigned material file (nice), ifa different material is later assigned and has a different hatch pattern, the section doesn't actually update, it keeps using the original material's hatch pattern.I like the idea mentioned here of using a annotation feature to communicate the assigned material file. One thing I've done that has helped our users is create a custom BOM report form - when the users run a BOM report in Pro/E it includes columns for the name of the assigned material file, density and mass of the part. Makes for a quick check of what may be incorrectly set when a mass properties report doesn't seem right.
Wildfire 3 m250, Windows 7