Quantcast
Channel: PTC Community : Unanswered Discussions - Creo
Viewing all 8685 articles
Browse latest View live

How to manage External Threads in hole tables?

$
0
0

Ok, so I posted this in another related thread and only got a partial answer. Related thread for reference: http://communities.ptc.com/message/203745#203745

 

Does anyone know if the cosmetic thread callouts for external threads can be managed in the same table as hole callouts? (This part was answered as a yes by private e-mail to another user in the thread).

 

If so, what should the value be for the HOLE_TYPE column? in the DEFAULT_CALLOUT_FORMAT_DATE section?

 

Screen shot from my hole table.

 

ScreenHunter_74 May. 08 14.07.jpg

 

I have also attached my hole table for reference. With some help from others, this was developed to manage all holes from one table. Well...one for UNC/UNF. I have another one for ISO.

 

I know that techinically, external threads are not a hole but it would be nice to manage with the same table. If that is not possible or I am way off base here, what is the alternative?


Using a sub-assembly with Degrees of Freedom (Mechanism)

$
0
0

jack.png

Ok, I have the perfect example for mechanisms but I have some questions for the experts.  I was able to model this up so the jack moves as it should.  The plates at the top are in a slot (ideally) and I wanted to leave them free to move about in the slot.  I am going to have 4 of these jacks in my next higher assembly.  When I've played with this in the next higher, I ran into numerous regeneration issues and issues solving for placement. Only if I move the items near where I wanted did they snap right into place.  There is a unit that sits on this and aligns to the holes on those 4 plates on the top.

  1. Can 4 different instances of this jack be positioned to show different heights?  Do I need to apply flexibility on top of the mechanism as well?
  2. My thought was that I could constrain the 4 holes (inserts) on each plate to the unit that sits on top of it (assembled later). Is this not correct? Does the order in which you put this jack in matter? Logic would dictate that you place the jack and then assembly the unit to it. Do I have to put the unit in mid air and assembly the jack underneath it?
  3. Is there a place beyond training classes that discusses best practices? I have numerous cases when subs are relly mechanisms but statically positioned in upper assemblies. This helps keep down on copied models in my system.

Seen the New Customer Videos featuring PTC Creo?

$
0
0

Has anyone had a chance to see the new customer vidoes we (PTC) has produced with some of our customers from around the world? They're documentary style, and focus on how manufacturers are delighting their customers, and how PTC helps.My favourite - the KTM story.

 

 

What do you think of the customer stories? Which one is your favorite?

 

You can watch them all at www.ptc.com/go/customers

 

Cheers,

Geoff

Assembling pinned truss structures--need guidance.

$
0
0

Hi all,

 

I'm needing some help with assembling pinned truss structures. A simple example would be three members that form a triangle with pin joints at each of the vertices. Once all three pins are joined, the structure no longer has open degrees of freedom (at least in the plane of the triangle).

 

The problem that I'm having is that Creo maintains assembly sequence. So the first member can be fixed, but adding the second member to the first leaves the item 'packaged' (there is still rotational DOF at the pin). Then, the third member end up being 'packaged' as well. This is despite that fact that once joined together, all of the members are constrained. It seems like explicitly defining the angle between the members defeats the purpose of the assembly constraints and takes much longer, so I'd like to avoid having to do this.

 

Could someone provide a suggestion regarding this? Maybe I'm just looking at it totally wrong?

 

Thanks!

Draft analysis

$
0
0

I am using Creo 2.0. Whenever I call up a saved draft check on my part, 2 things happen: firstly, the color scale window flashes quickly then disappears under the active window. I have to drag my active window to one side to bring it to the top. (And I have to bring it to the top because...) Secondly the draft display setting goes back to the default 5 colors, even though I've saved the scheme and I've saved the analysis. I don't want 5 colors in my draft analysis - it's not precise enough.

 

Does anyone know of a config.pro setting that keeps the color scale window to the top, or one that sets the number of colors to the amount I want? Even a config.sup or some setting in the install directory?  I sometimes pull up a draft check dozens of times a day. I don't want to have to faff around like an amateur every time I call it up. This never happened in Wildfire or in earlier versions of Pro that I can remember.

After 16 years on Pro/E at an expert level, for the first time......

$
0
0

....I'm contemplating a switch to Solidworks.  I am THAT fed up with Windburn.  It has taken ALL the fun out of using Pro/E, struggling with that monstrous piece of garbage.  I'm spending most of my time trying to get bad software to do simple things like delete files, check in files, etc.  Things that NEVER were a problem in Intralink.  If this is PTC's version of the "future", I'm out of here.

Anyone else have any issues with swept blends?

$
0
0

We had an issue where we tried to do a simple swept blend with 2 sections, each comprised of an arc, and a straight segment, though on each section the arc was on the opposite side.  I other words, from one section to the next, either an arc segment would transition to a straight segment, or a straight segment would transition to an arc.  When we tried to do it as a solid cut, inverted the sections so that it transitioned the arc to arc, and line to line, giving us a preview as if we'd had the start points reversed.  We had to do it as a surface, then do a "solidify-cut" to make it work.  Weird.

 

Anyone else see anomalies like this?

Creo Simplified Rep issue on drawings

$
0
0

I was a long time WF3 user making the change to Creo after a 2 year stint on NX so I missed WF4.  It seems PTC has completely broken the simplified rep functionality as it pertains to drawings in this build.  We are using M120 at my work.  Here is my situation.

 

I have an assembly of a machined casting that has an optional configuration I need to show on my drawing.  The assembly file structure is as follows:

 

Top level assembly has a machined casting and two different types of inserts included. 

 

The machined casting model is a .prt with an external merge from our casting model then machined away.  The model has two user defined reps based on different hole preperation for one insert location.  The bulk of the features in the model is common to both reps, however there are two revolve features at the end of my tree which represent two different hole preperations.

 

The assembly model has two reps in it as well.  Each rep pulls a different rep of the machined casting model and then either includes or excludes an insert.

 

At my drawing level on the first two sheets every view calls for the "no insert" simplified rep and on the third sheet I have a single view showing the alternate configuration.  The view on sheet 3 shows the "with insert" simplied rep.  It is structured to be a second copy of a detail view so the sheet three view is just a general, sectioned, partial view.

 

My assembly reps work perfectly.  When I load my user defined reps, the correct machined casting rep loads and the insert either is shown or not shown as expected.  My issues start to happen on the drawing.

 

I cannot create or show annotations in any way from the .prt machined casting model that has simplified reps in it.  I expected to not have the dimensions from the feature that has been excluded available to show, but none of the features that are common between both reps can show dimensions.  If I create any dimensions, even draft dimensions, when I regen the model they auto "erase" and go into the annotation tab for the view.  I have tried deleting segments of my sketches and creating dims at the model level.  Even if I unerase from the annotations tab, when I regenerate every dimension on the drawing auto erases. 

 

Another strange thing happens.  If I try and create a GD&T callout, only assembly datums are available.  I cannot change the pull down menu to my machined casting model as it is greyed out.  I hate dimensioning everything twice, one of the great benefits of Pro-E is the ability to "show" dimensions from my model sketches so I do not have to dimension the model twice.  The dimensions exist in the model so it is best to show the model dimensions rather than to create drafting dimensions. 

 

I have also tried to structure this assembly a bit differently with the exact same results.  My second attempt to get this drawing to work was to just keep the master rep in the machined casting model and I used assembly cuts to handle my insert hole preperations.  I had the same weird dimensioning issues, and I was not able to make assembly features specific to an assembly rep.  The functionality that exists for part reps to include/exclude features does not appear to be available at the assembly level.  I would really hate to have to make this thing a family table, my company usually reserves those for standard hardware and things of that nature.  We are just talking about one hole prep here.

 

What am I doing wrong here?  Is dimensioning just completely hosed in Creo?  It seems we are going backward in functionality.  If we can't show dimensions in from a model anymore in an assembly drawing one of the main perks of Pro is null and void. 


Line weights and PDF files

$
0
0

I looked around for a solution but to no avail.   Changing the config.pro pen_line_weight has no effect on my drawings.  I tried using a pen table but did not get the results I was looking for.   Using the pen table (I think) means that all geometry lines printed with pen 1 will all have the same line thickness.  This means that, not only geometry lines but drawing border lines will be the same thickness... which I don't want.

PTC TPI 117022 suggests changing the line weight config.pro option which will not overwrite user-defined thickness.  I have made sure that I have no table.prt files, the option to use pen tables is removed from config.pro and the option to use pen tables for PDF is removed.

Lines that have user-defined thickness print with correct weight but no matter what number I put in to the pen 1 and pen 2 options, geometry and dimension lines are not affected (too thick and too thin respectively).

Currently using Creo2.0 m50.  What am I missing?

 

Thanks all.

Invisible drawing in creo2.... Any solutions

$
0
0

Right, weird problem over the last two days. We even resorted to trying to get through on the PTC help line but gave up.

 

One of the guys creo2 installs is doing this weird thing when you go to open a previously made drawing. All the views and annotations (notes and dimensions) have become invisible and impossible to turn back on.. They are there because you can mouse over them plus some random axis are visible where each of the views should be. If I open the drawing on my machine it opens up fine.

 

So this is also complicated a little bit by the fact that we had just installed windchill on his machine the week earlier and we were using configs provided by PTC. He was working offline on these drawings that were previously not created in windchill... Not sure if the Windchill part is relevent but windchill is part of the story and with the trouble we have had with it, nothing would surprise me.

 

-So to simplify things we uninstalled creo2 from his machined and reinstalled it (without setting windchill up) and pointed it back to where his config files live... Result: Same invisible drawing issue

-We then point Creo to a random folder to start in that contains none of our settings: Result: drawings open up fine

-Copied one of the other users config folders over and pointed it to that.... Result: Worked fine, views, notes and dimensions visible (apart from dropping out the drawing format but just tweaked that config setting and all good). Until Creo2 crashed then back to the same problem!

 

So we are stuck.... Any suggestions?

can anybody help me to answer my questiones of use the edge tool?

$
0
0

Dear All,

 

I am very happy to join in PTC community, could anybody help to answer my questions below? in sketcher, "use the edge" tool can not pick up/ select the outside projected edge of curved surface, how can i solve the problem? thanks for your help in advance.

PC Upgrade Questions

$
0
0

We are going to be buying new PCs for our engineers in July and I have a few questions about what would be the best to get.  We are currently using WF5 and plan to move to Creo 2 this summer.

 

1.  What should be the priority on the CPUs?  I am not sure which will give the most benefit.  Should we get a single high clock speed multicore processor, or dual processors with a slightly lower clock speed?  Will Creo2 be able to make use of the 6 or 8 cores if we get them?  Or the 2nd processor?

 

2.  Which graphics cards are the best performing right now?  Nvidia's quadro 4000 or AMDs firepro v7900?  And would dual cards be more optimal as well?

 

I don't know much about the new improvements Creo 2 has made to support these kinds of setups and I want to make sure we get our moneys worth out of our new PCS.

 

If anyone has any experience or knows the best path for us to take, please comment!

 

Thanks

Lou

Can someone help me with this graphic problem?

relation function list

$
0
0

I cannot find a descriptive list with the built in help document for creo relation functions.  I would like to see a comprehensive list of all available relation functions.  Example, would include the function EXISTS.  I know how it works I'm just giving an exmaple so someone out there might be able to search and find a list which contains this function.  PTC documentation is less than desireable.

Threadmilling Pickup Overlap vs Thread Overlap

$
0
0

I am curious to know if anybody knows what the purpose of the threadmilling parameter "thread_overlap" is for?  I use "pickup_overlap" to ensure that there is no gaps left in interrupted cutting of internal threading.  I can't quite figure the difference between the two options though.  The paths look similar if you go with one or the other.


Toroid inductor coil

$
0
0

I like some help with creating an inductor toroid coil as seen here in the attached picture.

What's the relationship between p-level, solution time, mesh & accuracy?

$
0
0

First some perspective: I deal with very large structural (rocket) problems, so for solution time (lots of optimizations) I am highly incented to use single-pass analyses rather than multi-pass. So readers should understand that my question deals with finding an approach that maximizes the prospects of getting reasonable results using single-pass analysis.

 

Up until now I have "accepted" that if the p-level of my problem was below 9 (the maximum), then I could expect my solutions to be reasonably numerically accurate since "the math hadn't red-lined". The first question is, does anyone know that to be "mostly true" or "a reckless assumption"? To answer that you must know that I deal with concept level designs: I do NOT need absolutely accurate numerical results... I just need results that are accurate enough to yield accurate design insight.

 

The next question is somewhat related but deals specifically with solution time. Despite the p-level of my model being almost entirely 7 and below, it's taking 3 hours to run a simple 4-parameter optimization. More elements means more equations... but it also means that stress gradients are much easier for the math to deal with. My question is this (kind of hoping a developer will answer). Is there a target "mathematical sweet spot" for geometrically complex problems? If the default, coarse mesh, results in alot of P=8 elements and I want to reduce my solution time, should I refine the mesh just enough to get to most elements being P=7, or should I, if possible, increase the mesh density until most of the model is P=5 or lower?

 

Thanks.

No love for Geometry Patterns in Sheet Metal or am I missing something?

$
0
0

So my patterns take forever to regenerate in parts, like 10 minutes plus. Ok. so let's use Geometry Patterns. They are after all lighting fast in comparison ...

 

well. Geometry Patterns does not seem to work with Sheet metal, or am I missing something here?

 

thanks,

Derrick,

STEP AP242

$
0
0

Does anyone know if Creo 2.0 supports import/export of STEP AP242 format?

Pro/Sheetmetal Bend Question

$
0
0

Hi I am trying to make the attached picture out of angle iron in pro sheetmetal. I can get the first basic wall, and bend and unbend it, but I cannot add the pattern shown. It makes a "C" shape. Anyone have any input?

Viewing all 8685 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>