Creo Practice Drawings Pdf 401
Odina Conkright
I went through the tutorials again and still did not find the answer to my question. Also, my company is on a custom version of Creo 2.0 so most of the training/tutorials do not apply to my version. The other issue is that most of the training is focused on routing wires and very little is available for making drawings. I will ask the question once again in hopes to clarify what I'm trying to figure out.
I am not an expert in routing and we do not make the flat pattern drawings. We often just detail them in their 3D formed shape. That being said we have done things similar to what you are requesting and to solve them we typically make a separate model or assembly that shows it how we want it and add that to the drawing. I am sure this isn't the response you wanted and hopefully someone else will chime in but if not then you have at least one other perspective.
- it seems that if you add a network point to your network then all your flat harness assemblies break. So make sure that the cable routes are finished before starting to flatten the cables to make the drawings.
I have some new UDF features (.gph) that are used as subordinate UDFs and placed on multiple designs in part mode. I have created model annotations in the UDF reference parts (.prt). The UDF geometry works as intended but I am struggling to automate the detailed views on the drawings which are repetitive in nature. I want to set up one set of annotations in the reference model and then show them in a detail view on a drawing without manipulating the location of the annotations shown every time I reuse the features.
I will follow up with tech support on this when I get some time. I will post any updates as they come in. It would be nice to have MBD support within the UDF functionality. I would need to consider how to best implement this. I am not a subject matter expert on MBD. If anyone has thoughts on how UDFs should function in a MBD context for models or drawings, please post them here.
Is there a best practice to change a Drawing Template by another (to get a bigger paper size, for example), or an old drawing to a new Template? As I told you, it is a requirement that we use Templates, not Formats.
I will explain further. We have a process in place with the goal to protect the company internal Standard: Every product line in my company must create their own Template according to a global standard. These Templates take as a basis very simple formats (valid for all) that we centrally deliver. But the offices must create Templates which include their customizations needed for their products, like add-on tables, parameters and views (let's say, a more complete frame). Therefore, they always "Use Template" to create drawings and cannot change format (they would need to re-position their customizations: add on tables, params, etc...), so they must change between Templates.
I have noticed over the years the default style of the hatch lines of Cross-sections has changed on 2D drawings. Now with CREO Parametric 10.0.0, it looks like the default (without material properties set) comes in at variable value for the spacing depending on the size of the part, where I used to only have to do a half spacing once or twice to make it look good, now they are needing more clicks to get them like I used to. A small 5" part will have a hatch spacing that looks almost solid, while a 400" part has a very wide spacing value with barely any lines on the hatch.
1. View updates on other other drawings which are affected by the incumbent drawing. Do you normally update them along with the revised drawing? What do you do if 100 drawings, just the views, are affected?
1. I would say this decision is a case-by-case basis. If you are changing a part that substantially affects the other drawings, I would say you should update the other drawings. If you are making a minor modification to a part that may show visually on the other drawings but doesn't substantially affect form-fit-function, then I would simply wait till the next revision on the affected drawings. Typically, others outside of engineering are not looking directly at your Creo models so they don't see the changes to sub-level parts (or at least that has been my experience).
I have seen so many policies come and go with regard to this very question that it is a fruitless task mostly because those that you hold responsible simply cannot maintain the intent. And if this effort cumulates over time, you will find your drawings in a serious state.
I prefer a very strict policy on managing CAD models and drawings with all where-used implementations corrected as changes occur. This includes the check function that is required to make sure it is "transparent" on documents that are affected but not substantially changed (bin compatible).
I am trying to gather some best practices documents to distribute in my company. The main reason for this is that we have many designers who are, quite frankly, terrible at using Pro/E. This is primarily due to a company culture where the older designers who are bad at using Pro/E teach new designers how to be bad at using Pro/E. This cycle continues over an over until you have terrible models/drawings with problems such as:
I have been asked to help remedy this by providing tutorials showing what is accepted as the best practice for several of these issues. The problem is that I have very limited time to work on this so I would like to gather as many as I can from internet sources. If anyone can provide links to best practices documents or send them to me directly, I would be very grateful.
In parametric modeling the same factors are still in place, but the discipline often isn't. Users often treat the part they are working on as somehow separate. I've had users feel it's too difficult to redefine a sketch for a feature and just delete it, replacing it with another feature - and thereby destroy multiple levels of assemblies and drawings, because they don't get how the interrelation that allows parts to accurately fit together has anything to do with their work.
To extend AD's response: The only way for consistent practices to work is to start with one user responsible for all the models - that is, they get to say if the models are acceptable or not, and if not, either they fix them or the person who made the model gets to redo the work. As a number of vetted works builds up, users will see more examples of what's done right, or at least what is consistent usage. Eventually it will become the norm.
Before adding policies and prodedures, start by reviewing a few hundred models and drawings. Collect the concepts that seem to work, including down-stream CAM and other efforts. Look at those concepts that are painful and understand the circumstance that led to that. Example: the revolved cuts. It's a single feature that can be redefined to be a c'bore, or with countersinks on one or both sides, or include a snap-ring groove, at any time while losing the least info when redefined. Perhaps it was done before hole features worked - they used to really stink big time. Knowing why a feature is used in a seemingly odd way will go a long way to developing a consistency.
Here's one I consider to be a good practice - create the location dimensioning scaffold before creating feature driving geometry. For example, on an extruded hole I'll use construction lines aligned to part edges and crossing where the hole will be and create dimensions to them; not to part geometry or to sketched curves directly. Then sketch the circle at the intersection. Why? If/when the decision comes to make it a slot, nothing else is affected but the outline. The locating dimensions shown on the drawing, with all their settings, will be unchanged. If I copy the sketch, all the dimensions come with it and merely need to align to a new location. If I'm really after some permanence, I'll include a sketched axis point that has a dimension that can move it off center. This way even when converting from circle to slot, mating hardware aligned to that axis won't be affected -and- if changed to a slot, I can move it independently and see the effect in using assemblies. Circular hole to straight slot to curved slot and next assemblies work fine.
aa06259810