Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Thats rignt anysoftware when updated with latest version should contain the good feature of old version and the updations . hope solid work will work well if things like dof is added with other small additions. solid works is really good with collision detection in asembly and other feature but addition of datum and axis reference for assembly in solid works would improve it rather than only surface assembly.
I think patterning of groups is the big issue with the new dotf paradigm. In fact, a WF doc I read (I can't find it now) acknowledged that there were problems with patterning of grouped features, and state that this would be addressed in upcoming releases.
THAT is what reflects little concern for current users. Yes, we have created a problem for you, but we will fix it in the future, meanwhile you SOL.
They don't have any business implemented changes that don't have the bugs worked out of them.
Make-datums are essential for patterns, compound cuts/holes and assembly refs - compound holes have been on PTC's list of enhancements for years - I don't think any of them know what a compond hole is.
I've always found OTF datums simple and intuitive to use but then I've been using Pro/E since R2. Groups, on the other hand, are a giant pain in the a** and I avoid them like the plague. The only time I've used them is when reference patterns refuse to work any other way. The biggest down side to patterened groups is when you have used them in a drawing for dimensions, notes, gtols, xsections, etc. If you have to delete the pattern and redefine the group you loose all that work in your drawing! PTC has never got it through their heads that the 2D drawing is still the primary way of communicating between different departments & companies. Detailing has always been treated as a red headed stepchild by PTC.
Removing DOTF, will in the long run, make ProE models easier to troubleshoot, but I am still on the page of give the user the option or better educate on the proper use.
What if ASME 14.4Y controled standard model creation practices?
This would help suppliers and OEM's to better communicate
OK, I'll ask... and maybe this should be another string.
I have a problem, being new to the Pro/E world, about drawing dimensions driving the model. I'm not used to doing things like this, will it/can it cause problems if a detailer changes a dimension on a drawing and the .prt file gets updated without changing the revision? I know that I'll be working in Intralink and that it should handle revision control, but I'm a little hesitant about drawing dimensions being so powerful. However, from another standpoint, I do like the fact that I, as a designer, can change both the model and the drawing by changing a few diemnsions.
Some companies have standards in place that prohibit driven (created) dimensions while others have standard that prohibit driving (shown/model) dimensions. The latter seems (to me) more prevalent in highly regulated industries where they want no possibility of any other files being able to modify/influence the part models (such as drawings, assemblies, external references, etc.)
In my experience though, the majority of companies let the users decide using their own judgement.
Doug's mention of 'draft' dimensions might seem like an unlikely prospect, but I actually did some consulting for a company that had their drafting department creating drawings of parts directly in Pro/Detail (there were no associated models) and they had tons of these draft dimensions. (I sure hope they've changed their ways)...
Also, I might consider a fourth category to be out-of-scale dimensions (either driven or driving).
One other fact about exclusive use of driving dimensions in drawings is that when a drawing is checked the model is too without much additional effort.
When I only need to have a model checked I have our drafting dept layout a quick drawing to show all driving dimensions.
Driven dimensions and (especially) draft dimensions can be faked - driving dimensions can't be faked.
I've never understood the desire of some people and companies not permitting model changes via drawings, the two are not mutually exclusive so what difference does it make ??
I like the fact that I have the choice of where to change a dimension. If I'm interested in the effect of an assy, I can change it there, if I'm incorporating an ECO the easiest way is to change it directly in the drawing.
Companies I've worked for insist on driving dimensions for the can't be faked value..
A draft dimension is between draft entities on a drawing.
As draft entities may or may not be related to the drawing model they can be inaccurate, unreliable and can be faked - this is a favorite of lazy/rookie modellers.
These should never be tolerated as they can misrepresent how a model actually looks.
I've seen thousands of dollars pissed away on bad tooling because of this..
So, if I understand right, you have a dimension that was a placement dimension for a feature in the model (Driving). You have a dimension in the drawing that is being driven by the model (Driven). And, you have a dimension that is between drafting entities (Draft). I think I understand the Driving and Driven dimensions, but I'm lost when you talk about drafting entities. I know to never Fake a dimension, so what is a drafting entitiy?
A datum embedded in a group is not the same as embedded in the feature. It is a waste of time to have to navigate the tree just to modify a dimension which you should be able to select on the model itself. Another thing is you end up with unnecessary clutter in the tree from these datums. A third point is if you want to group your feature with other features you must ungroup the datum/feature first (you can't group groups). And no 'swcalvert' it is not the same as 2001!
hi, even though i'm new to pro e, i really like the feature in wildfire as compared to 2001. when i was trying to reuse one model which was created in 2001, it failed regeneration, because of one particular feature, which was made by using "datum on the fly". ince the model was designed by someone else, it was really hard to fix it. but i strongly feel that, the wildfire way of creating "datum on the fly" comes quite handy in similar situations. the other feature in which we can create more than one datum plane, axis or pointsin the middle of feature creation.
Slap them datums on a layer and turn them on and off when needed. I loved the make datum on the fly but, I also like the fact I can go behind someone elses model and reverse engineer it rather quickly.
Didos on the group thing but just add that to the list of pain in the ass way of things in Wildfire.
I've got to agree with Phoxeoy. I know this is an old thread, but now at least I know what the old Pro-E users were bitching about. This datum on the fly thing reminds me of what I used to love about Cadkey (Boolean based solidwith similar placement and referencing built in).
However, I've gotten used to creating Datums (and them being grouped). It seems like DOTF is less rigorous than the alternative. Even if it still existed, I think I'm better off not knowing about it. If they do bring them for WF3 I probably won't care by then anyway.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
