datum planes

[markraz]

yo,

is there a way in proe to have datum planes not be dependent on features or other datums? In other words is there a capability like Autocad's UCS system where you can just rotate freely and add features randomly without restrictions? and be more productive without having to think 100 steps ahead of time?

thanks

 

[rollupswx]

I think PTC might have a direct modeling software that might be better suited to your workflow than a parametric modeler.

 

[dgallup]

Productive in what way? Thinking about a design before drawing random lines is being productive. Perhaps an Etch-a-sketch would be more appropriate for you? It recovers faster from a reboot too.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[laik]

Hi,
try this

http://www.space.com/22677-elon-musk-reveals-iron-man-tech-for-rocket-design-video.html

 

[3DDave]

Blender might be a good substitute for this case.
blender.org
blendernation.com

http://blenderartists.org/forum/

 

[markraz]

" dgallup (Automotive) Productive in what way? Thinking about a design before drawing random lines is being productive. Perhaps an Etch-a-sketch would be more appropriate for you? It recovers faster from a reboot too. "

lol too funny...... ok tough guy

 

[markraz]

"New Post rollupswx (Mechanical)
I think PTC might have a direct modeling software that might be better suited to your workflow than a parametric modeler. "

Thanks for the reply, Datum planes are not inherent to parametric modeling much like parametric modeling is not inherent to datum planes............... think vector spaces

anyhoo

 

[3DDave]

Autocad's UCS is still a datum plane and it still needs to be located and oriented. It's just not a peristent feature, though you can save them for reuse.

Placing a datum plane feature in Pro/E requires thinking the same two steps ahead that placing a UCS in AutoCAD does.

Is there some other 'feature' of datum planes unliked?

As a technical matter, yeah, datum planes are a requirement for parametric 3D modeling; but they are also a requirement for any 3D modeling. In some systems there is only one, in others they are implied to the user in coordinate systems so there isn't a stand-alone datum plane feature. In every model and sometimes every feature there is a reference to tell what XY, YZ, and ZX planes they are based on. Since datum means measurement, these are datum planes.

Not vector spaces. Coordinate transformations. Think Quaternion.

 

[markraz]

sure you can most certainly use quaternions to transform and uses as a basis in 3d, however... using a simple identity matrix and a vector subspace is one standard method of affine transformations. Lastly you DO NOT need datum planes to implement parametric modeling. That was an abstraction that CV and later PTC built their clunky software on, all to make it easier
for them to implement their code. The whole concept of old school parametric modeling and the "PTC" mindset is archaic and very limiting. PTC has long done pretty much everything to
make things easier on their developers, keeping the consumer needs last. If you dive into programs like NX and Catia you'll see they are getting away from the restrictive nature of "Datum" planes. Sure they are there but in NX for instance they are just there as a guide, and they are mucho flexible unlike Proe. Free form is the future of CAD even for engineering disciplines.
Proe is counter productive. Sometimes I'd rather go back tot he drafting board rather than fight the limitations pro.

NX baby.............
ciao

 

[3DDave]

CV didn't use datum planes. They used Coordinate systems; which they developed after depending on View Ports for a while.

Is there some other 'feature' of datum planes unliked? It's a much better complaint if there is a specific problem to solve.

 

[laik]

Yes, This is our future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wKyQhriOrD0#t=51

 

[mjcole]

Mark,

The best thing I could suggest is to make a csys that is offset from the default one. You can also make a moved copy (Copy & Paste Special) of the existing DEF_PRT_CSYS and apply Translations along X,Y,Y and rotations about x,y,z I'd apply any rotations first because if the traslations are put in first when the rotations are performed the csys is far from the axes you'll use for the rotations and it can turn messy.

PTC's Direct Modeler is great there is a free version whose only restriction is Assembly Models can only have a max of 40 distinct models. The Planes can by dynamically moved and reoriented with the simple mouse controlled csys orient tool. To check it out click the following link.

http://www.ptc.com/products/creo-elements-direct/modeling-express/

With the rotated&moved copy - Paste special method I described you can use Dynamic Update options If Proe/Creo requires a sketch plane like for the planar surface which SolidWorks can do by selecting planar edges, you can create an on the fly datum as you are in the pick sketch plane mode using the pause button or just selecting the icon. Then to make the plane you can select your CSYS and enter an offset along it's X,Y,Z direction.

The Style Feature does allow for the free modeling methods you describe but to get full parametricity requires you to set up parameterized Datum Points and Reference curves to enable easy parametric edits.
"It's not the size of the Forum that matters, It's the Quality of the Posts"

PS: In the Unigraphics pre NX days I used to call UG "Useless Geometry" and a few other nicknames. My design Team also refered to some of the Technique with excess features that we needed to create for workarounds (Gorilla Modeling) because features like datum points along curve were only parametric during creation then they became a value in X, Y and Z.

NX now is a lot better than in it's old days, but probably more user friendly than ComputerVision.
I've never used Computervision but it would be cool to see an archived version if it's still on a PC somewhere.

"It's not the size of the Forum that matters, It's the Quality of the Posts"

Michael Cole
Boston, MA
CSWP, CSWI, CSWTS
Follow me on !w¡#$%
@ TrajPar - @ mcSldWrx2008
= ProE = SolidWorks

 

[3DDave]

In assemblies it's not too bad to leave components packaged rather than fully constrained for purposes of dragging and rotating parts, but nothing similar in parts for feature creation.

It's been almost 20 years so it took a while to remember correctly, but I've recalled they were called CPlanes, which were construction planes. They carried a Z-coordinate reference and an origin point, which datums planes don't.

I'm increasingly convinced that for knocking out concepts Blender is the go-to tool. It's mainly missing tools that provide quantitative output, but that's changing. For free-forms, take a look at the sort of models produced.