I have videos on most of the commands in the Model Intent menu. Here are some of them: Relations ruclips.net/video/HHdYUeuS_ws/видео.html Parameters ruclips.net/video/Ri--pJORCiI/видео.html Component Interface ruclips.net/video/wXBUn30hZiY/видео.html Publish Geometry ruclips.net/video/xvP1XYP-VAo/видео.html Declare ruclips.net/video/7iMEDhRftL4/видео.html Switch Dimensions is covered in the Relations video and Designate is covered in the Parameters video. I will make a video on Program but I have to figure out the demo. Let me know if this helps.
What is your opinion about using sheetmetal assembly models to utilize in its next level assembly versus simply using the formed sheetmetal part? Yes, the assembly model may only have the lone sheetmetal part in it (for now), and then components would be assembled to it (the assembly version of the sheetmetal part). If someone decides to add a pressed-in fastener to my sheetmetal part (which then has to become an assembly), then I am insulated from having to redefine the potentially numerous children in the next-level assembly where the formed sheetmetal part was originally used. Seeing that the sheetmetal part's number may also be used for the proposed sheetmetal assembly, I have not had a numbering/naming issue. It has helped me previously, but I am looking for a rationale as why promoting the logic of a sheetmetal assembly should not be considered a best practice... I have another idea about template start sheetmetal parts. I do like and have started to use the technique of an aptly-named simplified rep for the flattened version of the formed sheetmetal part. Thanks for highlighting the flatten formed features along with unbending (all), but it would have been nice to see how to control individual unbends and the logic of how to incorporate bend back during the creation of additional features (localized transitional bends). Lastly, would you please highlight the many Combined Views (tabs) at the bottom of this sheetmetal model's main window? Were most of those manually created? Or, can/should a company implement more of these preconfigured combination state views in a "start (sheetmetal) model" for use with MBD and annotations? Is it beneficial to create mapkeys (subroutines) to add combination state views to older models that did not have such named Combined Views yet added to their models?
Thanks for watching and the thoughtful response. There's a lot to unpack here so let me offer a few quick responses and address the rest later. First, Windchill will not allow the same number to be used for the part and the assembly. That's one issue about using the same number for both. Creo 5.0 secretly introduced embedded components and inseparable assemblies to deal with the specific case of inserts and other components that would require separate parts and assemblies. See my video here: ruclips.net/video/iOqBdz6gSVg/видео.html I will have videos later that go into the Bend, Unbend, and Bend Back commands as well as Flatten Form commands for individual bends and features. Yes, in this video I demonstrated only Unbend All and Flatten Form All. Those additional tabs are created in my start part for MBD which I documented in this video: ruclips.net/video/oVZWYCYk1eY/видео.html The start part is also available for download from the Dropbox page of my website. Mapkeys are a great way to add Combination States to older models. I can't remember if ModelCHECK can be used for that as well; I know it can be used to add layers, parameters, relations, and datums, but I'm not sure about Simplified Reps and Combination States.
It depends on the level of customization that one's organization has in CREO. In my company, there is an option to make the dxf file technically without going to drawing tab. Yet, it takes us to drawing sheet without borders, just so we can review the dimensions and features(such as holes, cuts) from the flat pattern. Yes its possible to automate the task, but CREO has to do it for you. If there is any possibility, let me know.
in my case, the company manufacture its owns parts....maybe not every designer contract a manufacturer to make this kind of part. i just say it because even when the experts are the right people to do this job, sometimes the designer have to be the expert also
I agree, but it's rare that someone is bending their own metal. Do you have the heuristic data to calculate the developed lengths? Because I've found that it's rare for someone doing the designing to have access to that information.
@@CADPLMGuy each expert has his own thumbs rule, but the guy who have 10years working here told me "just add the curve length + 2 or 3 times the thickness to the sides length". The thing here it's just know the process that the benders use, and how they like to work...but my point here it's just that there are people watching this that maybe find helpful the tool, even when it's not common...
That guy’s recommendation is not good. If you’re bending metal to any kind of tolerance (and maybe you’re not), you need more accurate developed lengths than that. But different organizations have different quality needs.
I like the optional flat pattern method...thanks.
Well explained videos Sir....
Please make videos on healthy practices on sheet metal and design intent tab....thank you....
Great suggestion. Will do. And just for clarification, what do you mean by "design intent tab"?
Oh sorry sir it's "Model intent" option...
I have videos on most of the commands in the Model Intent menu. Here are some of them:
Relations ruclips.net/video/HHdYUeuS_ws/видео.html
Parameters ruclips.net/video/Ri--pJORCiI/видео.html
Component Interface ruclips.net/video/wXBUn30hZiY/видео.html
Publish Geometry ruclips.net/video/xvP1XYP-VAo/видео.html
Declare ruclips.net/video/7iMEDhRftL4/видео.html
Switch Dimensions is covered in the Relations video and Designate is covered in the Parameters video. I will make a video on Program but I have to figure out the demo.
Let me know if this helps.
very useful 👍👍
What about creo 4.0......how we will do in this version to put a view in flat pattern drawing?
What is your opinion about using sheetmetal assembly models to utilize in its next level assembly versus simply using the formed sheetmetal part? Yes, the assembly model may only have the lone sheetmetal part in it (for now), and then components would be assembled to it (the assembly version of the sheetmetal part). If someone decides to add a pressed-in fastener to my sheetmetal part (which then has to become an assembly), then I am insulated from having to redefine the potentially numerous children in the next-level assembly where the formed sheetmetal part was originally used.
Seeing that the sheetmetal part's number may also be used for the proposed sheetmetal assembly, I have not had a numbering/naming issue. It has helped me previously, but I am looking for a rationale as why promoting the logic of a sheetmetal assembly should not be considered a best practice...
I have another idea about template start sheetmetal parts.
I do like and have started to use the technique of an aptly-named simplified rep for the flattened version of the formed sheetmetal part. Thanks for highlighting the flatten formed features along with unbending (all), but it would have been nice to see how to control individual unbends and the logic of how to incorporate bend back during the creation of additional features (localized transitional bends).
Lastly, would you please highlight the many Combined Views (tabs) at the bottom of this sheetmetal model's main window? Were most of those manually created? Or, can/should a company implement more of these preconfigured combination state views in a "start (sheetmetal) model" for use with MBD and annotations?
Is it beneficial to create mapkeys (subroutines) to add combination state views to older models that did not have such named Combined Views yet added to their models?
Thanks for watching and the thoughtful response. There's a lot to unpack here so let me offer a few quick responses and address the rest later.
First, Windchill will not allow the same number to be used for the part and the assembly. That's one issue about using the same number for both.
Creo 5.0 secretly introduced embedded components and inseparable assemblies to deal with the specific case of inserts and other components that would require separate parts and assemblies. See my video here: ruclips.net/video/iOqBdz6gSVg/видео.html
I will have videos later that go into the Bend, Unbend, and Bend Back commands as well as Flatten Form commands for individual bends and features. Yes, in this video I demonstrated only Unbend All and Flatten Form All.
Those additional tabs are created in my start part for MBD which I documented in this video: ruclips.net/video/oVZWYCYk1eY/видео.html
The start part is also available for download from the Dropbox page of my website.
Mapkeys are a great way to add Combination States to older models. I can't remember if ModelCHECK can be used for that as well; I know it can be used to add layers, parameters, relations, and datums, but I'm not sure about Simplified Reps and Combination States.
How we make dxf file of flatten pattern without going to drawing page
It depends on the level of customization that one's organization has in CREO. In my company, there is an option to make the dxf file technically without going to drawing tab. Yet, it takes us to drawing sheet without borders, just so we can review the dimensions and features(such as holes, cuts) from the flat pattern. Yes its possible to automate the task, but CREO has to do it for you. If there is any possibility, let me know.
Is there a way to export DXF flat pattern showing bend lines?
I don't believe the DXF format supports bend lines (which are datum geometry).
@@CADPLMGuy I was able to create drawing of the flat pattern and show annotations axes where the tangent edges of the bends are and save as a dxf .
in my case, the company manufacture its owns parts....maybe not every designer contract a manufacturer to make this kind of part. i just say it because even when the experts are the right people to do this job, sometimes the designer have to be the expert also
I agree, but it's rare that someone is bending their own metal. Do you have the heuristic data to calculate the developed lengths? Because I've found that it's rare for someone doing the designing to have access to that information.
@@CADPLMGuy each expert has his own thumbs rule, but the guy who have 10years working here told me "just add the curve length + 2 or 3 times the thickness to the sides length". The thing here it's just know the process that the benders use, and how they like to work...but my point here it's just that there are people watching this that maybe find helpful the tool, even when it's not common...
That guy’s recommendation is not good. If you’re bending metal to any kind of tolerance (and maybe you’re not), you need more accurate developed lengths than that. But different organizations have different quality needs.