Hi, I always look forward for your new videos. you pick very interesting topics and bring awareness of new tools and commands. Btw, I think orientation of csys is just for ref to Primary, secondary and tertiary datums (as datums sequence may vary, like B|A|C). So, Acc. to my understanding, for the first Csys you created, "x" should be facing downwards as primary datum that is A datum is locking "X" D.O.F. and so on... And if B was primary datum in other GD&T callout, say GD&T used to define datum C, then for that DRF Csys X dir would be normal to datum B, and Y dir would be normal to datum A. So in nutshell, csys orientation should serve as the sequence of fixing the D.O.F. for particular GD&T inspection.
I thought the situation would be like that and it’s what I expected, but when I looked at the ANSI standard, there was no consistency between the datums and the coordinate system orientation.
@@CADPLMGuy I have some reference drawings for Csys orientation definition as per ASME standard which I would like to share with you. I was wrong about primary datum would be X, instead would be Z (XY plane that is front/primary of fixing device). For back & forth explanation and understanding of the topic, email communication would be better.
Dave, another great video. Thank you. I just went thru a part and defined the csys. Then I opened the part in CreoView. The reference geometry highlights, but the csys does not highlight per ASME Y14.41. Am I doing something wrong? Is the "recipe" to publish to CreoView wrong? Or is CreoView not compliant with ASME Y14.41? Do you know?
There are way too many variables for me to assess based on this information - Creo Parametric version, publisher version, Creo View version, recipe file, how the model was constructed.
That's an argument you can take up with ASME and ISO as they put those in the standards for digital product definition. The DRFs support the 3D annotations being semantic (machine readable) by downstream manufacturing and inspection.
Hi, I always look forward for your new videos. you pick very interesting topics and bring awareness of new tools and commands. Btw, I think orientation of csys is just for ref to Primary, secondary and tertiary datums (as datums sequence may vary, like B|A|C). So, Acc. to my understanding, for the first Csys you created, "x" should be facing downwards as primary datum that is A datum is locking "X" D.O.F. and so on...
And if B was primary datum in other GD&T callout, say GD&T used to define datum C, then for that DRF Csys X dir would be normal to datum B, and Y dir would be normal to datum A. So in nutshell, csys orientation should serve as the sequence of fixing the D.O.F. for particular GD&T inspection.
I thought the situation would be like that and it’s what I expected, but when I looked at the ANSI standard, there was no consistency between the datums and the coordinate system orientation.
@@CADPLMGuy I have some reference drawings for Csys orientation definition as per ASME standard which I would like to share with you. I was wrong about primary datum would be X, instead would be Z (XY plane that is front/primary of fixing device). For back & forth explanation and understanding of the topic, email communication would be better.
Hi. Do you have a playlist of creo for absolute beginners? Anyways,I went through your channels and was amazed by your content
Yes. It's called "Creo Parametric for Absolute Beginners." You can search for videos from my channel page.
Dave, another great video. Thank you. I just went thru a part and defined the csys. Then I opened the part in CreoView. The reference geometry highlights, but the csys does not highlight per ASME Y14.41. Am I doing something wrong? Is the "recipe" to publish to CreoView wrong? Or is CreoView not compliant with ASME Y14.41? Do you know?
There are way too many variables for me to assess based on this information - Creo Parametric version, publisher version, Creo View version, recipe file, how the model was constructed.
Good one,is it possible to add welding call-out in MBD
Yes
seems like these DRFs shouldnt be reqd since datums symbols are applied!
That's an argument you can take up with ASME and ISO as they put those in the standards for digital product definition. The DRFs support the 3D annotations being semantic (machine readable) by downstream manufacturing and inspection.
@@CADPLMGuy Thanks. I dont recall seeing DRFs in SolidWorks MBD.