Simple it is not.
Simple it is not.
(OP)
Does anyone have a good list of basic function sequences, such as "rotate drawing view" or similar simple functions? Hopefully it's not like everything else in ProE: convoluted, overly complicated, and requiring a degree of Computer Engineer or IT background.
Thanks!
Thanks!





RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
Looks like you & I have the same perspective towards ProE!!
ProE, compared to other CAD packages is a bit more tedious & time consuming, but all is doable if one has the patients "& time" to work through the multiple steps.
RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
I started using CAD in 1978 on an Applicon 880 system at college. Most of the learning was by reading the manual and figuring out what the commands did. I have since then used CADDS-IV, UG/NX, Pro/Engineer and some CATIA. I had formal training on UGII and Wildfire. I can open files in AutoCAD and Inventor, too.
If you or your company won't pay for training, then try an online training like at www.igetit.com. If they have invested in the tool, they should also invest in the toolmaker to utilize the tool to its fullest.
Every racecar in the Indy 500 is built by Dallara, yet they don't all have the same performance when they hit the track. It is the customization and knowledge of the vehicle that makes the difference. The same applies to CAD systems and customization and training.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
RE: Simple it is not.
I'm not whining. But, I do think it's horribly inefficient to have this much overhead to "do my job." I'm not a computer programmer, I'm an engineer. I do engineering. And I'm damn good at it. I expect my software to just work, and when it doesn't... send it to the programmers so they can spend their time fixing it rather than wasting my project time. "When I was a boy" sounds nice and all... I guess that's back when you had to walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways, huh? ;)
RE: Simple it is not.
Wait till your salidworks model fails because of all the automatic assumptions built into the software can't deliver the changes you need. You will spend way more time rebuilding it than it takes to show an axis. Besides, Pro/e makes all the axis I need to show for me.
RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
Or, how's about inserting a datum plane symmetricly between two parallel surfaces? SolidWorks does it in 3 clicks or less. (Insert Datum Plane, Select Surfaces, Done) In ProE you have to measure the distance, manually calculate the half-way point, then insert an offset plane from one of the desired surfaces. Then, when the geometry updates later due to some change you have to make, you need to go redefine the placement of that plane. In SolidWorks, it updates automatically because the relationship is maintained internally rather than by a dimention off of only one of the surfaces. Alternatively, you could set up a "relation" between the two dimensions in ProE (the half-way mark for plane insertion and the driving dimension in the part), but there's another set of clicks involved with that.
My point is, overhead. ProE has too much of it. It's distracting, and I'm simply trying to find ways to make it less of an issue.
RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
What are you talking about? It's just Show/Model/Axis in the drawing. You don't need to create an axis in the model. If Pro/E is setup properly, it will create them automatically. In config.pro it used to be show_axis_extruded_arcs = yes from what I remember. Most people's issues with Pro/E come from lack of administration and improper setup of config files, drawing setup files, etc. I think you need to spend some time in the beginning getting everything set up properly. It will pay dividends down the road.
--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer
RE: Simple it is not.
Furthermore, a center mark for a circle should be driven by the profile of that circle, NOT some axis which is either there or not, depending on how you've programmed your system.
RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
You didn't say you were working in sheet metal mode. Ask the right question next time. And it will insert an axis for a radius created in sketcher if you have the config.pro setting set. I spent years as a user and an admin on Pro/E from version 12 all the way up to the first Wildfire, I know.
BTW, how much formal training have you had in Pro/E and it's modules? Do you have a dedicated administrator for Pro/E? Is that person a Pro/E user or just some IT person?
--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer
RE: Simple it is not.
I've been a SolidWorks guy for almost 10 years. I can do a lot of really complicated and crazy things in that package, with the same results as ProE, but I can do it faster because I don't have to be an Engineer / Computer Programmer to use it.
So, the basic point is this: Why do we do what we do? Why do we have a job? Because the MARKET drives the need for what we do, and our job is to provide that market with what they need. So, as far as CAD goes... guess who the market is? Me! You! Etc...
So, if I were the only one having these issues with ProE, I would be inclined to just suck it up and learn. But, if you read the forums at all, you'll notice there are PLENTY of people who feel the same way I do. It seems to me that the market is speaking in a strong voice, I'm just wondering if / when the ProE Experts will finally just accept the fact that their beloved package needs help to really compete in a market which has been re-defined by packages like SolidWorks and Catia. I think if ProE wants to remain competitive, they really need to re-think their strategy for reaching out to their market.
RE: Simple it is not.
After V5 I moved to Unigraphics NX. It was a difficult move because modeling in UG was not how I modeled in Pro/E. As NX moved to version 5 and now 6 it has become more feature based and I've found it easier to get along. Drawings in UG suck to put it mildly. After making all my features parametric in the model I still have to create dimensions for my drawings. The push is to using the model for everything but in the real world, that's not realistic.
Pro/E is very powerful and when set up properly it can save an enormous amount of time. If you can get someone to spring for at least some basic modeling and assy training as well as any specific module training it will pay for itself quickly. Administration functions only need to be setup once and you can probably get most of your answers from the forums.
With respect to administration you need to set your config.sup, global config.pro and then a local config.pro. Also, a drawing detail file and standard drawing formats with embedded tables. Then you need standard start and assembly models with parameters which will feed those drawing tables. Once you get those set you at least have a baseline to move forward.
--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer
RE: Simple it is not.
But, alas, it is what it is. So, back to the original question, perhaps phrased differently: Does anyone have a good list of things to look for in a config file, mapkey (if applicable), etc. which can help get the interface set up to do some very common tasks or modeling / drafting practices necessary for an Engineer to successfully do their job without having to learn to be a programmer for longer than it takes to get it set up the first time?
Thanks!
RE: Simple it is not.
--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer
RE: Simple it is not.
Thanks! I'm looking forward to the info!
RE: Simple it is not.
Ok, I have a zip of the layout of what I used here at home when I was running Pro/E student edition. Some of these files you'll be able to open, others not. Notice directory structure and how the configs are laid out, structure is important to keeping things simple and understandable.
Also, see the following thread from a few years ago. It gives some info as well.
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=223981
--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer
RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
show_axes_for_extr_arcs Yes / No*
Any arcs in your sketch will create feature axes with multiple names that are internal to feature like hole axes are.
The axes created by SolidWorks (internal axes) are created for all rounded geometry and can turn your screen ugly fast. Feature axes can be toggled independently of the Feature ones however.
This config option can be toggled on or off but will not affect existing features or work when redefining feature unless a new or replacement arc is created.
I remember most times to check that the option is set or unset when I want axes so redefine is not necessary.
Michael
RE: Simple it is not.
As far as ProE - I attempted to set this configuration and it's still not inserting an axis for the feature in question. I've created a sheet metal profile from the side view, my sketch drives the bend radii, etc. The "round" feature is an extrusion of a curved line of a certain radius. So, I don't think it's regognizing the resulting surface as something which can have an axis.
It's only frustrating me because ProE can't figure out that I want to make a center mark in the drawing without referencing some model dependant features. /vent
I guess this truly is one thing SolidWorks does better than ProE.
RE: Simple it is not.
By breaking the circles in half Pro/E prevents there being 2 solutions when dimensioning. In Pro/E one can always dimension to a tangent ... because for any given curve there exists only one tagent point - depending on the semicircle selected.
In SolidWorks sketcher you often only have the option to dimension to a centerpoint - this always drives me nuts and it's a limitation that to me is totally unacceptable. There are exceptions to this - by inserting points on the circle you can dimension to tangents in specific instances. But the bottom line is that SolidWorks relies more on centerpoints for definition - its algorithems are not well setup for tangents.
This "circle divided in two" issue also has other implications - you find that in Pro/E you sometimes need to select two sides of a circle in order to perform an operation.
Anyway, I just thought this may tie into why these softwares differ when it comes to the centerpoint and axis issue. For whatever reason, I have not found myself terribly frustrated with the centerpoint issue described - so I must have some way of dealing with it. Is it just a Sheetmetal issue?
RE: Simple it is not.
You don't.... what? You can dimention to any tangent you want on a circle in SolidWorks! At any time! I promise! lol Go try it again, because I think you've missed something. Not trying to get you all riled up, I just really think you missed something. lol Click on a curve and on the left in the properties you can hit a tab (I forget what it's called) to make it "min, max, center." It will automatically attach the dimension to the center, minimum tangent, or maximum tangent per your preference and / or dimensioning requirements. Easy as pie! And, to insert something simple like a center mark... you don't need an axis! Just click center mark, and click the rounded feature... done!
I've always hated that the circles or rounded features get broken into two halves. It drives me nuts to have to grab two clicks to make a derived feature rather than just click, boom, done.
RE: Simple it is not.
RE: Simple it is not.
I can appreciate the differences. There are somethings SW does better than Pro, and vice versa.
They're all kinda the same. it just turns into bickering that requires a checklist to determine what's better in one or the other. Another thing too is formal training. I've had classes in SW, used books, etc. Some of the stuff I wanna do is just plain inefficient. Pro is the same, they have archaic menus back from when I used Pro/E 17 on a UNIX box. I used to be an admin in Pro for 5 years, so I know a lot of the shortcomings in it.
SW has problems, just in different features. They even crash the same amount, IMHO. lol