Standards and Practices

[mgnt8]

Several years ago when I first learned Pro/E, I was taught not to use Datums on the Fly because it buried design intent and was thus bad for standardization. Has anyone else heard of this and does anyone else adhere to this practice? I know on Wildfire, this function has changed (for the better?)

 

[3dlogix]

Actually, when I used to teach ProE, i\I often pushed the use of Datums-on-the-fly. For a few reasons,

1-less clutter in the model tree.
2-specific features that used datums-on-the-fly were "secure" since their defining datum was internal to the feature.
3-Easy to reroute the internal references to a visible datum later on.

There is no reason not to use them, just use them with some thought.

Steve

http://www.3dlogix.com

 

[Jayapprakash]

hi,

As such i could not find any problem in using datum on the fly, because it is going to help me in a lot of ways. somehing like my model will have less no of features, when my colleague opens the model , it would be easy for him to understand the model.

Cheers,
Jayapprakash,
Pricol Technologies.

 

[dgallup]

I use datums on the fly all the time. You have to if you need the dimension for patterning. I do not have any problems with burying design intent. The only exception is if you need other features to reference this datum. Then it is best to have an external datum.

I always like to start out with default datums then add datums for any assembly constraints. I NEVER assemble using solid geometry. That way I can redefine solid geometry to my heart's content and know that my assemblies always work.

Datums on the fly are different in Wildfire, now they are automatically made into a local group. I'm not so sure that it is an improvement as working with groups can be awkward.