Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
does anybody else hate sheetmetal in 4.0? I dont like how it makes flat walls. it always rips the material and you cant make a nice corner by radrawing the wall end, unbending, cutting a relief, and rebending.
Take a class or buy a book. The sheet metal module is very difficult to use if you don't have anyone to help you with it. I bought a book from SDC Publications and still took a class.
Making flat walls should be pretty straight forward however, I don't start with flat walls, I start with solids then convert to sheet metal. The conversion is a little difficult at first but after you use it a few times it's easier. HINT: use the preview tool before accepting so you can see if Pro-E is going to crash. It's easier to fix then letting it crash, then clip suppressing everything and going back to make the changes.
all the above...
Please read the help files... For all those who start on
sheetmetal, this is the first thing i tell them. The
help is abound with examples (surprisingly) and is a
good way to start.
In a lighter vein...I love sheetmetal in WF4,
considering I was once using WF and then WF2. Edited by: SRINIVASANIYER1
Sheet metal is getting better with each new release. There are some very smart people adding functionality to those tools without loosing functionality. If you feel you are loosing functionality.. maybe what you are doing is unnatural to a process.
I think you are referring to adding a wall and you notice how it is un-attached?
Look for Introduction to Pro/Sheetmetal WF 4.0by Yves Gagnon. www.schroff.com or www.schroff-europe.com. I used the book before taking a class which really helped. Knowing the basics and having an instructor help with problems was a great way to learn. The class was just reinforcement after the book. Edited by: sonics
Sellandj, I am curious what it is that you "hate" with PRO/Sheetmetal. Just the Flat Wall creation example that you mentioned, or is there something more?
And Sonic, I would be interested in why you feel the need to start in Solid mode and do a conversion to Sheetmetal,
In WF4 there were not that many changes to Sheetmetal, from WF3, and that was intentional. To be honest, it was requested from the PTC/USER Sheetmetal Technical Committee, that new functionality not be added into WF4 for two (2) specific reasons.
1. Quality of the new functionality and enhancements made in WF3 is/was poor, and is/was not behaving the way it was intended.
2. WF3 was a point that we (Technical Committee) thought to much inconsistent behavior and inconsistent User Interface existed, and that was not getting addressed properly.
So, it was agreed that using the resources for development would be better spent on fixing the Quality and Inconsistent Behavior and UI that has existed pretty much since WF2. Instead of building new tools on top of the tools thatwere not working properly, we thought that getting Quality and Inconsistent behavior was more valuable, especially since the Sheetmetal development for WF5 was going to be a big undertaking.
Having said that, I also realize that WF4 is not perfect either. There is still some "tweaking" that needs to be addressed and there were some changes made to fix WF3 issues that I do not really agree with. But it was definately a step in the right direction, and I believe it has paid off as well with the Release of WF5, especially if you use Forms.
So if you are coming from WF3 to WF4, I would hope that you actually see some improvements in behavior/quality/UI. If not, I would appreciate it if you can point those out to me so I can address it with PTC.
If you are coming from WF2 to WF4, there are some differences like new functionality and minor UI changes, but none that I would think is to painful.
SRINIVASANIYER1, I am glad to hear that you like Sheetmetal in WF4, and you are correct about the Help files. That is an area the Sheetmetal TC pushed for and insistent on a few Releases back, and it improves with each release. We figured if you cannot go to the Help Files for valuable information when needed, then it was not worth the resources to develop it.
Everyone, I would be happy to hear what you think, good or bad, about the Sheetmetal module, if you are willing to share your thoughts with me. I will even take enhancement suggestions if you have any.
I have insight to some of the projects that are in the plans for WF6, and even WF7, so with your discussions and/or suggestions, could be something that I can use in our future meetings.
Joel Nelson
PTC/USER Sheetmetal Technical Committee Chair
Thanks a lot for putting your valued info on this forum.
I too find sheetmetal quite good. I totally agree with your approach for future releases and was very pleased to see that using multiple edges with the Flange feature was corrected in WF4. As you pointed out it's a bit irritating when new functionality is added with poor result and actually looks like a beta version in the production release.
My major concern is still as in many other areas of ProE the inconsistency of the UI. To be honest I didn't find that much that was changed to WF UI in WF5. You mentioned Form and that was appreciated. A lot still exists, the worst under Edit - Setup. It is many steps to create a Flat state OOTB and it's actually not an acceptable workflow so you must create a mapkey for this feature which you use on every part...almost anyway.
Bend/Unbend, quite often used as well and a bunch of 2001 style dialogue boxes.
BUT as said before I totally agree with your approach, just wish the UI change went faster...it is after all 5 years since WF was relased.
As for earlier releases. Template can be quite handy. I have created a few eg box created through Shmtl conversion when multiple edges had poor quality. On those templates you can predefine fixed geometry which makes bend/unbend a little faster.
If you use pre WF4 versions set all your Shmtl templates (startparts) with Absolute accuracy. This was introduced in WF4 and prevents a lot of strange behaviours in Shmtl.
It's only the Punch form that has the WF dashboard UI. The Die form has the WF3 UDF UI. The WF5 UDF UI is now changed to a new type.
Another strange thing is that you are allowed to create the Punch form feature in standard Foundation but when you want to do an Edit definition you get the message that Pro Assembly option is missing. This was not the case in WF3.
Magnusod, thanks for the feedback.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
I know what you mean about the multiple edge Flange Wall fix in WF4. We tried to get that pushed back into WF3, but it could not be done with guarantees that there would not be issues with existing features/geometry.
As for WF5, in Sheetmetal when you enter the Edit/Setup the only menu selections remaining are just the Sheetmetal Setup options. I know what you are referring too as far as the old Menu Manager menus that never seem to go away, but at the same time, compared to earlier releases the Setup has been reduced (cleaned out) a great deal. And remember, you are still seeing Pre-Production, and production does not come out till Spring of 09. So, not saying they will do it, but there is some time to possibly make more changes. Most likely not though.
When it comes to the overall UI, I know that it is frustrating that everything does not get changed at one time, and that it is not consistent. It is something that I bitch and complain about at every meeting. However, I also look at it this way as well: Do I want a consistent interface that would take at least one release to develop if all the development resources were tasked to do it, or would I rather have pieces at a time of the UI changed, and at the same time get new and enhanced functionality? MY answer and direction is I want the functionality over UI any day of the week. I have always believed that it is the software functionality that gets the job done, not the UI.
I will also tell you, and whoever else is reading this, to stay competitive in the CADD market, and to attract new customers, there is always going to be changes made to the UI. One would hope it will get to the point that everything can be done at one time, and one day it will, but I would bet a pay check that at least every 5 years there is going to be a UI change. It has do to stay equal and/or above the competition, and the only way to do that is with UI improvements that have the "WOW' affect.
Now some will say that SolidWorks or Etch-A-Sketch (AutoCAD) is there already with their UI, and it happens all at once, or faster then what PRO/E does. But, it has been my believe that while PTC developed the functionality and power, the others were doing UI changes, and that, in my opinion, is why PRO/E is the more powerful and functionality "heavy" then the others, and now the power is there PTC is taking a hit for catching up on the UI.
As for the Forms comment in WF5: I am aware of everything that you mentioned, and again remember this is pre-production so we can both be hopeful that it is going to be changed.
1. I am aware that the Die UI still has the WF3 UI. However, the Punch UI with its new UI was SUPPOSED to be the UI for both. In fact, the intent was, and I hope still is, that there was not supposed to be the option of Form and/or Die. There was supposed to be a Form Tool with no interaction or selection options of a Form or Die. One Tool does all type functionality.
What happened? I don't know. Like I said, I am hopeful it is a pre-production issue that will be addressed. If you want to hit me up in mid January I can give you information.
2. Redefinition of Forms is NOT supposed to require PRO/Assembly. It is a bug. Ihad a SPR filed on that a week before the pre-production was released.
I hope that I was able to address your comments clearly enough, and please keep them coming, I really appreciate it!
Joel Nelson
PTC/USER Sheetmetal Technical Committee Chair
Thanks Joel, that clarifies the issues I had with the Form tools. The idea of combining the 2 separate tools into one is perfect and follows the trend in the basic areas of modeling where they have combined several commands in to one tool, much appreciated.
Again, I agree to the priorities that you make in the Technical Comittees. It's probably unfair to compare ProE with SW or Inventor as ProE more should be compared with Catia and UG. If I recall correctly I believe that UG did a major overhaul of their UI in one release NX5.
I'll quote a section of the review from Al Dean testing WF4.
the interface could me modified slightly for a more user friendly envornment much like the dad who refuses to look at the directions on his new wrist watch or the engineer dad who refuses to look at the directions when putting the kids christmas bike together....But your right. Pro/ENGINEER is a little more complicated and functonal. Like the motoGP race bikes.... there is a knob for adjusting the brakes that racers utilize three times per lap.
Solidworks does not need many knobs for fine tuning.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
ffice