note with riquadro

[lcipo76]

it is possible to put notes with the type track
the basic for quotas?

Thank you.

 

[dema]

right[testo]In this way you get the squared text, only contraindication works badly if the text is on multiple rows, because it frames every single row.

 

[lcipo76]

thanks for the answer

It's true, but it actually works.
It's okay.
I have a 5-line text and all those lines
Not good.

Of course these of the proe could study a little better:

in the end there is no solution
I also tried to make a single table but I can't put the arrow:frown:

 

[giovanni799]

you are right, I have to say that with what you pay the license (about 10,000 euros) you could do x improve the product! has scary gaps compared to other cad3d software. another example? in the table if you have a quota and want to change the type of arrow, you cannot choose for example a side made with the ball and the other made with the arrow! and absurd. If you have two neighboring odds you have to rub them off so as not to overlay the arrows.
Another example? the program does not support multibody function in parts. What does that mean? I'll tell you right away. means that if you want to make a particular consisting of several parts you can't do it without the parties being founded. so you can't make configurations with parts made up of other parts. you and forced to make a set containing the assembled parts, and then through the family table create relationships. the problem and that if the parts have in turn nested family tables becomes a crazy mess. in solidworks instead with 3 steps and with the multibody function you can generate a part with other parts within them and create a complex object and its configurations all having only one 2d board to manage!
another berry. in the drawing 2d if you put an order quota (sharing) on a particular and then decide to change the 0 (i.e. starting work) it is not possible!!!!!!! you are forced to put all the odds back from 0!!!!! Imagine if you have a plate with 1000 holes!! !

for the rest compliments....

 

[tartufon80]

... another example? in the table if you have a quota and want to change the type of arrow, you cannot choose for example a side made with the ball and the other made with the arrow! and absurd. If you have two neighboring odds, you have to rub them so as not to overlay the arrows.... .

Good morning!

The fact that you don't know how to do it doesn't mean that the software doesn't do it, I've done it for a long time. .

for the multibody I fear you will have to resign, at least for the moment, but it is not the only method of work.
try to give an eye here..

I never used ordered odds so I don't know what to say about it.

if I can afford a tip: read the regulation of the forum.


greetings

ps: there are several discussions in the forum that follow your "critical spirit", but often the juice that came out of it is that every cad has pro and cons!

 

[DANI-3D]

ps: there are several discussions in the forum that follow your "critical spirit", but often the juice that came out of it is that every cad has pro and cons!

Hello, John 799. In fact, these outbursts are recurring, often concealing non-perfect knowledge of the cad system, or frustrating a forced passage between software and software.
If you want to deepen this useless topic I also suggest this discussion:
http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthre...eo-dvd-livello-zerissimo&highlight=rificolonaSaluton, e buo lavoro

 

[painaz]

Hello, John 799. In fact, these outbursts are recurring, often concealing non-perfect knowledge of the cad system, or frustrating a forced passage between software and software.
If you want to deepen this useless topic I also suggest this discussion:
http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthre...eo-dvd-livello-zerissimo&highlight=rificolonaSaluton, e buo lavoro

I'm quoting everything. in this regard I also read an interesting discussion about "catia" and "philosophy of operation.

manuals provide you with individual commands: to squeeze a cad the essential is to understand the correct workflow. It's not easy or trivial.

and I consider the basic courses

I think of proe: top down, skeleton, flexibility, simplified representations, family table nested.... by self-taught you can do them after months and months and the recurring thought is "to know first...".

without counting tricks and tricks (variable step springs type connected to a chart that pilots the step, use of surfaces..).

It is my personal opinion that only after using them for work, 8 hours a day, for a couple of months, with a good advanced course, on the same type of projects you can make a serene comparison between two cads.

and think about it well not enough: how much they cost, what modules give you, what kind of assistance, presence of libraries, how does it integrate into the pdm?

These are the things that matter, not the text box. that surely can be "fast", but it is not what makes your life easier.

 

[maxopus]

Young people, you just don't know how to use the program.

the multibody, for example, for me is an inenarrabile and is strongly unstable, I do without and do better.

as to configurations ... the family tables of creo are such a powerful tool that no other cad can imitate them (as they are done and how they work).

even for the quote speech, you can't use it, it's not the cad that doesn't work.

If you can't use the program take a course or ask for advice from someone who knows how to use it.
greetings

 

[maxopus]

regarding notes in a box .... if they are multiline just use a custom symbol, or draw with the sketch tool the desired pane in the drawing environment.

 

[painaz]

Maxopus, I try to be the devil's lawyer.

in my working life I have prevented these cads:

♪
autocad (smooth)
proe/wildfire (up to iv)
solidedge st

So, proe, I can't say well.
what remains complex is:

configuration
interface

I spend two words on the interface: proe is multiplatform. taking a program and recompiling it from solars on windows is not a joke. proe was born on unix, used motif libraries to create menus etc.

one of the merits of windows was to provide powerful libraries for the development of the program interface: buttons, drop-down menu, mouse buttons etc.

programs born and lived with windows have benefited greatly. a classic is solidworks, born and thought as a substitute of proe, taxively mono platform. if you have no porting problems it is immediate to take advantage of the bookcases "buttons, menu, etc. 100%. solidworks was devoid of these constraints and has exploited bookcases well for menus and buttons, ogettically more attentive to ergonomics, intuition etc.

exploiting common libraries brings an advantage: all programs, both a word and a cad have the same logic of operation, so much so that certain actions (try a help, apply an option on a selected design) "we are spontaneous" because done 1000 more times on other programs.

a counter-example? try using gimp (graphic manipulation): it is not that it is user frendly, it is that the same actions are not instinctive. and gimp is an open multiplatform software.

the thing on proe was evident on the wildfire i: in hybrid between a behavior "style windows" and "unix" style, with repeated commands on multiple menus and other pastries.

Now, is that a problem?

ni.

no because it counts what you can do.

Clear that the difference does the handle etc. etc.

Yes.

It's hard for a company to train, change jobs, find you another cad and have very little time to learn how to make the most of it.

You can't read the forum to figure out how to do something if you get stuck in the workshop on your neck.

Here, in this programs like solidegde and solidwork give the pay definitely to wildfire, to create I do not know however on the international forums do not feel ovations on the interface of proe.

the learning curve of if and sw is fast:

make cards, set the press, set the export of stp or dwg, even the online help (often that of the wildfire i is of the type "kick cut" applies the feature "kick", very cryptic, few examples) is all better studied and better integrated.

I then add a personal impression: on wildfire circulates little documentation of the type "how to do: practical example"
for example they have modelcheck (very powerful tool, which other cads do not have) and find guides is difficult.

to the ptc instead should flood the web with youtube channels, pdf and beautiful company.

etc. I've stretched too much the break.

Say hi.

 

[maxopus]

Are we still discussing this?
on boys if you want to inform you well, otherwise we return to crush buttons that is better.
online resources there are (also free), training as well.
if one thinks to put himself in front of a pc and design for attempts then please ... the road is open.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

you are right, I have to say that with what you pay the license (about 10,000 euros) you could do x improve the product! has scary gaps compared to other software cad3d

azz and who sold it to you at that price? They got you.

another example? in the table if you have a quota and want to change the type of arrow, you cannot choose for example a side made with the ball and the other made with the arrow! and absurd. If you have two neighboring odds you have to rub them off so as not to overlay the arrows.

What are you talking about? Of course it is possible!

Another example? the program does not support multibody function in parts. What does that mean? I'll tell you right away. means that if you want to make a particular consisting of several parts you can't do it without the parties being founded. so you can't make configurations with parts made up of other parts. you and forced to make a set containing the assembled parts, and then through the family table create relationships. the problem and that if the parts have in turn nested family tables becomes a crazy mess. in solidworks instead with 3 steps and with the multibody function you can generate a part with other parts within them and create a complex object and its configurations all having only one 2d board to manage!

apart from the fact that it is not said that you have to do it with family tables instead... but here opens an oblivion! go and read your arguments about it and then we'll talk about it. . .

another berry. in the drawing 2d if you put an order quota (sharing) on a particular and then decide to change the 0 (i.e. starting work) it is not possible!!!!!!! you are forced to put all the odds back from 0!!!!! Imagine if you have a plate with 1000 holes!! !

apart from the fact that I happened very rare to have to change the coordinate zero but apart from this, even here you are misinformed because you can do this too and in a much more automatic way than you might think.

for the rest compliments....

especially to you, that not being an expert of the software shoots judgments without having a minimum of knowledge, you also make a barbi figure because first you should be informed well, for the rest...affaire a suivre!!!

 

[giovanni799]

hi, as for the first thing you said, I can assure you that it is not possible to put on a quota on one side the ball and on the other side the arrow. Please enlighten me if you can. I've been looking for documentation, but I haven't found anything.
for the multibody you're right I'm gonna have to resign, and I think it's a pretty limiting thing for those who work with configurations every day and mostly connected to the pdm. continue to insist with freestyle (I wonder how much money they will have spent on developing this function), useful perkarty and now free, but they have forgotten (let's say what they are) to improve all those functions that you find in 4 money programs that ask you. but is it possible that in ptc they have more than 200 programmers and no one thought to improve basic things for those who use the instrument every day? Bo...
the program itself is not bad indeed and very powerful and we say that I am satisfied especially for the stability of the system, in fact not crascha almost never.
I have worked with all major cad systems today in circulation and feel free to express an opinion, ugly or beautiful that it is.

Good morning!

The fact that you don't know how to do it doesn't mean that the software doesn't do it, I've done it for a long time. .

for the multibody I fear that you will have to resign, at least for the moment, but not

 

[giovanni799]

I work daily with the program and pay for technical assistance. I don't play on the weekend to make cubes and renderings like pastime, I use the program at the bottom with scripts for relationships and everything, and maybe this is the reason that leads me to be critical in some aspects of the program, because I see the great potential of the program but it falls on absolutely trivial things.
as to your answer I quote:

"apart from the fact that I happened very rare to have to change the coordinate zero but apart from this, even here you are misinformed because you can do this too and in a much more automatic way than you might think."

I find it rather evasive and clear that you have no arguments about it. Try to put an orderly share and then change the zero, and then you'll see that maybe you change your mind. probably for simple details with 10-20 holes you can make the effort to put all the ordered, but in my case where I have 8 meters plates that have 400 to 1300 holes maybe and I hope you can understand my piss. and when you call technical assistance and tell you that with this program for now you can't do it, you understand dear friend ozzy who turn you especially if you have to send in production the piece otherwise you take a good penalty and what more serious you don't pay bills. But I think you can't understand.

regarding the multibody function, even here your answer and very vague. I am sorry but I can assure you that the multibody function on the parts (and not on the assemblies as some inexperienced might think), to understand us as that of solidworks, in this program does not exist. When I say that doesn't exist it means that I called assistance and asked them. and I think if they tell me that I think that consult the help is all irrelevant unless I am a masochist.:biggrin:

As for the price, I tell you that I didn't get screwed, of course that figure and includes a whole set of packages I bought. your answer indicates that you obviously only use the basic version, while I use a more advanced version with modules and pdm. the fact of complaining about the price and tied to my anger as certain basic functions are completely absent. so the expectation for such a very high program. I think, however, that there are great improvements to the future (creo 3.0).

As for the possibility of getting to the same result anyway using other systems to get there I do not put the beak, it is necessary to consider that if the road to get there it stretches instead of shortening. today the competitiveness and the highest and the times ever closer. you buy new programs to have tools that help you get the same result in shorter times. but obviously not a speech that concerns you... seeing that in your professional profile you put "galoppino". :smile:

I think I have responded to everything, with regard to the last part of the message in which you offend me, I can tell you that the figure has made it you responding vaguely and elusively and in a totally discounted way without making examples or resolutions of the problems mentioned above.

greetings,
respect to all and calm of mind.

 

[maxopus]

You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know...
If you start in a polemical way you can't expect answers to colony water.
If you explain to what you need the multibody, maybe we'll answer you with knowledge of the cause.
because if it is necessary to make two frames on the cross in creo we get with the same efficiency even without the aforementioned functionality.
ptc has chosen the way not to implement such system and a reason there is.
I can assure you that ozzy knows enough, he's been using it for over 15 years, he's sold it and he's been training for many years and not just on the basic module...

 

[giovanni799]

You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know...
If you start in a polemical way you can't expect answers to colony water.
If you explain to what you need the multibody, maybe we'll answer you with knowledge of the cause.
because if it is necessary to make two frames on the cross in creo we get with the same efficiency even without the aforementioned functionality.
ptc has chosen the way not to implement such system and a reason there is.
I can assure you that ozzy knows enough, he's been using it for over 15 years, he's sold it and he's been training for many years and not just on the basic module...

thanks for the maxopus answer. Informing me that he sold it you finally clarified the concept.
even if he's been using it for 15 years doesn't mean he knows how to use it in all aspects. Some people who have been driving the car for 20 years and are walking dangers.
To give you an example I have done high-training courses on catechism v5 in the past, and I can assure you that today I would give the pastries to any teacher who does training, and this security comes from the fact that working on it for many years I have been able to know in every aspect the program, even on aspects that normally in the courses are cheated.
I don't know if that's the case, but of course some perplexity, the answers that ozzy gave me, made me come. In any case I respect your opinion, even if I do not justify your misrepresentation to me. He took the liberty of offending me, and I find it unprofessional since we're on the subject., let's say he approached me in a bad manner, probably that day he had a shit day.

As for the multibody I am interfaced with technical assistance to find an alternative solution to this problem. and I will be happy to share with you the solution that will be proposed to me, in the spirit of collaboration and towards the forum and to all those who are in front of my own problem.


greetings

 

[maxopus]

thanks for the maxopus answer. Informing me that he sold it you finally clarified the concept.
even if he's been using it for 15 years doesn't mean he knows how to use it in all aspects. Some people who have been driving the car for 20 years and are walking dangers.
To give you an example I have done high-training courses on catechism v5 in the past, and I can assure you that today I would give the pastries to any teacher who does training, and this security comes from the fact that working on it for many years I have been able to know in every aspect the program, even on aspects that normally in the courses are cheated.
I don't know if that's the case, but of course some perplexity, the answers that ozzy gave me, made me come. In any case I respect your opinion, even if I do not justify your misrepresentation to me. He took the liberty of offending me, and I find it unprofessional since we're on the subject., let's say he approached me in a bad manner, probably that day he had a shit day.

As for the multibody I am interfaced with technical assistance to find an alternative solution to this problem. and I will be happy to share with you the solution that will be proposed to me, in the spirit of collaboration and towards the forum and to all those who are in front of my own problem.


greetings

You insist on youth, I tell you that patrick is one of the best creo users I've known.
You started to criticize the program by showing, criticizing you take it all, to know it still little.
if then the problem is pallino/freccia ... I create quota to norm, if then we want to invent the puffoblu style, free to do it also with photoshop.
here we are quite nervous and susceptible on the topic and feel the usual sulfa that pippocad is better than creo has enough stews.
I am 50 years old, I started on the tecnigraph, I used autocad on dos, think 3 for several years, solidworks for several years and I create parametric (pro/e) for 8 years.

Pass me the line: you will also give "pastes" on the catia, but on creo you will have to go a long way.
for the job I do I still have to find the cad capable of doing the things that I create with the same efficiency and speed.

Good evening.

 

[giovanni799]

You insist on youth, I tell you that patrick is one of the best creo users I've known.
You started to criticize the program by showing, criticizing you take it all, to know it still little.
if then the problem is pallino/freccia ... I create quota to norm, if then we want to invent the puffoblu style, free to do it also with photoshop.
here we are quite nervous and susceptible on the topic and feel the usual sulfa that pippocad is better than creo has enough stews.
I am 50 years old, I started on the tecnigraph, I used autocad on dos, think 3 for several years, solidworks for several years and I create parametric (pro/e) for 8 years.

Pass me the line: you will also give "pastes" on the catia, but on creo you will have to go a long way.
for the job I do I still have to find the cad capable of doing the things that I create with the same efficiency and speed.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm critical of what I think about some things I don't like the program. Does freedom of thought exist in this forum? or maybe it is allowed to offend users freely? I have to reread the forum regulation because I must have missed something.
if you read well I responded to a small criticism/demand made by a user before me (among other sacred ones). I also had the same problem as that user and it seems absurd that to put a rectangle around the text you have to enter the @[ tag. I do not want to get into the merits of possible other solutions to solve this problem.
I just added some issues I met, I admit, perhaps with a polemical tone. You jumped on me like rabid dogs (see ozzy). out of my mind!
I don't like to be attributed to things I've never said, that is, I've never made comparisons about which cad is better than another. I just cited the manybody function of sw according to me very useful. It is clear that each program has its own merits/defects, but on some basic features it is not acceptable that there are these gaps especially when it comes to high-end systems.
As for the fantomatic puffoblu style I mean that if you have two quotas online and you need to put in the center a ball and towards the outer side the arrows of direction, you can not do (if you want I make you a drawing) and this forces you to stagger the 2 odds, and from the point of view of precision and style leaves much to desire. It is also true that 90% of the drawings of other companies that happen to me in the hands rasen the indecency regarding the style of quotation (roba to send them to school to study technical drawing!). My customers are very demanding and have higher quality standards than what is normally required on the market. what I say and that all programs have this function and to say the truth and rather banal.

I'll beat you, even if you don't even know how old I am. Don't be confused by my nick because 799 doesn't refer to my date of birth, and only that at the time of registration other nicks were already used. Hehe.
If you read my comments and I repeat, I consider I create a good program extremely powerful, but on different things there are obvious inexplicable gaps, and such gaps will probably be filled with time.

please kindly do not do as some users who read only the first 4/5 lines and then respond.

I know motion well I create otherwise I wouldn't even dare write one comment on this program. I think it's just that I'm going to have to go a long way to be able to improve and step up with other programs, including the pdm that I say here with my heart in hand and organized badly, and of this I find feedback from many colleagues of prestigious companies who use it every day like me and tell me that they are dissatisfied (e.g. ferrari, but not within the merits as I don't know you).

I'm happy to know your age, but I say it without reference to you that this parameter, as well as white hair, often does not go hand in hand with wisdom.

thanks for your hospitality and professionalism:finger:

 

[maxopus]

Thursday, Ozzy didn't answer you out of your mind, at least he used offensive terms to you.
you intervened in a discussion in which you asked a possible solution to the notes with pane by not making any contribution and nurturing the controversy (which is other than criticism).
for the record: with the string "@[" do not call for parameters ... that is the string for solidworks data.
here users ask for advice on possible solutions, responding in your way is not a contribution to the request for help.
ahh... so much to clarify, this is not the ancient city of athenes, so when we want and depending on the rising or descending moon or depending on who we are sympathetic or antipathetic we dedicate to the ban by dialect.

 

[tartufon80]

Good morning!

quoto ozzy and maxopus as far as they wrote you (for the record, offense I do not see).

They are both very experienced in the ptc world, and I feel like "defender them" (of course there is no need) as a forum user, who over the years has taken deep benefits from their posts.

I answer exclusively to what you wrote to me, while I can make a papyrus on everything else.

hi, as for the first thing you said, I can assure you that it is not possible to put on a quota on one side the ball and on the other side the arrow. Please enlighten me if you can. I've been looking for documentation, but I haven't found anything.

And if you make sure that's not possible, I have to believe you.
Of course I do, but I prefer not to enlighten you. It's weird that you can't do it, it's just intuitive stuff, even if it's not on the guide or additional documentation.

for the multibody you're right I'm gonna have to resign, and I think it's a pretty limiting thing for those who work with configurations every day and mostly connected to the pdm. continue to insist with freestyle (I wonder how much money they will have spent on developing this function), useful perkarty and now free, but they have forgotten (let's say what they are) to improve all those functions that you find in 4 money programs that ask you. but is it possible that in ptc they have more than 200 programmers and no one thought to improve basic things for those who use the instrument every day? Bo...

I have never used multibody, even with other cad. can also be useful (not knowing it I do not express myself), but I am sure it is not the only way. on the pdm nothing to say about me, I find myself very well. freestyle never used.

The programmers work for those who make cubes and renderings (but only on weekends).

the program itself is not bad indeed and very powerful and we say that I am satisfied especially for the stability of the system, in fact not crascha almost never.
I have worked with all major cad systems today in circulation and feel free to express an opinion, ugly or beautiful that it is.

on the crashes I find it in line with other cads, although here the trail file gives us a big hand to understand what happens.

on your profile read "creo parametric, catia v5, solidworks, creo direct modeling": Do you think these are the main cad systems in circulation today? 36 years old, you think you know all about these cads?
Your opinion is very respectable! what is not respectable is the tone with which it addresses other people.

greetings