I absolutely agree with this and I had great instructors when I was formally trained in Creo. Unfortunately I've seen everything in this video from colleagues and coworkers that learned piece-meal using RU-vid videos and carry-over knowledge from Siemens NX. This has made my job a lot harder as they consistently want to leave redundant and buried features in models that I later have to work on because they want the history to stay in the model tree. It's really a testament to proper training classes.
Very intersting content. I liked a lot. Now im moving from Solidworks to Creo Parametric so this channel will be very useful for me in this new journey.
Almost all the examples are similar and come down to not deleting a feature for one of two reasons: either you're told not to, or, you choose not to. Regarding choosing "not deleting a feature"; we get paid for output. If I have to extrude a rectangle to shorten an edge, then I will use a rectangle. If I can quickly edit the definition of a feature to shorten an edge, then I will gladly edit the definition. Edit definition is always the preferred method, but fudging is the all too frequent expedient. Its a CREO thing.
Dave....thanks for sharing these bad modeling strategies. However one question on your suggestion of not creating models according to how it is projected to be manufactured as it would limit creativity. In the past, I have worked in sustaining departments for traditionally subtractive machined products, and trying to edit sketches that have a substantial amount of features in one sketch was a real pain! Our company defined these as "superfeatures" and was discouraged due to the amount of time sustaining users would need to take to redefine a certain feature in the middle of many features in one sketch. Primarily, if one dimension was changed, the other dimensions would be affected. What is your suggestion to prevent this from happening? Should dimensions be "locked" in the sketch? If most features were distinct with unique references, editing would not be an issue.
I'm pretty sure I covered that in my Sketch Mode Unhealthy Practices video. Sketches should be kept simple. If people put too much in a sketch, life becomes painful. You can eliminate as many dimensions as possible with constraints, but if that's the direction someone has chosen, you're pretty much hosed until the sketch is made less complicated.
I have had similar issues with companies who just use windchill as a folder system. One place I worked a while ago did something similar to what you showed, but they would do a save as and put _rev-b as a suffix, and they used descriptive file names, so you ended up with 100s of part files like sheetmetal_clip_1.prt, thicker-clip_3 and so on, no parameters filled out, no design intent it was super frustrating
Ugh. Seriously, if that's how you're going to manage data, why bother purchasing and implementing Windchill? Yeah, I've seen companies do some seriously crazy things.
On your extrude preview the end of your depth controller is a circular dot (the thing you click on to drag the extrude depth) Is that a config setting? Mine is a square
Sean, they keep on tweaking the shape of drag handles between versions. All the drag handles were white squares for the longest time. Then in an early version of Creo the depth handles were white squares and the Offset References handles were green diamonds. Then in Creo 4.0 if I remember correctly the depth handles turned to circles, and in 6.0 you'll see orange diamonds for Offset References. I do switch between Creo versions a lot in my videos, which is why they will appear inconsistent.
