Very Computer

For those of you using Pro Mold, I would really appriciate some straight
talk about what it takes to get going with Pro Mold.

I have heard that the core and cavity functions are the primary value in
Pro Mold. Does this function help with side-cores?

How realistic is maintaining associativity?
Are there additional constraints to working methods that are
associative?
Does it take more time?

Nearly all of the parts I work on need rework, addition of draft
(taper). Many of these files will be imported from IGES or STEP so I
will need to add taper to walls of dumb models that will have blends
around them. Is this possible?
Should I plan on using Pro or some other software to modify the parts to
get them moldable?

I am also concerned about the moldbase and component libraries.

Are the moldbase libraries parametric assemblies? I've been told that
the library is of non-parametric plates that need to be assembled and
cannot be adjusted, is this correct?

How extensive are the component libraries for:

Slide assemblies
Risers (lifters or internal slides)
Ejection components
Cooling systems
Gating & runners
Hot runner systems
Metric and English units

How much of this will I have to build up myself?

Thanks

JTS

I think what they were talking about is Mold is great for defining molding
components, those that touch plastic.  You can create as many slides,
lifters, core pins etc. as you need.  Most users get out of mold after
defining the molding components and do the base work in part and assembly.

Quote:>How realistic is maintaining associativity?
>Are there additional constraints to working methods that are
>associative?

The mold is always associated to the reference model.  You can add as many
constraints as you'd like, but you can over-constrain and when an unexpected
change comes it'll be harder to modiy.

Quote:>Does it take more time?

More time than what?  More time than modeling all the components
individually?... way faster

Quote:>Nearly all of the parts I work on need rework, addition of draft
>(taper). Many of these files will be imported from IGES or STEP so I
>will need to add taper to walls of dumb models that will have blends
>around them. Is this possible?
>Should I plan on using Pro or some other software to modify the parts to
>get them moldable?

If your gonna split it in Pro Mold then I'd modify the models in Pro.
Importing complex geometry can be tricky and sometimes you'll be better off
re-modeling the part in order to get it into a solid.  Its not as bad as it
sounds, using the iges geometry as a template, and you'll have a part that
is easier to make changes to.

Quote:>I am also concerned about the moldbase and component libraries.
>Are the moldbase libraries parametric assemblies? I've been told that
>the library is of non-parametric plates that need to be assembled and
>cannot be adjusted, is this correct?

I'm not impressed with the mold base library that pro has.  It is parametric
however and can be modified.  The main reason I don't like it is this:  I do
complete assemblies with all components right down to the screws dowels and
o-rings.  To speed assembly I pattern features a lot, that way parts can be
assembled by refferencing the patterns.  Pro's parts have all the features
modeled independantly and mirrored, thats fine but I would then have to
assemlbe every*one by one.

Quote:>How extensive are the component libraries for:

>Slide assemblies
none
>Risers (lifters or internal slides)
none
>Ejection components
few
>Cooling systems

can create cooling lines in mold pretty well.

Quote:>Gating & runners

creating runners in mold works well.

Quote:>Hot runner systems
none
>Metric and English units

You can mix and match metric and english components.

Quote:

>How much of this will I have to build up myself?

I am happier with the library parts and components that I have built.  They
are the way I want them modeled and have all the parameters that I require.
Don't let that turn you off though.  The advantages of mold for the molding
components far outweighs the dissadvantage of not having a few std. part
libraries.  And from what I hear there will soon be libraries from many
different companies available in Pro, for a price I'm sure.

Quote:

>Thanks

>JTS

If you're familiar with design mold in Assembly, with Pro/Mold you can get
it done in 1/3 the time or less.

Quote:

>I have heard that the core and cavity functions are the primary value in
>Pro Mold. Does this function help with side-cores?

Pro/E is feature base, side core, lifter, slide, sub slide ... are just
another feature.

Quote:

>How realistic is maintaining associativity?
>Are there additional constraints to working methods that are
>associative?
>Does it take more time?

Just like in Assembly mode, every associativity you need is there, it's how
you'd want to relate them together.
Time? Just to give you an idea, I've been with Pro/E for 2-1/2 years, and
have splitted 300+ mold in the last 18 months.

Quote:

>Nearly all of the parts I work on need rework, addition of draft
>(taper). Many of these files will be imported from IGES or STEP so I
>will need to add taper to walls of dumb models that will have blends
>around them. Is this possible?
>Should I plan on using Pro or some other software to modify the parts to
>get them moldable?

The work may be tedious for making some major change since the model is
imported. But just for draft and blend that should be easy and simple.
I would stay with Pro if I planned on using Pro/Mold to split it. Suppose I
added 1 deg draft and .125R blend to the model, and customer want to change
the blend to .250R, and and ask them if I can kick the draft to 5 deg.
because of the texture. Then I simply change those dimensions, then regen
and done, my mold design is completely updated. You can use other software
to make model moldable, then put in Mold to split it, but it just make more
difficult to update you mold design, because lacking of associativity.

Quote:

>I am also concerned about the moldbase and component libraries.

>Are the moldbase libraries parametric assemblies? I've been told that
>the library is of non-parametric plates that need to be assembled and
>cannot be adjusted, is this correct?

>How extensive are the component libraries for:

>Slide assemblies
>Risers (lifters or internal slides)
>Ejection components
>Cooling systems
>Gating & runners
>Hot runner systems
>Metric and English units

>How much of this will I have to build up myself?

>Thanks

>JTS

I'm not so impressed with PTC's library, but then it just a matter of
getting to know the library.
And yes, they are parametric, and as standard as you can get them from DME,
MUD ...
They do not have everything you listed here like Slide, Risers, Gate,
runner. But to me, I like to create them myself.

Hope this help!

Chinh Pham

Thanks for the help in understanding the parts issues. I'm still unclear
about adding draft.

If you import a dumb model with blends on all edges but no draft, can
you add draft to the model and still have tangent blends?

Also, the same question for native Pro parts?

Thanks

No, it will not be tangent blend by simply adding draft, if draft and
maintain tangent blend is desired,
there is a little work here. You'll need to create some surfacing, and use
patch command.
So how much deviation in non-tangent condition that you can live with,
pretty much dictate
which route you should take.

Quote:

>Also, the same question for native Pro parts?

It depends. Parametric model needs to be designed with a parametric logic
thinking mind.
If the model comes from a good designer, this is a blessing for you. If it
comes from a
non-parametric mind, then you may wish to be working with a dump model.
Hope that I'm not scaring you, but there are Pro users that do not know
proper modeling practice.
Myself, I prefer native whenever I can. If I can not work with parametric
because of poor modeling practice, I can always export/import a neutral file
and work with it as a dump model.

Hope this help.

Chinh Pham

PS: I still do not know your name.