Your best bet is probably going to be scaling in Acad
before import. I think Pro/E just looks at the numbers,
sees 17 or 420 and performs no conversions. That'll be
good for a quick and dirty hit the ground running start.
You will, as you get more familiar with Pro/E, end up
overhauling the format to take advantage of tables,
parametric notes, etc. If you don't need a quick and dirty;
forget importing, read up on the subject and create new
formats from the ground up. (Any kind of intricate line
art type goodies I do in part mode datum sketch(s) and export.
I don't get along that well with Pro/E's drawing mode sketch
tools. Need to figure out if it's me or the tools that suck
someday. If they'd just duplicate the part mode sketcher,
I'd love it.)
I don't know where there are any metric formats other than
the ones PTC furnishes but ...
Drawing formats (inch)
commercial version
http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.007/software_tools/ProE/proe.html
educational version
http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/Courses/mec265/proe_library/proe_library.html
... if you want to examine some others.
I'd spend some time looking for discussions on the topic of
drawing format, template, and dtl setup file creation and
usage (or not; I don't use drawing templates). It's a
slightly complicated subject and not one I can really wrap
my head around, sort of "a dirty job but somebody has to do
it" thing and there's no one to delegate it to. I know I've
seen some informative discussions but don't have any links
for you. Search this group, eng-tips, mcadcentral, ptcuser
(specifically) and the web in general to pick up on some of
the less frequented sites.
I can't think of much that is LESS eviable than going from Metric to Inch
and all the idiocy of Imperial Units (aka US Customary) in as much as they
were never much more than tradesmen's conveniences and never amounted to a
system. Page sizes are even more awkward because Metric preserved a pretty
consistent aspect ratio from one page size to the next. The Imperial "A",
"B", "C", "D" and "E" sheet sizes have at least two aspect ratios: just
divide 8.5 by 11 ("A" size) and divide 11 by 17 ("B" size). In the first
place, .772, in the second, .647. How about "C" size, 17 by 22? Once again,
.772, so "A" and "C" have the same aspect ratio, but then you'll also find
that "B" and "D" too have the same ratio, while "F" size, 28 by 40 has an
aspect ratio of .7. The A series of metric paper sizes all have about the
same aspect ratio of .7 or paper size expanding along an even 35 degree
slope. The numbers speak for themselves. Your A3 format at 297mm x 420 mm
translates roughly into a "B" size sheet but with two different aspect
ratios: "B", .647 and "A3", .707 or 11.7" by 16.6" (too big in height
combined with too small in length). In other words, your imported format
will fit nicely in height (with a little scaling) but will be way too short
in length. You might consider saving a corner with the title block, company
logo, proprietary statement and default tolerances, but blowing everything
else away and starting over.
If you are determined to bring it all in, as is, export the original as dxf
or iges. In Pro/e, start a new Format, "B" size, do 'Insert>Shared
Data>From File', scan to your exported format in dxf or iges, and place
the geometry in the empty format. It should include an outline, logo, some
text and places for table information. Place the table information from
Pro/e over or in place of any variable information. Where
the variable information occurs in the imported format, replace with a Pro/e
table of about the same size and proportions. Fill the table with format
parameters, like &size, &part_name, &description1, &description2,
&next_assembly, etc.. There is no such thing as simply importing a format
from AutoCAD into Pro/e and, out of the box, having it work as you'd expect
it to. You ought to take the Pro/e Detailing course.
David Janes
US units are logical; they are based on a binary system: 1 inch, 1/2, 1/4,
1/8, 1/16, etc. There is a method to this part of the madness. Now yards,
fathoms, pounds, and fortnights are another story ;^)
Yes, I thought there might be some concept behind this! Binary almost makes
sense.... except when you start to do tolerancing and, as in the 20th
century, you've converted the fractions to decimals. So that 1 is an
integer, .5 a single place fractional decimal, but half of that, .25
requires now twice the precision ~ two decimal places ~ to realize. And, so
it goes, so that by the time one gets to the modest 1/64th, (approx 16
thousandths, easily within the visible range of measurement) one is dealing
with an unmeasurable six decimal places of precision... .015625 for a
sixty-fourth of an inch. And, now keep halving to get to modern CNC
accuracies in ten-thousandths of an inch. Well, half of a sixty-fouth would
be a one-twenty-eighth (.0078125) or eight decimal places to say eight
thousandths, or three decimal places worth of significant information. And,
we are still in the range of 3 place decimals, just getting bigger, more
irrelevant asses. So, how about 1/256th which gets you out to 8 decimal
places to express, in significant figures, .004, a simple three decimal
fraction and continuing to 1/512, out to nine decimal places to express,
MOST PRECISELY, 3 digits worth of information (.001953125 or .002)
approximately. Could we get out to 10 digits to express, most precisely, 3
digits worth of information? Yes, this dumbass binary systems lets us do it,
mandates it, in fact. Keep going: to get a simple one-thousandth of an inch,
STILL 3 significant figures, requires 11 decimal places to get 3 significant
ones ~ 1/1024 = .0009765625 = .001. How much stupider does it have to be,
from an engineering and scientific viewpoint? OR how much smarter does a
rational system have to be (skip halving, perhaps?) to qualify as the
successor? And we aren't even talking about gages ~ sheet, wire, shot,
tubing, etc. or apothecary's measures to standard ounce conversions or
ounce/point/pint measures to cubic feet (no correlation), i.e. linear to
volume measure -- a corollary to cc/gram or liter/kilogram. The closest we
got was "a pint a pound the world around", still no cognizance of volume by
a standard cubic linear measurement. Not a millionth of the US population is
even dimly aware of how many CIs are in a pint/quart/gallon. In fact, check
Machinerys Handbook, see if you can find it there. You can find plenty of
US/metric conversions, but none within its own goofy non-system of
tradesmen's units.
David Janes
The binary system might work well for the computer but not for my
brain!
Mostly,using inches doesn't matter when it's on a computer. It doesn't
matter to me if it's 1.00mm or .040" - but fractional dimensions are
another thing altogether! And don't get me started on screws.
You know which countries don't use metric? Burma, Somalia, and the USA.
The best thing about the aspect ratio in metric paper sizes is that you
can scale up (or down) the size on a photocopier. Back in Australia the
photocopiers had standard settings so you could copy an A4 paper to get
to fit exactly on A3 etc.with no extra borders.
David Janes wrote:
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.