CREO - First Impression?

[dgs]

I don't think the Pro/E student edition is free any longer. A couple hundred bucks for a lifetime license, I think.

They do offer high schools something like 300 seats of full boat Pro/E, Mechanica and Windchill for free if they send a single teacher to a training class. Kids can check out licenses and work from home too.

unfortunately, my kid's school has settled on Inventor instead.

 

[kdem]

SolidWorks has offered a student edition for many years, perhaps since it's initial release. They do charge $100 to $150 USD for a one year license, while the Pro/E student edition is free. Perhaps this fee is what kdem objects to.


https://store.solidworks.com/studentstore/default.php

Thedirection I'm coming from is who is eligible to purchase it. I have no problem paying for their product it's just right now because of my location and job there are benefits with PTC that aren'tavailable to me with Dassault. The charge for the Creo Elements/Pro for a student is usually $200 but they currently have a promotion offering it for $130. This is the version that would be comparable to SolidWorks student edition. The problem is I'm not a student so I don't qualify for purchasing the software whether It's PTC or Dassault. This is where PTC offers me the benefit. PTC offers a personal use edition that I can purchase. Sure there are limitations but for my purpose of wanting to learn to use the software this is exactly what I'm looking for. The personal use edition is the same as the student edition butit costs $100 more to purchase. Unless I'm looking in the wrong place Dassault has no offering for personal use. When I talked to a SolidWorks reseller about 2 years ago I was told this is one of the questions they get from those in my area but right now Dassault does not offer a personal use edition. Also, in my opinion, the other benefit to the PTC student edition software isthe license isperpetual whereas the SolidWorks license is for 12 months. Although this wouldn't keep me from purchasing SolidWorks it would certainly influence my decision.


Something else PTC offers that is a benefit where I work is all users have elearning libraries. There is no cost to ourusers because its paid for throughour contract. In the training material there is a training edition that has a one year license. Dassault may offer something similar, I'm just not sure. There are users of Solidworksand CATIA at my company just not at my location and because of that we don't have access to similar training material.


I've even looked at other programs Inventor and Alibre Design. I did purchase Alibre Design a few years ago when they offered a promotion for about $800 for what they call their Expert package. But SolidWorks and Inventor at the time would each cost $6000.
Edited by: kdem

 

[Mindripper]

Currently, SolidWorks offers three packages for full licenses: not for students, but for business customers who plan on making money using the product. I believe these prices have been fairly stable for at least ten years. A crude synopsis of what is offered: all prices are US dollars -


SW Standard: the basic package About $3000


SW Professional: adds some usful stuff like Toolbox and PDMWorks About $4500


SW Premium: adds FEA and kinematics, and more useful stuff About $6000


Maintenance is about $1500 per year for Standard, and more for the other two options.


Actual pricing depends on the VAR: the number of seats being purchased or currently installed has a major influence on the price per seat, with dicounts up to 50% being common. 2 seats for the price of 3 is a common promotion, as is throwing in free maintenance for a couple of years (first year is always free). They are also quite considerate about renewing dormant licenses (where maintenance has lapsed) for just the cost of maintenance.


What's PTC's pricing structure for Pro/E? How much is maintenance?

 

[kdem]

I don't know what they are currently. I think at one time someone mentioned the Foundation package was $5000 but that was before the change. Don't know how it scales up from there. I'm guessing it will change again once they move to Creo. Here is a link to their current package offerings:


[url]http://www.ptc.com/products/creo-elements-pro/newpackages/pa ckage-comparison.htm[/url]


Then there is theadditional extensions which I don't know what they cost.

 

[wtb999]

we currently have the foundation package and our annual maintenance is around 1500 US$. I checked with our reseller and they said that the maintenance rates are going to remain unchanged for Creo.... at least that's their stance right now.

 

[MarkEngr]

Solidworks is heavily involved with the academic community, much more that ProE from my feedback from students of the community colleges & some universities. Inventor is there also, but SW is the most requested package from students from my understanding. Heck when I was in engineering school at TN(Memphis), the only related classin mech design/drafting was board related, no computers whatsoever. We knew it existed, but is was the domain of the big Aerospace & Auto companies & simply to expensive for single user use. Time frame: late 70s to mid 80s.


SW at the moment seems to be very aggressive in the academic regard & is well received from my info...Wonder why that is? Could it be that it simply works?

 

[kdem]

3. Why are there 2 similar constraints called Mate & Align? & why does the software not default to coincident instead of a distance constraint? & why does this distance require a potential typo error negative sign?

A - It's really 2 sides of the same constraint B - You can, via config option C - I wish Pro/E was more consistne with +/-


You only need one mate/contstraint option to accomplish this. Typing the neg sign is tedious & involves placing your cursor in the value field correctly & looking away from your display(im not a great typist). SW only requires that you click 'Flip Alignment' or 'Flip Dim', as necessary, no looking awayor typing required. ProE's approach is redundant & unnecessary. There has been a better way for years from SW & others.

5. What is an Insert Constraint?(I know from exp with WF4 what it does), but such a geometric relation is not mentioned in ANSI/ASME Y14.5 or ISO standards. Concentric is the correct name.

Seriously? I insert a bolt or pin in a hole in the shop all the time.


From a geometry standpoint, Insert is vague & nondescrip. I can place orInsert a bolt into a square hole also, but have not defined its location. I can Insert my golf clubs in the trunk of my car, but have not fully defined their location.

7. & Why are there severalicons for measuring distances, angles & so forth concerning model geometry in ProE? In SW, there is only one & the program is intelligent enough to decipher what you desire.

Good point, but SW's implementation is far from perfect. If I select item A then B, they are flipped in the dialog and you have to remove 1 to dimension again, so I always remove the wrong one. Also,SW doesn't give you everything possible, there have been many times that the dim I needed wasn't displayed.


The one measuring tool in SWis certainly quicker & reduces the chance for selecting the wrong tool which happens frequently in ProE(for me anyway). The SW single measuring tool is quick, noncluttering & gives acceptable results.

9. As of WF4, when replacing a component in an assembly, say for example a screw with another screw of different length, why do I have to redefine the constraints??? This is simply insane & unacceptable.

WF4 has a powerful replace functionality, you can replace by unrelated components and open a dialog to see all the relationships, and pick new refs in the new component. You really should be using family tables for screws, however, which would replace automatically.


I have been using Family Tables extensively, but when replacing one part with another unrelated component & they have similar basic geometry, I do not have to reconstrain the new part in the assembly in SW much of the time. ProE's approach in this regard is vintage 1980s.

[/QUOTE]


I thought I give some thoughts on these.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


1) Why a Mate and Align constraint? This one I think comes terminology. From a terminilogy stand point I've never heard someone say they are going to mate axes, it's always they align them. When you pick an axisand look at the options in the drop down there isn't an option for mate. An axis also does not have a positive and negative end, it has a positive or negative sense based on RHR. The other thing about ProE constraints is they are actions. While you could say you could replace it with a single Alignment constraint from the standpoint of actions Alignment doesn't fit because it's not an action whereas mate and align relate to a specific action you perform. If you just have a Mate constraint, for instance, you would not be able to use the same surface of a part if what you realy want to do is align that surface to another parts surface. You would need to pick the opposite surface or other appropriate geoemtry and use a mate offset.


2) The Insert does have a description of what it does which is inserts a revolved componentsurface into an assembly revolved surface. Doesn't mean the model feature has to be a revolve feature but the geometry revolves around an axis. Therefore, for instance, a bolt placed in a square hole would not use an insert constraint. As for why not concentric as the constraint name, my thought would be concentric is a geometry locationcontrol not an assembly action.


3) PTC is supposedly working on revamping the measurement tools.


4) You don't necessarily have to redefine the constraints when replacing a part with an unrelated component. You can create component interfaces for placing the part. For instance, you could specifiy the bolt surface as an Insert and the head surface as Mate component interfaces in the unrelated bolt. If you have used Insert and Mate to place a bolt in an assembly you can replace it with the unrelated bolt without having to select new references by selecting the placeusing interface icon on thecomponent placement dashboard.

 

[cristelino]

how can i change the log menu bar in bottom Proe Windows in this new fantastic sh*t name Creo.

I`m verry pissed off about Creo
Thanks anyway

 

[kdem]

If you're talking about moving the message area to the bottom of the screen like you could before you can't.

 

[cristelino]

Until Wildfire version 2 is able.
If you kept a file of that time can set it as a Starting as ProE, except those lines of messages that are unable to move.
It annoys me great.
Edited by: cristelino

 

[gristle]

SW at the moment seems to be very aggressive in the academic regard & is well received from my info...Wonder why that is? Could it be that it simply works?

Took the bait... I hate it when the students I am teaching ask why something has failed in SW and I cannot tell them. It has just failed for no obvious reason. A good worker does not blame their tools and all that - but really what other reason can one give them?

SW does have a bloody good help system in comparison to ProE though. You do not need to think in riddles when searching.

 

[Mindripper]

There is no perfect software package: every one has it's warts. But some are simply easier to learn and use than others, and some continue to evolve while others languish without meaningful improvements for years. The Big Question in this string (which remains unanswered) is: where is Pro/E going in the future? All of this hype from PTC marketing - including changing the name of the product without changing the product itself - and still, we wait.


Speaking for myself, I'm looking forward to some big software announcements next month. No, not more hype from PTC: from E3.

 

[dgs]

If Creo - not the 'Creo Elements' rebranded nonsense - is what they are implying, it will be a revolutionary shift in MCAD. We'll have to wait until it's real this summer to find out.

Oh, and I got a laugh from a young Tri Star sales guy this week. He told me that folks with Pro/E licenses will automatically get the full Creo suite, including the direct apps (formerly CoCreate) and that current CoCreate licensees will get the Parametric apps too, no extra licenses required.

I couldn't tell if he was simply uninformed or flat out lying to me, but there's no way I was buying that.

PTC give away a major upgrade like that? No way. I just said "Really?" and left it at that.

 

[dr_gallup]

If Creo - not the 'Creo Elements' rebranded nonsense - is what they are implying, it will be a revolutionary shift in MCAD. We'll have to wait until it's real this summer to find out.

Oh, and I got a laugh from a young Tri Star sales guy this week. He told me that folks with Pro/E licenses will automatically get the full Creo suite, including the direct apps (formerly CoCreate) and that current CoCreate licensees will get the Parametric apps too, no extra licenses required.

I couldn't tell if he was simply uninformed or flat out lying to me, but there's no way I was buying that.

PTC give away a major upgrade like that? No way. I just said "Really?" and left it at that.

Sure they will, when pigs fly & mindzipper quits spamming.

 

[magnusod]

SW at the moment seems to be very aggressive in the academic regard & is well received from my info...Wonder why that is? Could it be that it simply works?

I'm sure that OCC wouldn't agree http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBj4yOa7XXE

 

[mgnt8]

Remember when PTC brought out Wildfire, with no warning they took away Copy Geometry and charged extra for it in AAX. I'm fully expecting them to slying strip something out and repackage it for an extra fee.

Regarding CAD in schools, many of the big high schools near where I live have Pro/E now and all the university engineering programs have it. Maybe it's a regional thing, but I see a lot of kids now familiar with Pro/E. Not that they're experts or even get what they've got a hold of. Most just learn enough to be dangerous.

 

[kdem]

Sounds like my workplace.

 

[Mindripper]

I have seen the same thing as mgnt8 with SolidWorks rookies, esp. the self-taught who didn't even bother to buy a book. Sketches with all blue lines (completely unconstrained), assemblies with parts floating around and a look of total confusion. This is the big downside to 'ease of learning and use': users who are just plain dangerous, due in part to the lack of discipline imposed on them by the software. Yeah, it's a two-edged sword.


As for the five year old Youtube video from Orange County Cycles: Jason has a lot of blue lines in his complicated sketch (BAD IDEAS), and he appears to have degenerate regions too: radii vanishing to a point. I wonder if he ever went to training. This kind of stuff will make any MCAD package barf. Jason also appears to have serious anger management problems: I wonder where he got that from? At least Paul Sr.'s sons had the wisdom to get from that influence.


And while SW has evolved since this video was made, OCCappears to havegone downhill. Check out this year's series, where Paul Sr. (now without his sons, but with a team of high-priced lawyers and heavy debts) go head-to-head with Paul Jr. (now running his own shop ona tring, apparently without MCAD).

 

[dgs]

This is the big downside to 'ease of learning and use': users who are just plain dangerous, due in part to the lack of discipline imposed on them by the software. Yeah, it's a two-edged sword.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen decent Pro/E users spend a year on a SW project and then come back to Pro/E with all kinds of bad habits. SW is much more tolerant of sloppy modeling, almost encouraging it, Pro/E tends to force a bit more rigor. Frankly, I think PTC has missed the boat in that they are chasing the SW ease of use by loosening up on the rigor a bit rather than designing the software so that it produces robust models despite the user's modeling style.

They've done that in one small way in sketcher. Old school users who were trained 10+ years ago will tell you they were taught to use surfaces rather than edges as references in sketcher. That used to mean having to spin the model so that you could pick the surface. Now, if you select a line in sketcher that represents a surface that's normal to screen, Pro/E picks the surface for you, giving you a more robust reference automatically. That's the kind of thinking that is needed in more areas of the software.

 

[dr_gallup]

And while SW has evolved since this video was made, OCCappears to havegone downhill. Check out this year's series, where Paul Sr. (now without his sons, but with a team of high-priced lawyers and heavy debts) go head-to-head with Paul Jr. (now running his own shop ona tring, apparently without MCAD).

I believe OCC is no more. Good riddance. Talk about unsafe at any speed. I always got a good laugh when they would fire up one of their abominations, ride it in a straight line on a smooth road and say "This baby really handles!"