CREO - First Impression?

[magnusod]

Both CoCreate and Pro/E in their Creo form will have to work without Windchill, and perhaps the translator as well. Not only do many users not have Windchill, they have other PDM systems that cannot/ will not be replaced by Windchill. And as has been suggested here, some operations (even big ones) don't PDM systems at all. I worked for a large custom molder as a consulting product design engineer about ten years ago, where we had no PDM system. We couldn't use one: all of our files had to be compatible with our various customer's PDM systems, so we couldn't run one ourselves. Yeah, it made for some complicated recordkeeping, but we managed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlyc3yKaQr0

 

[Mindripper]

The youtube video doesn't address the issue of being able to convert files between Pro/E and CoCreate without Windchill: the speaker addresses a bunch of other stuff (including how great everything will be for Windchill users and AnyBOM users). I'm always concerned when PTC marketing people talk about everything but the question at hand: they have a reputation for not addressing the question if they can't give the customer an honest answer that's to his liking.

 

[Freecat]

The youtube video doesn't address the issue of being able to convert files between Pro/E and CoCreate without Windchill:

As of right now an out-of-the-boxCoCreate 17 installationcan read-innative Pro/E files. I'm not sure aboutthe latest Pro/E reading in native CoCreatethough. I'm still on WF4.
Edited by: Richh

 

[kdem]

Although the videos don't actually talk about it specifically it does appear to work without Windchill after viewingseveral of the videos on PTC's Creo site.The site also gives a release date of June 2011 which is subject to change.


[url]http://creo.ptc.com/2011/03/25/creo-1-0-just-the-apps-new-ap ps-new-names/[/url]


http://creo.ptc.com/2010/11/22/see-anymode-modeling-in-actio n-%e2%80%9cart-to-part%e2%80%9d-seamlessly/


Looking at the file dialog boxes it doesn't appear that Windchill is required.You save the model to the Creocommon dataformat which allows the model to be opened in different apps.


View attachment 5002
Edited by: kdem

 

[Mindripper]

Thanks, kdem: it sounds like the translator will be included in Pro/E and CoCreate.


And yet, the future of Pro/E in the Creo environment seems in doubt. The endless barrage of e-mails touting the joys of CoCreate and direct modeling continue from PTC, while the advertisements for Pro/E have stopped entirely. While they will undoubtedly continue to support Pro/E, will it see any future development, or will it be demoted to the role of a 'legacy product'?

 

[SW]

I thought thought the whole idea was to throw the two together?

CoCreate ----------> Creo
Pro/Engineer ------> Creo


Edited by: SW

 

[kdem]

This is a post you made earlier which discusses that. As I understand itboth from the presentation andfrom the PTC product calendar there won't be a new version of Creo Elements/Pro. There will be maintenance updates but their plan is to switch over to Creo and app will be Creo Parametric. They plan to release at least two more versions for Creo Elements/Direct over the next year. From the way it's writen it sounds like there will be moreversions of Creo Elements/Direct over the next few years but doesn't give a date for complete migration to Creo Direct.

I'm not sure quite what constitutes "everyone", maybe its everyone but me.

Exploring the Evolution of Creo. Sounds alright.

Sam

 

[dgs]

The endless barrage of e-mails touting the joys of CoCreate and direct modeling continue from PTC, while the advertisements for Pro/E have stopped entirely.

It could be that current Pro/E customers are getting hit with CoCreate ads, while CoCreate customers are getting Pro/E ads. It would make sense with Creo melding the two together. PTC is going to want to cross sell the different apps to existing customers and the common data model will make that more attractive.

 

[SW]

That was supposed to be a rhetorical question. Apologies if it wasn't apparent from the post.

Sam

 

[kdem]

Sorry,my response was really to Mindrippers question.

 

[cgosnell]

I don't think CREO will be the wonderful, happy place,
PTC makes it out to be. Based on history:
1) I'm still waiting for Manufacturing to be updated to
the 'newest' interface.
2) I'm still upset about the way we were jerked around
when pro-e changed it's license methods when 'Foundation'
came out.
3) I still run into models that have the old chamfer and
round dialogs. They are not documented in the help
files, and new users are lost. Why not update these and
use the new interface.
4) Accuracy issues still abound.

Chris G.

 

[wtb999]

Hey Mindripper.... you guys should really look into upgrading to WF5.0 asap. There are some neat advances compared to 3.0, not the least of which is getting rid of the dreaded Resolve mode. Now you can regenerate a model with a failed feature. My eyes had almost teared up with joy when I first saw that.

I work for a small company, so dont know some of the issues faced by big ones, but at our place, the transition was a piece of cake.

 

[MarkEngr]

Hey Mindripper.... you guys should really look into upgrading to WF5.0 asap. There are some neat advances compared to 3.0, not the least of which is getting rid of the dreaded Resolve mode. Now you can regenerate a model with a failed feature. My eyes had almost teared up with joy when I first saw that.

I work for a small company, so dont know some of the issues faced by big ones, but at our place, the transition was a piece of cake.

You realize SolidWorks has been able to continue with failed features for years? You also realize with ProE you arechained to a solid modeling product that at one time was an innovator, but has since beeneclipsed by manycompetitors. No matter what the product is called...Creo Design or WF5.x, the designapproach is non-intuitive & counter productive when compared to Dassault's SolidWorks(I won't get into Catia now). I can present so manyobvious shortcomings existing in ProE & the heinous Windchill that have literally caused myself, an engineer with 25 years experience to pull my hair out when compared to the logical approachutilized inSolidWorks & PDM Enterprise.The situationain't even close, & running ProEin emulation mode from Unix to Windows has far exceeded its welcome and the1-2 sec delays are maddening. I can provide more examples than congressional budget debates demonstrating the tediousness & deficiencies inherent in ProE as compared to Solidworks. My well being is more important than anything PTC or Creo can offer & I shall elaborate on an elementary scale.


My Big Ten & Counting:


1. As of WF4, why are there 3 states of dimensions in sketches? This rationale I really got to hear from ProE users! There are only 2 necessary: Driving(Hard) & Driven(Ref).


2.How can I switch from a reference dimension to a driving dimension in ProE w/o redimensioning; its quite easy in SW btw.


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? SW allows you to simply flip dimension & similarly change alignment with a mouse click; no typing required.


4. When mating/constraining 2 part files with planar geometry, & I desire to assemble these parts at a certain angle relative to 1 another, among other constaints, why o why do I need to create a plane featurein one of the part files? Inquiring minds want to know & SW handles this easily.


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.


6. How can one 'Link' a set of dimension values, hole sizes, etc., so that they are all equal without setting up alg/math relations? Of course w/SW, you know the story, its built in.


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.


8. I amcreating a new assembly & have just completed 2 part files that are to be placed in this assembly & the part files are open in the software. I want to place the first part in my assembly at the default location, so why do I have to navigate to this part file in my current working directory by typing the file name in the search box in ProE? In SW, I can simply navigate/browse &view the list of open files & select the file I desire, & type nothing, nor do a short search. Subsequent part files can be added in the same manner if they are open. This is a pain in ProE.


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.


10.The Hole tool & Sheet metal app in ProE are simply put...Lackingin comparsion to equivalents in Solidworks. Don't take my word, simply evaluate both. I won't even get into the wonders of SW Toolbox, Feature Works/Recognition & severaladvantages in Design Tables vs Family Tables.


Intelligent replies desired.
Edited by: MarkEngr

 

[gristle]

I don't think WTB999 was saying that SW has not had the ability to continue with failed features. I think their intention was to point out that in WF5+ you now have the ability to do this as well, which has obviously been lacking in the past.

Shortcomings... I have one for you, but about SW. Can you delete a feature and let the child features fail and then redefine/re-reference them? I used SW 2010 for the first time a few weeks ago, and it appears that there is no option - bang - child features deleted. I thought this might have been addressed by now (last time I used SW in anger was 2004).

Another one - replacing entities in a sketch. Change a line to an arc for example. There is no way I can find to let SW know that the line has been replaced and that it should let downstream features know about the change. Piece of cake in ProE.

I was going to mention curves being absorbed and not being able to be reused, but apparently SW2011 allows this.

 

[moriarty]

whats with the HP RPN if you like the logical approach

 

[wtb999]

Let me first say that as we speak, we are in the process
of evaluating switching to Solidworks, which is not
always easy because of legacy data and such.

To me its funny when some stubborn ProE guys refuse to
accept any shortcomings in ProE. But what's even funnier
is some SW guys talking about minor issues with ProE as
if they are deal breakers. Some of your points to me are
so trivial, I dont even notice them now that I am so used
to working in ProE. So, I need to enter a negative sign
for opposite direction...big deal. Also, Mate/Align make
perfect sense to me since two surfaces can either face
each other or face the same direction. Insert is called
that...who cares?

Regarding assembly....you should really be creating the
assembly file in the same folder as the part files. I
know you will point to that as another fault with ProE.
In any case, I dont understand why you need to perform
searches. If all the part files you need to assemble are
open, you can simply select "In Session" in the insert
part window to access them. Multiple buttons for
measurement...who cares?

Regarding drawings, I think PTC believed a few years ago
that 2D drawings are going away and that is part of the
reason their drawing capabilities are lacking. Ofcourse
2D is still going strong. I am not a drawing expert
myself, so cant answer your questions there.

Really, if you hate ProE so much, just stop working in
it.

 

[dgs]

Well, you asked for intelligent replies, I have some below. But first, I don't think Pro/E runs in 'UNIX emulation' any more, hasn't for many years. It's a common accusation, but no one has shown it to be true. Does it follow native Windows conventions 100%? No, but neither does SW.

Second, as an engineer approaching 20 years experience, I feel the same about SW that you do about Pro/E.

Drives me batty, gets in my way, makes my life difficult. In fact, most folks here do as well. Even some of our young ID guys who love SW, once they see the power and control offered in Pro/E, prefer Pro/E.

1. As of WF4, why are there 3 states of dimensions in sketches? This rationale I really got to hear from ProE users! There are only 2 necessary: Driving(Hard) & Driven(Ref).

Weak dims are the default dims that Pro/E added. Good to be able to see the default vs. design intent. I'd say SW has 3 as well - driving, driven and invisible (the mystery dims SW uses to constrain un-dimensioned 'blue' sketches.

)

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 +/-

4. When mating/constraining 2 part files with planar geometry, & I desire to assemble these parts at a certain angle relative to 1 another, among other constaints, why o why do I need to create a plane featurein one of the part files? Inquiring minds want to know & SW handles this easily.

Use ctrl -MMB to spin the new component 'off angle' and pro/E should give you a Mate-angle option. Yeah, it's silly, but it works.

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.

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.

8. I amcreating a new assembly & have just completed 2 part files that are to be placed in this assembly & the part files are open in the software. I want to place the first part in my assembly at the default location, so why do I have to navigate to this part file in my current working directory by typing the file name in the search box in ProE? In SW, I can simply navigate/browse &view the list of open files & select the file I desire, & type nothing, nor do a short search. Subsequent part files can be added in the same manner if they are open. This is a pain in ProE.

Have you not tried the 'In Session' command? This is basic Pro/E, and does exactly what you describe. In fact, it's more useful that SW because items can be 'In Session' but not actually open.

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.

 

[wtb999]

thanks Doug. Your response is definitely more intelligent
than mine. Shows the difference between an MVP and just a
member.

First - since we are thinking of switching to SW, I
wanted to know your opinion on whether we will miss out
on any functionality from ProE? Could you elaborate a
little bit on what you mean by more power and control in
ProE as opposed to SW? We are on the ProE Foundation
package, and found that we will have so much more
functionality in SW for about the same price - Basic
Simulation, Freeform Surfacing, etc. Our files are not
highly complicated in terms of part features and
assemblies, but I want to ensure I dont regret the
decision.

A couple of points/questions about your post above -
1) when you say that +/- is not consistent w.r.t
Mate/Align, do you mean that intuitively the +side for
Mate should be opposite to that for Align, but it isnt?

2) To Mate or Align Coincident by default, without
changing config option - if I am not mistaken you can
position the two faces/planes close to each other to make
them coincident instead of offset. In some cases you may
actually intend to make them offset.

3) I tried using your tip for angled offset, but couldnt
duplicate it here.

 

[solidworm]

@wtb999,
yes, in terms of functionality i think solidworks base package offers more.it really depends on what type of work you do. for example solidworks has the equivalent of EFX(Framework extension) and mold tools in its base package, on the otherhand lacks the equivalent of IDD (import data doctor), ofcourse it offers automated tools to repair bad edges or faces, but they're not as indepth as IDD tools, it also lacks ProE ATB import functionality. if freeform feature and simulationXpress are the reasons you want to switch, you have to think again. freeform feature is rarely used by solidworks users because of its lack of control and SimulationXpress is way too limited. solidworks is still improving it's basic features, for example its sweep feature lacks the ability to reference surface normal vector,curves are still consumed by features, even in 2011, and they recently overhauled it's reference plane feature and copied ProE, exactly.
on the other hand, ProE is more stable, quicker, and requires less resources than solidworks, and its workflow seems more logical to me.
overall if you're good at using a CAD system, doesn't matter what it's called,and its enough for your needs, it's a waste of time to look elsewhere.




Edited by: solidworm

 

[dgs]

First - since we are thinking of switching to SW, I

wanted to know your opinion on whether we will miss out

on any functionality from ProE? Could you elaborate a

little bit on what you mean by more power and control in

ProE as opposed to SW? We are on the ProE Foundation

package, and found that we will have so much more

functionality in SW for about the same price - Basic

Simulation, Freeform Surfacing, etc. Our files are not

highly complicated in terms of part features and

assemblies, but I want to ensure I dont regret the

decision.

I think in terms of functionality, SW comes with more stuff out of the box. My frustration with it is that the very thing that makes it easy, gets in the way. SW makes a lot of assumptions for you, and changing those assumptions can be very, very difficult, sometimes impossible. Yes, Pro/E requires you to explicitly define a lot more, but that puts you in control of the design, not the software. I've had situations in SW where it created a feature in an unexpected way, and I wasn't able to access the underlying assumptions to change it.

I've also found it to be pretty finicky about references. References that work now, may fail unexpectedly and not work at all after a model change. The robust techniques I use in Pro/E to make models very flexible and modifiable, just don't work in SW and I haven't found ones that do. Even if I can build it faster in SW the first time (not convinced that's true), I spend more time with each change because things just fail more often.

That said, I've not had any SW training nor would I consider myself a SW pro. There are likely techniques that I don't know about that will improve things.

1) when you say that +/- is not consistent w.r.t

Mate/Align, do you mean that intuitively the +side for

Mate should be opposite to that for Align, but it isnt?

What I meant was, throughout Pro/E you can use (-) to flip things to the other direction. Sometimes, however, the (-) is persistent and sometimes it is not. With datum planes it is not (the - dim becomes +), but I think in sketcher it is. I'd like to be able to use (-) to flip direction, but the dims should always end up positive.

3) I tried using your tip for angled offset, but couldnt

duplicate it here.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember it's not that simple. I think you need an aligned maybe?