CREO - First Impression?

[wtb999]

Thanks for the input. That really helps! I have always felt
weird about SW ... like its trying too hard to impress....I
am obviously a little biased towards ProE.

You are totally right on the +/- consistency thing.

For the angled offset, in my experience, you first have to
have an edge or axis align constraint or an insert
constraint to activate the angle offset, so that the
component can pivot around that axis/edge.

Thanks again for your feedback.

 

[wtb999]

Thanks to you too solidworm!

 

[MarkEngr]

whats with the HP RPN if you like the logical approach

Simple, you obviously do not see the rationale & speed involved in Rev Polish Notation from a technical standpoint.

 

[Mindripper]

Gosh, I guess I'm not the only one who cherishes the 'Easy' button in SW. Perhaps Creo will bring us a new and revamped Pro/E (or whatever they will call it). But please excuse me if I do not hold my breath. Also, please excuse me if my breath is not taken away by the sheer spectacle of what they unveil. I have a strong feeling that the 'new Pro/E' won't be much differentfrom the 'same old Pro/E'.


And the e-mails regarding the huge advantages to using CoCreate (or whatever they plan to call it) just keep coming in. But not a whisper from PTC about the 'new Pro/E'.


It looks like my next project will be in SW though. We just bought up another competitor (the second this year), and their products need fixing: my boss asked me to work on them. All of them are in SolidWorks.


BTW: I use an HP RPN calculator too. My kids won't touch it: it's simplicity confuses them.

 

[MarkEngr]

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.


Survey experienced users(5000+ hrs) on both platforms & report back.

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.

)


Only 2 dim states are necessary. In ProE, can you go from a reference dim to a driving/hard dim w/o redimensioning? This is one of the most frustrating items in ProEwhile sketching & is simply Time consuming. SW handles this w/aplomb

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.

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.


Agreed its silly, SW requires no special key selections for angularity, or establishing planes or axes in individual part files.

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.

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.


Sorry about this one, I must have missed it in training.

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.

Edited by: MarkEngr

 

[MarkEngr]

Gosh, I guess I'm not the only one who cherishes the 'Easy' button in SW. Perhaps Creo will bring us a new and revamped Pro/E (or whatever they will call it). But please excuse me if I do not hold my breath. Also, please excuse me if my breath is not taken away by the sheer spectacle of what they unveil. I have a strong feeling that the 'new Pro/E' won't be much differentfrom the 'same old Pro/E'.


And the e-mails regarding the huge advantages to using CoCreate (or whatever they plan to call it) just keep coming in. But not a whisper from PTC about the 'new Pro/E'.


It looks like my next project will be in SW though. We just bought up another competitor (the second this year), and their products need fixing: my boss asked me to work on them. All of them are in SolidWorks.


BTW: I use an HP RPN calculator too. My kids won't touch it: it's simplicity confuses them.

Nice to hear Mindripper

 

[dgs]

BTW: I use an HP RPN calculator too. My kids won't touch it: it's simplicity confuses them.

Back in HS, I found Sharp's scientific calculators. They used a plain language entry where you simply entered an equasion as you would write it. It understood the order of operations and rules about parentheses. I didn't have to learn any special methods or jump through special calculator hoops, I just typed it in and got an answer. It just worked.

I supposed I missed out on something not using RPN, but for my needs it was great.

 

[moriarty]

"I use ProE CAD too. My kids won't touch it: it's
simplicity confuses them"

Its going to be interesting to see how SW handles the
change in solids kernal - somehow I think all its niceness
will get lost in failed rebuilds of legacy data. Think they
had the same issue with SW2005 - can anyone shed some light
on this?

 

[Mindripper]

I just wish I could do some of the simple Windows-based stuff in Pro/E that is so easy in SW: like dragging parts from one model tree to another, or dragging features from one part to another. Perhaps there are ways toperform theseactionsin Pro/E, but as the responses to MarkEngr's posting clearly demonstrate,they probably aren't just a click or two away and they are likely fraught with pitfalls. But the topic here is: what's with Creo? Will the functionality of Pro/E (or whatever they call it now) improve with this 'new generation of CAD', or is it all just another dumpsterload of PTC hype? Is development of Pro/E being abandoned (in whole or in part) in favor of CoCreate (or whatever they renamed it)? It's quite obvious that the premature release of Creo was intended exclusively to generate bling: the only change I have heard of was the packaging. This is a classic example of how the marketing department at PTC calls all the shots: the development and engineering groups seem tohave little influence on the product.


If Pro/E isn't running in some sort of Unix emulation mode, how come file naming conventions must follow Unix rules, and why is so much Windows functionality lost when in a Pro/E window? Will any of this get fixed with Creo? Will these limitations force CoCreate to adopt the Unix file naming conventions?


I keep reading these references to SolidWorks changing it's kernel on this board, but I can't find any substantiation for this froma reliable source. Please provide reliable sources for this information, if you have it. All I can find (without an exhaustive search) is a few opinions that SW may adopt the same kernel as CATIA, and opinions that SW may adopt a direct modeling kernel. I posted a question on MCADCentral's SW Rant & Rave section to address this. I'll ask my SW VAR too. Yeah, SW has VARs, not corporate emplyees (in India) who provide support and (honest) answers to user's questions. And I have some corporate contacts at SW too, who are also in the habit of being brutally honest.

 

[r.decker]

Gosh, I guess I'm not the only one who cherishes the 'Easy' button in SW. Perhaps Creo will bring us a new and revamped Pro/E (or whatever they will call it). But please excuse me if I do not hold my breath. Also, please excuse me if my breath is not taken away by the sheer spectacle of what they unveil. I have a strong feeling that the 'new Pro/E' won't be much differentfrom the 'same old Pro/E'.


And the e-mails regarding the huge advantages to using CoCreate (or whatever they plan to call it) just keep coming in. But not a whisper from PTC about the 'new Pro/E'.


It looks like my next project will be in SW though. We just bought up another competitor (the second this year), and their products need fixing: my boss asked me to work on them. All of them are in SolidWorks.


BTW: I use an HP RPN calculator too. My kids won't touch it: it's simplicity confuses them.

Nice to hear Mindripper

Mindripper/(aka)MarkEng.... are you talking to yourself now? From the posts is very easy to tell both profiles are the same individual.

 

[MarkEngr]

Gosh, I guess I'm not the only one who cherishes the 'Easy' button in SW. Perhaps Creo will bring us a new and revamped Pro/E (or whatever they will call it). But please excuse me if I do not hold my breath. Also, please excuse me if my breath is not taken away by the sheer spectacle of what they unveil. I have a strong feeling that the 'new Pro/E' won't be much differentfrom the 'same old Pro/E'.


And the e-mails regarding the huge advantages to using CoCreate (or whatever they plan to call it) just keep coming in. But not a whisper from PTC about the 'new Pro/E'.


It looks like my next project will be in SW though. We just bought up another competitor (the second this year), and their products need fixing: my boss asked me to work on them. All of them are in SolidWorks.


BTW: I use an HP RPN calculator too. My kids won't touch it: it's simplicity confuses them.

Nice to hear Mindripper

Mindripper/(aka)MarkEng.... are you talking to yourself now? From the posts is very easy to tell both profiles are the same individual.

Very Funny

 

[dgs]

You won't get any argument from me that Pro/E is an easy to use or consistent or intuitive package. No, it doesn't have drag and drop ease, but it does have robust tools for component placement and reuse as well as copying features and has for longer than SW has existed.

But the topic here is: what's with Creo? Will the functionality of Pro/E (or whatever they call it now) improve with this 'new generation of CAD', or is it all just another dumpsterload of PTC hype?

Who knows? I would bet, as with any other major shift in a software package, that there will be bugs and perhaps even limited functionality at first. PTC has already indicated that Creo 1.0 won't have the functionality of Creo 2.0 (I think that perhaps CoCreate won't be implement until 2.), but I don't remember for sure)

Is development of Pro/E being abandoned (in whole or in part) in favor of CoCreate (or whatever they renamed it)?

There is nothing to suggest that this is true except that you have gotten a load of promo emails for CoCreate. You already own Pro/E, of course PTC is going to try to sell you on the product you don't have rather than the on that you do.

It's quite obvious that the premature release of Creo was intended exclusively to generate bling: the only change I have heard of was the packaging.

What premature release? It was announce back in October and the release date was set for this summer. Last time I checked the calendar it wasn't summer yet and Creo has yet to be released. Yes, tehy renamed WF5 Creo/Elements Pro (and similarly renamed product View & CoCreate), but 'Creo' has yet to be released.

If Pro/E isn't running in some sort of Unix emulation mode, how come file naming conventions must follow Unix rules, and why is so much Windows functionality lost when in a Pro/E window? Will any of this get fixed with Creo? Will these limitations force CoCreate to adopt the Unix file naming conventions?

I have no idea why you're so hung up on Windows functionality, but there are a number of reasons that naming rules are what they are (an the rules aren't just UNIX, they are what Windows once was as well). It may trace back to it's UNIX roots, but that doesn't mean it's running in emulation mode.

I keep reading these references to SolidWorks changing it's kernel on this board, but I can't find any substantiation for this froma reliable source. Please provide reliable sources for this information, if you have it.

Funny, since you routinely make all sorts of claims about Pro/E's future, market share, customer base, decline and coding as well as SW's market share, growth and dominance with no sources.

 

[FireWild]

Ha, Mindripper has an alter ego; I have been suspecting that for a while. Very funny!





20,001 hours of MCAD time: that's the truth.

 

[Mindripper]

Gosh, I do seem to have touched a few nerves on some readers here. I'm surprised you guys didn't take exception to my use of an RPN calculator. But you haven't answered any of my questions: you have only questioned them.


I did some more research on this whole issue of SolidWorks changing it's kernel. I found some recent articles on a European site that discuss it. It seems that CATIA is looking to go to direct modeling too, and Dassault is trying to create more commonality between SolidWorks and CATIA. Since there are over1.5 million seats of SolidWorks installed, this is challenging. It appears that they are going to attempt something like what PTC is pursuing with both CATIA and SolidWorks: a dual-mode MCAD environment, running in either history-based ordirect modelingmode. But they are apparently not going to attempt to work it as a two-way street, with the formats being interchangeable: a model file will have to be one way or the other, with upgradeability from history-basedtodirect modelingonly. This sounds like it should succeed to me. I have doubts about what appears to be PTC's strategy: a two-way street, with full interchangeability between history-based anddirect modeling. But all of this is still in the formative stages, so it will be some time before anything is released for actual consumption by users. I made a posting about this on the MCAD Central SolidWorks site, with links.


How many active Pro/E seats exist worldwide?

 

[Mindripper]

I'm thinking all of us should start reading up on direct modeling.

 

[SW]

Glen,

I doubt many peoples nerves are too worried, but we at least we are entertained. Its all good.

Sam

 

[dr_gallup]

I saw my first HP RPN calculator in 1973 and asked for one for my highschool graduation present. I just knew instantly that it was a case of elegant engineering. There was nothing else in it's class. I have never used anything else since. There is a great HP15C emulator available that runs on all versions of Unix, Linux & windoze that I use today.

When I saw Pro/E release 1 demonstrated in ~1988 I instantly knew that parametric solid modeling was elegant engineering. There was nothing else in it's class. I asked for and got it at the start of my next project. I have used it ever since. It's still the right tool for the job.

When I first saw windoze I laughed at what a POS it was. It still is.

 

[dgs]

gosh, I do seem to have touched a few nerves on some readers here.

I get worked up when folks attack what I love, probably too much so. I love Pro/E because of the power it gives me to build nearly anything I want and to manipulate and control it explicitly. SW doesn't do that for me, at least not yet It gets in my way too much trying to 'help' or predict what I'm looking for. Pro/E, mostly, just does what it's told. Pro/E makes easy things to hard and misses the boat a lot on UI stuff, but I find that a lot of software does, SW included. I just never got that "Wow, this is so easy!" vibe from SW.

Neither tool is perfect, but for me Pro/E is easily superior, warts and all. I sometimes wonder if I got some training or had started on SW if I'd feel differently.

... a model file will have to be one way or the other, with upgradeability from history-basedtodirect modelingonly. This sounds like it should succeed to me. ...

It sounds like an easier path for sure, but from where I sit going from parametric to direct is no upgrade, it's a downgrade. I suppose it'd be good to learn direct, but I have to say I'm not thrilled by the idea. Maybe some seat time will help, if I can manage it. Google Sketchup is a direct modeler and it's OK. I'm sure it doesn't compare to CoCreate.

... I have doubts about what appears to be PTC's strategy: a two-way street, with full interchangeability between history-based anddirect modeling. But all of this is still in the formative stages, so it will be some time before anything is released for actual consumption by users.

Yep, time will tell. I applaud PTC for taking the ambitious path, the 2 way street will be a more versatile and useful tool. A much harder task for sure, but it will be impressive if they pull it off. Frankly, I'm a skeptical as well. I fully suspect to be underwhelmed by Creo 1.0 at least.

How many active Pro/E seats exist worldwide?

No idea. but back at the conference in 2007 they talked about "800,000 users worldwide", and that Pro/E was growing at 15% per year, faster than the general MCAD market at the time. Assuming they are all Pro/E users and assuming the same rate of growth (both dubious), that's 1.4 million now. I'd bet on under a million.
Edited by: dgs

 

[MarkEngr]

Appreciate your Honesty Doug. I too was smitten by HPs RPN in themid 70s while in junior high/high school. Once I got hooked into the straightforward beauty of the HP calc logic, I never went back. Even now, if I try to use an Algebraic $5 model from Casio, TI or even some of the entry level HPs, I initially get confused & wish that one of my HP-48s were at hand.


Mark
Edited by: MarkEngr

 

[moriarty]

Here some links to discussions about SW changing kernel -
CGM or Parasolid.

www.deelip.com/?p=5327
www.deelip.com/?p=5333