Skip to main content
1-Visitor
July 22, 2018
Question

Multi body part modelling-Transitioning fron SolidWorks to Creo

  • July 22, 2018
  • 4 replies
  • 11763 views

I run a small product design business, focussing on many different sectors. We have a couple of licences of SolidWorks and Rhino, with various add ons. I subscribed to Creo in the spring this year, with ISDX, as we needed a more robust approach to certain modelling tasks that required using sub d type modelling (Freestyle in Creo, Power Surfacing in SolidWorks and TSplines in Rhino). Due to workload we have really on started to get into using Creo and already come up with what I consider to be a serious workflow killer.

 

it appears that Creo does not support multi body part modelling is a part environment? 

 

I've read other forum posts on this but I don't think many actually understand the true implications of this. From our perspective, modelling in SolidWorks, Rhino, Fusion360 etc, multi body part modelling is a core workflow. From creating master models to working with complex patterns or even simple modelling procedures. Fact is, we cannot, efficiently, model some parts without utilising multi body modelling techniques. 

 

Is there a timeframe to introduce Multi body part modelling into Creo? 

4 replies

KQD1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
July 23, 2018

As a follow up to this, and reading further posts on this matter, it appears many Creo users have issues with this as they fear it might affect how Creo handles bodies in Windchill. Can I suggest, that from a part modelling perspective, this is an irrelevance. I cannot emphasise how critical this is to our (and others like us) workflows. I can think of many modelling tasks that are simple in SolidWorks or Fusion, using multi bodies, that would require ridiculous workarounds to achieve using feature only modelling.

 

If PTC is hoping to persuade others like myself to switch from SolidWorks and the like, this has to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

23-Emerald III
July 23, 2018

There is a product enhancement idea with respect to multi-body parts.

https://community.ptc.com/t5/Creo-Parametric-Ideas/Add-functionality-Multi-Body-part/idi-p/459141

 

KQD1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
July 23, 2018

I added a comment to that one Stephen. Discussing with my designers this morning we see this as a critical issue for long term Creo use. More than happy for PTC to visit us to see how we do things so they really understand why it is such a big issue.

23-Emerald III
July 23, 2018

As I said in the other post, don't hold your breath that PTC will change their core design philosophy after 20+ years and allow multi-body part files.

 

Did you research NX as a comparison to Creo? NX has easier to use surface modeling tools and allows multi-body parts.

KQD1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
July 23, 2018

Thanks Stephen. I have plenty of experience with the whims of CAD vendors or all sizes over the last 25 years or so, and my company has invested in plenty of systems over the years, used them for some time then moved onto systems that work better for us. We don't just use one platform - that is a recipe for stagnation and inefficiency for what we do. Honestly, I'm ambivalent about Creo. The only reason we even contemplated it was the fact that we could subscribe and that Freestyle was a core , so we will treat this year as a test and if after 10 months we find it is not doing what we had hoped it would we will just drop it. lessons learned.

 

In the meantime though, we will test it thoroughly on real projects and feedback to PTC with any suggestions. In my experience of CAD vendors (ALL CAD vendors), it is the little guys who actually push the envelope on workflow and geometry. The big companies tend to focus on file management issues and to them it really doesn't matter if an engineer takes all day to model a part. For us, the reverse is true. We design as we use the system. File management is simple as every project is different. But if we cannot model something efficiently then that platform will get dropped like a brick.

10-Marble
January 8, 2020

Creo is not the High-End product advertised.  They are an ancient, decrepit excuse for CAD.  This is only one of hundreds, maybe thousands of good examples of how the software hasn't evolved and why their market share is embarrassing.  If it weren't for legacy customers in defense and government, would PTC even exist?  I mean, really, we remember when Pro came on the scene and there was no stopping them.  But it looks like they stopped themselves.  Archaic interface, poor integration with Windows, horrifying usability, and so on.

 

Multi-body functionality is an advanced feature that, once learned, enables the user to much more powerful modeling workflow in many instances.  I figured this out in the early 2000's when I had just started using SolidWorks.  Our division at Northrop was using SolidWorks and we were very close to some of the top brass there.  They would come see what we were up to quite often and used our massive assemblies to improve the product.  At that time, assemblies in the 40k component range.

 

I had come from solid modeling in AutoCAD where Boolean was a very useful tool.  I quickly found out that SolidWorks at the time did not have this capability so I requested it.  Shortly thereafter SolidWorks created the multi-body capability.  Now it is one of my favorite features.  Using it doesn't necessarily come instinctively, but once you "get it" you can't go back.  It's an awful thought that I will not be able to use it in Creo despite Creo being billed as "high-end" and SolidWorks only a midrange product.  So far, from what I've seen, except for ZTG and direct editing, I would put SolidWorks up against Creo any day of the week.

 

One example of the power of multi-body functionality is a weldment my team was working on years ago, around 2013.  The weldment had roughly 1000 parts consisting of 250 drawings (sub-weldments and unique parts).  No one would ever update the weldment whenever a new machine was designed because of the complexity of the drawing package and all the work to change it.

 

Using SolidWorks weldments feature, which leverages the multi-body functionality, we reduced the drawing package to about 35 drawings!  If you consider that in a 1000 part assembly you need at least 3000 mates (or what Creo calls "placements") to fully constrain the assembly and then in the new assembly you would need about 35 x 3 = 105 mates, which one would you rather manage??

 

One weldment I designed had about 200 members in it and about 90 were unique.  I did this in a single part.  One part...One part number...One description...One drawing with 90 details.  This versus 90 parts, 90 part numbers, 90 descriptions, 90 drawings. I find the thought of doing it the "old" way hilarious.

 

Because of the way SolidWorks Weldments works, the relations between all the welded parts stays within the part and eliminates the need for mates.  This:

1. Makes it extremely fast to model complex, welded parts.  For instance, I had a team of myself, one engineer and one to two designers and we could model complex oil drilling equipment with tens of thousands of parts in a matter of months.  I don't see this ever happening in Creo.

2. Makes the model more accurate as the relationships between bodies stay in the part and not at a higher level in the assembly where things can quickly go wrong.  This gives more accurate geometry that has less gaps or interferences.  This is extra-helpful when moving the model into an FEA program.

3. Makes it extremely fast to modify the model.  The frame weldment mentioned above with 200 parts may have taken days to make major changes, but in reality only took hours when I did have to modify it.

4. Makes documentation infinitely faster.  I don't want to make a drawing for every piece of cut structural steel when a cut list is sufficient.  More complex welded members can have a drawing detail, but why make a new part number and new drawing for each part in a weldment?  Some say that each part needs a unique number for manufacturing.  That is easily resolved with a dash number for each cutlist item.

5. GREATLY improves performance.  Now a fraction of the mates (placements) need to be evaluated compared to the old way of doing it, and SolidWorks has the ability at the part level to "LOCK" the drawing tree.  This in effect forces the part to only rebuild when loaded and then never again in session!!  The performance gains due to this are phenomenal.  If SolidWorks users understood properly how to utilize the software, then this wives-tale about Creo being better on large assembly performance would be in the CAD museum where it belongs. 

 

Right now I came across this thread because I have imported a simple assembly from a vendor into a part (has to be a part) to save as a COTS item.  The problem is that the vendor had threads in their assembly and our policy is to remove these threads, which are interfering in the model between the hardware and the model's main body.  I never had to remove threads in SolidWorks, but I guess for Creo you need to.  So, in SolidWorks to do this you simply make the cut and tell it which solids the cut effects.  I can pick the screw.  I can pick the body.  I can pick both.  Whatever.  SUPER FRICKEN SIMPLE.  I can not figure out how to get this to work in Creo.  Granted I'm new to it and have found that often you can get something done in a roundabout way, but really?  Do I really have to start this over as an assembly, modify it, save it, and then re-import it in as a part?   Wow, really efficient!

 

All of the ex-SolidWorks users I'm running into that are having to use Creo due to program requirements ARE NOT HAPPY.  This should tell you clueless exec's something.  I'm guessing your programmers have already mentioned much of this to you but the decision makers probably can't even open the program and draw a line (although I bet they could figure it out in SolidWorks).  Kudos on buying Onshape, though.  Please tell us some of this innovation will make it into future versions of Creo!  And do please explain to us why multi-body functionality shouldn't be part of your program!

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire II
January 9, 2020

LOL  Do we have a Solidworks vendor here or what?  Spinal or toroidial bend, does Solidquirks have them?  No?  How about using graphs?  No on that too?  How about not having trajpar?  how about the 150 (if I remember) turns HARD limit in a sweep (as if trying to do a phone cord).  Oh, and try reversing that twist several times.  Yeah, we evaluated Solidquirks and of the 10 examples I gave to the vendor to reproduce, he was not able to faithfully reproduce a single one.  Not.  One.  I spent time on the Solidquirks forums looking at geometry they flat couldn't create, or had a lot of trouble creating.  In every case I was able to produce what they wanted, and if they could do it at all, my model was far simpler and a lot more robust.

 

Yawn...

10-Marble
January 9, 2020

I'll take multi-body over all that, any day of the week.

 

Right now I'm stuck not being able to do SIMPLE STUFF that I could EASILY do in SolidWorks.  I imported a model from a vendor into a part.  The model was originally several parts.  I need to edit those "bodies" yet I can't.

 

Two workarounds:

 

1. Throw away what I've already done.  Re-open the files as an assembly.  Edit the individual parts.  Export the cleaned-up assembly.  Re-import as a part.

 

2.  Open the vendor's file in SolidWorks.  Easily and efficiently clean up the intersecting bodies.  Export to Creo.

 

How long ago did you evaluate it?  They have come a long way, and I never argue against added functionality as long as the programmers aren't focused on creating features to allow people to create PHONE CORDS over actually creating functionality that will be used on a regular basis to create real parts and assemblies.

 

As far as graph, there's a variety of ways to do similar things in SolidWorks.  Sketches can drive a lot of features, and complex curves can be generated with Excel spreadsheets. 

 

As far as complex sweeps and helixes, that's evolving as well.  I've yet to run into an issue where I couldn't do what I needed to.

 

But to be fair, you have no idea how much "S" I've given SolidWorks over the past 20 years.  Especially over not being able to manage ZTG, and also failing to evolve in a logical manner just like it appears Creo is guilty of.  Why despite generating billions of dollars do neither of these platforms have voice commands standard?  How about gesture control, and so on?  We are still interfacing with CAD much like we were 40 years ago.

 

Both platforms have increased the number of clicks now with ribbons, flyouts, and so on.  Sometime a single command will take three clicks where it used to take one.  SolidWorks doesn't allow the icon customization to get back to where each command could have it's own icon at the ready like it used to.

 

The one thing about SolidWorks to it's credit, and this is probably why it generates four to five times the revenue that Creo does, is that it's very intuitive for the most part.  So far, my experience with Creo has been more of a wrestling match.  That's not fair to the user.  You don't expect to hit the brakes on your car only after flipping a switch, pulling a lever, turning a knob a specific number of degrees, and then you can push the brake.  That's how Creo feels. But so may of you users are just used to it and don't realize what is being asked of you.

 

The fact is they BOTH have a LOT of room for improvement.  From what I read on another post, Creo will incorporate multi-body functionality, so kudos to them!!!  I can't wait.  We're just transitioning to 4 so I'm bummed it will be years before we see it!!!!!!!!

 

15-Moonstone
January 9, 2020

Multibody will be introduced in Creo 7.0 (April 2020).

 

Regards,

Domen