Skip to main content
1-Visitor
November 28, 2012
Question

Creo vs. Solidworks vs. Inventor

  • November 28, 2012
  • 45 replies
  • 150620 views

I feel like I need to vent a little, so I was hoping to get a discussion started as to why Creo has any advantage over the other popular 3D CAD modeling systems. I want to like this product, I really do, but right now, I feel like I am being forced to learn a dying system. Creo will not survive if they do not change the way things are done.

 

I am new to Creo (6 weeks), but I have used Inventor for the past 3 years. In my opinion, there is no comparison between the two. Inventor is significantly better than Creo in pretty much every single way I have been using the system.

 

Component Modeling:

Creo is completely unintuitive. For the novice trying to obtain a grasp on this program, it is next to impossible without a significant amount of training from PTC. This is probably part of their business plan because truthfully, their documentation and training programs are superior to the software itself. It seems like the designers of this software have had no personal experience using a system. The user interface is obviously a copy of what Autodesk has been doing - the Ribbon UI. However, they have failed at the ease and convenience that Inventor provides and it seems like their employees do not understand why they are programming their product in this way.

 

Right clicking for everything is a nuisance. The commands should be explicit. Once a command has been initialized, it should state what is needed to accomplish a successful feature. When I hover over some of the commands, it's as if the programmer just did not understand the point of what he/she was trying to create. For instance if you hover over swept blend, the information contained says "create a swept blend". Inventor shows a preview of what the function actually does in a quick movie if you hover over it, plus it provides a link to learn further information and even provides an exercise showing explicitly how to use the function and what must be defined for the function to work. PTC expects that you just know that you need to add certain references without actually telling you that you need it. For instance, the rotate feature needs a centerline (should be able to use any datum axis) which you then need to right click and define it as the rotational axis. If you try to do this through the message box, it will not work. There is no documentation in the help file saying this needs to be done. My anger continues to grow.

 

Also, patterning complex features is pretty much a null exercise, since it takes Creo 20 minutes to regenerate the model. I have never experienced this with Inventor. Their software updates automatically after a function is confirmed. There is no need to repaint/regenerate.

 

Assemblies:

The constraint system seems to have a mind of its own. After applying an angle constraint just this morning, and the preview showing the correct orientation, after confirming, the model just sort of reversed the direction and tilted on another axis which was untouched. I know it's difficult to picture this. But just picture me wishing that Creo was tangible and that I could soak it in Ethanol and watch it burn a slow painful death.

 

That's enough.

 

Please provide some insight as to why this program is any good at all. I need to like it. I want to like it. I have to like it. But right now, it is the bane of my existence. Some of the simplest commands that I try to initiate do not work as intended. There are way too many idiosycrasies that 'just have to be known' through experience. There is no way that someone could just hop on this program and start using it. However, with Inventor, they have actually put work and research into making their product user friendly. So much so that at my previous position, I could educate a technician in a day or two and they are off and running producing components, assemblies, and even drawings.

 

Please help me think of Creo as a helpful tool instead of a hinderence and outdated piece of garbage.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Regards,

~Bart

 

 

45 replies

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire II
March 27, 2013

Lately, my system has been running like garbage, but I'm sure it's a "Windburn" issue as it crashes when I try and do any check in's etc. I can count on it crashing at least 2-4 times a day. Not happy at all. Pro/E was by far the most stable on the Unix box I had ('96-'98), and has progressively gotten worse over the years. windburn is a certifyable nightmare. whoever thought it was a good idea to run a vaulting system over the LEAST stable platform in the world, the internet, should be tarred and feathered.

Yes, the Menu Manager might have been a little dificult for some, but it was totally consistent and made sense. The WF GUI does not. the "lead vs. follow" mentality is absurd, you never know what to do first as it varies from command to command. The old MM was logical, and all the same. Creation commands went here, modification commands went there. I will say the WF interface is a lot better than the nightmare that is the creo interface......

1-Visitor
March 31, 2013

I have been using Creo now for 9 months and find it the most awful package I have ever used in my 22 year experience. I am a Soliworks 12 year user and astonished by the way in which this system works.

I find that most mechanical CAD systems effectively allow you to build a prototype within the model and essentialy produce a working model from your design.

Just grab stuff and move it around, almost like it's in front of you.

I find this daily, that you build your model in CAD and do not prototype on the shop floor. it works nearly first time, every time.

The company I am working at are building prototypes that you would have seen, quite simply do not work in SolidWorks. They then prototype the manufactured prototype, to find it doesn't work 3 months later.

This is working in the past to me, I thought we had advanced mechanical design software now a days?

Creo/PTC works on the old business model where everything is insanely difficult/complicated/or doesn't work. They will charge you for extra modules like BOM, Parametrics or Relations between parts in assemblies, if not PCBs and even export files like SolidWorks, IGES or STEP.

You will need training at every aspect of everything you do come basic modelling, to detail, which in my mind hardly ever works, period.

Old fashioned way is that you always have a guy that knows stuff in the office, a CAD guy, with a workaround to achieve what you should have been able to do in the first place.

Creo is 90% not doing work as a mechanical designer, 10 % productivty.

Solidworks is 90% productivty, 10% worrying about CAD.

Do the math.

And it cheaper.

I know it has pitfalls over the history based system, but they have nailed most of these issues with wizards and diagnostics. With direct modelling (which SolidWorks already has, only design intent), I understand the benifit but I cannot see how a tiny function of a CAD system can decide your entire solution to a mechanical advanced CAD solution.

SolidWorks is quite simply amazing.

15-Moonstone
April 1, 2013

hi,

before making such statements...try using Creo(Pro|Engineer) properly. the only reason solidworks was made...so that it could be more user friendly than Pro/Engineer.....

Pro/Engineer is the backbone of Solidworks......

Pro/E is very easy to use...very logical..........

the assembly in solidworks is very bad......

i am not too happy with the way Creo has come up..but its predecessor...Pro|Engineer...is....very good.

You do not know how to use it properly..so do not blame it in on Creo(Pro/Engineer).

its never how fast you can make something..its always how fast you can make changes...

1-Visitor
April 1, 2013

Hi There,

I apologise to vent but I am talking about Creo Elements/Direct . I have used Pro/E only once, so cannot give opinion there.

I find this very hard to use, and to make changes to model or assembly, very difficult and confusing.

I want to like this product, and am having some training over the next month, so maybe my viewpoint will change somewhat! I hope so.

I fiind Creo E/D has got a great direct modelling approach, but I find the Co-Pilot seems to give unexpected results and I am never sure if it has performed the task in hand correctly, and having to double check if it has done the previous operation correctly.

Still, I may be a Creo Enthusiast yet?!

M

1-Visitor
April 1, 2013

creo or pro/e has upper hand in " in context designing" or otherwise known as top down approach,these days most of the cad is related to making something which is already seen or materialized,if someone want to design something from scratch he/she won't think about nuts and bolts first and then make profile.

general process is thinking about outside profile that's where creo scores in,making skeleton models etc.

in todays scenerio most of the parts are already known and seen and stress is on barfing it out form of 3D models and that's where creo loses badly.

it employs strict discipline to learn its ways.

having said that

and message prompts in pro/e must be written by some 90 years old woman suffering from severe case of dementia.

1-Visitor
June 4, 2013

Bart:

What a depressing situation, and here's another one. It took me about 6 months to get marginally competent on ProE, and about 3 days to learn Solidworks. I used ProE for about a year before switching to SW, and will never go back. Unfortunately, my company has now switched from ePDM (Solidworks PLM) to Windchill. What a step backwards from a $20K system cost to a $140K system cost. I just spent the last 6 weeks transferring 877 prt, asy and drw files to Windchill and we still don't have the BOM right. I counted 22 mouse clicks, drags, etc just to associate each pdf file to the Windchill 'part'. I learned and practiced designing and drafting on the drawing board, then went to CADAM, which automated laying down the lines. About 10% of the time was spent on file and BOM management, now it seems to be more like 50%.

My advice? Find another job. Use Solidworks paired with SW PDM. Don't look back.

Derek

15-Moonstone
June 4, 2013

guess u never learned proe the right way...so sorry.

a very very small point...how do we rename a solidworks part file?

how do we retrieve a older version of a part file in solidworks?

the complete solidworks software has proe as its backbone....

when solidworks was being written..they had proe as reference(parametric modelling)

when proe was written there was no reference(parametric modelling) software...

there is no doubt..solidworks is much easier to use....but then which is better software...no doubt..abt it also ..proe always.

15-Moonstone
June 5, 2013

Hello all

Try to make tangent cut to the side in SolidWork or in Inventor.

http://youtu.be/thl9nYWGK6k?t=5m39s

1-Visitor
June 5, 2013

No problem for me doing that on inventor...

10-Marble
October 23, 2013

I am not saying that Creo is not powerfull program but obviolusly it runs on Fiat 500 tires.

Does Ferrari pulls your steering wheel full turn while you driving? Does it brakes when not needed or not brake at all when needed. Or does it start on its own or does not start when you want it to start. Bad comparation but a lot of frustrated Creo users feels like this when they use/drive this "Ferrari".

I found out that Creo programmers work in groups and they do not have any crossover between each other. Can you believe this? They do whatever they feel is the best or easiest for them. NO STRANDARDIZATION whatsoever. That is why the filter list is different in part and assembly mode. And this is why you cannot make same mapkey work in part and assembly mode because they listed filter items in different orders and mapkey can only call the filter by its relative position in filter list. Or, who the hell wants to place normal constraint first instead of once-called MATE constraint? How normal contraint can be anyones' first option? What these guys from PTC are thinking while making codes for this csoftware?

1-Visitor
October 23, 2013

At LEAST this thread shows me im not crazy.

Thx. That makes my days somewhat better.

Danielo.. i would bet, that most of the people working as programmers, have NO idea what they are programming for. NO clue how to work in Creo.

I worked at a place, where we had a CAD admin, that didnt have any clue as to what my department did.

When we worked on large assemblies, the RAM use went through the roof.

He couldnt reproduce. Not even using 10.000 complex part.

We found out the problem, was that his parts used less than 10 m^3 of volume.

My plant was 400x400 m.

The real problem, was that there was a bounding box, around the used space, and all that volume had to be stored and monitored.

Now our solution.. Xp-64. That gave us enough adressable memory, so that everything worked.

But getting this across to the Cadmin, was a real pain, because he just wouldnt realize the difference between what we used daily, and what he tested.

ANYHOW.

i think thats the main problem.

The programmers nibble away on ONE command. Not having to use it.

lets see them trying to create the next space shuttle, in 1/4 the time the first one was done in.

THEN we would see efficient, simple tools. Instead of the complex, MEGA configurable ones we see.

Btw.

Older Ferraris, were prone to faillure.

Needed to be taken care of like small children.

Ate all your money

Needed specialised maintenece.

Only ran well, after some time.

And you werent shure, you would get to the destination on time

perhaps Creo IS a ferrari after all ?

1-Visitor
October 23, 2013

My main problem in this topic is... Do we need help to get solutions or we say it sucks and keep it going?

I can remember several things that Creo does and other software don't but... does it really worth all of this?

Are the big companys changing to PTC products cause it's cheaper? Or instead they are changing cause the potencial of the product is huge and they can think in the future knowing that they have a good structure supporting them?

I really don't know...

1-Visitor
November 13, 2013

To me, this is the classic Windows vs Linux argument. I'm an engineer with a computational background. CAE is what I do. I taught programming at the USU while a graduate student there. I'm quite apt with software - in fact, I wrote my own FEA code back in school. Here's what I've noticed as far as the old vs new...

My Windows buddies hate each new version (let's face it, only every other version of Windows is worthwhile - due to their market promises and deadlines), but they acclimatize to it quick enough. Linux guys, on the other hand, keep holding out for whatever update is next. They love the idea of them being able to customize everything. And frankly, it's fun. A little Python scripting never hurt anyone. However - when you work for a company, they're not paying you to learn software or to customize your own config files. They're paying you to generate product.

PTC feels like Linux to me. It has a strong community of people who are deeply rooted in it. They brag about the benefits, but seldom venture out to see what else was created. I used SolidWorks for a previous job, and am wishing my current company would switch to that or to Inventor.

PTC is so far removed from their new customer base, it's like they're writing software for the 1980's.

1-Visitor
November 13, 2013

Hi Eli.

I think youre a bit unkind.

I dont think Creo is like linux in general.

I think Creo is like Gentoo linux.

You know, the Linux, that takes 3-4 days to install, because you have to decide if you want this or that log program and so on.

Most linuxes eg: Ubuntu, Mint, Redhat(havent tryed since v.5), Suse( havent Used since v 10) are plug and play, "Just work" kind of things.

So i dont think Creo is like linux. Linux can be made to work !

1-Visitor
November 22, 2013

I have equal time experience with ProE Wildfire, Creo Elements, and Inventor.

I have unequal success in completing tasks with PTC products, Inventor works for the user whereas PTC products forces the user to jump through fire hoops.

Far to many mouse clicks and interferences are involved.

Crashes are abundant with a very high end and compliant desktop computer.

I like my job and plan to remain here for many years, but the Creo Elements mill stone around my neck is annoying.

21-Topaz II
November 22, 2013

Bjarke, your experience with Creo sounds like mine with SW. SW is easy, but unstable and very difficult to get it to repeatedly do what I want. I typically try particular geometry one way, it won't work, so I try another method and it does. Later, some part of the model changes and the new way fails and I have to rebuild it the first way I tried. Features lose references all the time, many times the reference is still there, but the connection is broken. I have many models where I know if I change anything a particular feature is going to fail in a particular way.

With Creo, I can make it sing, make major changes to dimensions and the model regenerates. I can build faster in SW, but I can make changes over and over in Creo in the time it takes to make one or two in SW.

I've found that SW is much more tolerant of "sloppy" modeling, even encouraging it. I don't mean that disparagingly, just that it's built for speed and you pick the geometry that's handy to get your feature done. It's fast, so if it fails later it's fast to fix or recreate. SW often doesn't even tell you what feature references belong to, only calling them out as "plane1" or "edge1".

Creo punishes sloppy modeling. It's built to reward careful, deliberate choices. It gives your feature and entity ids so you can tie things together that belong together. It gives robust tools to replace references without completely redefining or recreating the failed feature. In SW, if I spend the time to build carefully, I'm not rewarded with a significantly more stable model. In Creo I am, to the point that if I build carelessly it gets very painful to make changes.

I realize that terms like "sloppy" and "carelessly" sound like insults, I don't mean them to be. It's two different philosophies - one is speed of creating and recreating, the other is capturing design intent and robust, easy changes as a result. The first is easy to grasp and appreciate, the second takes some time to wrap your head around.

SW users that come into Creo trying to drive it like SW end up very frustrated. I've watched several, however, dive in and get the philosophy behind it and come away as converts. I much prefer Creo, I feel that it lets me define what I'm after and accomplish it. SW lets me build geometry fast, Creo lets me build a robust design.

1-Visitor
November 22, 2013

Well that goes into my opinion, once you get the philosophy it's going to be much more easy to work with Creo. We can't work with Creo thinking that " i will do like this because in sw that would work " because you will have nightmares in the future. We only have to choose the correct features to do the correct work.

1-Visitor
November 22, 2013

I have use SW few times and it did not like to me....

so These days I have a full design of an offshore unit which needs a lot of FEA. I am using CREO SIMULATE to run he analisys and It works just great.

I can not stamp the analisys that I do so a third party has to do it, however they use SW and guess what? they can not run the FEA for the full assembly, matter of fact thier analisys takes forever since SW uses the h method for the FEA.

CREO SIMULATE uses the adptive p method which is faster, automatically recognizes the assmeblies and set the proper conection when simulating.

after all I can show the full assembly simulated end everythig makes sense. in SW that is not possible or at least is not easy I think you need like 15 years of expertise to be able to do it.

so my point is that if you only care about modeling I guess even google sketch works, however if you want to do a serious job PRO/E or CREO is the right choice.

have a nice day

1-Visitor
March 16, 2014

hi bart

first of all i am not a person who has like 5 or 10 yrs experience with cad

coming to the point after reading both of your posts, i agree that inventor is a self-guiding software and also provides an example for every tool or function. moreover it requires less steps/references in executing a function, ok that was good for inventor

and creo/proe lacks in guiding on how to use the tool (i actually laughed for a min over your "create a swept blend" remark).............but if you look closely how things are done in creo/proe, it helps u a lot in creating components afterwards.

for eg in a variable section sweep or blend or free form surface feature it requires well defined trajectories, sections,etc- optional tangencies can be applied, all of which is very time consuming but the final result you get is a ready to machine model with no errors or inaccuracy

i like this software because the way it presents things- the preview, the rerouting interface, the strong parametric ability which are better (we can rely on them) than inventor.

and who says making a pattern is difficult (the way it is done), you have to selected the desired references or input the required values

i agree that there are other softwares which make things happen with less effort

but you can never compare an apple with an orange

as far as ptc is considered,see we live in a world where everyone- company, institution, manufacturer would want maximum profit and business by whatever strategy, so we cannot blame ptc, rather they provide tech support with training and workshops

discussions always happen thats ok, if you want to learn how every operation is carried out in creo/proe buy a book- pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 5.0 for Engineers and designers by prof. sham tickoo

it will let you know about every feature