Still convinced the release team is composed of guys who don't design for a living, and having just completed a contract for someone using that other software, I'm here to throw myself into the volcano. Extra disclaimer: I still have a mile of complaints.... but wow, the idea that "Secretary CAD: is so easy to use and pick up and whatever, what a lie.
Question: how do you engineer something that doesn't even need dimensions to model? Answer, you don't, it just looks like you do.
To me, that software is exactly that, something that looks legit but when you try to nail it down to exact anything, life changes. It's like an app you give the receptionist to keep her busy with. It looks like she is some high end designer, but really, it's just looks making you think things and not reality. I mean she doesn't use datum points so, just placing one on a vertex should be a struggle right? What's my choice... point on 'a point'... really?!?! And offset csys, that doesn't even exist... you want a coordinate system when really, you're better off sketching lines. Ooof
In fact the whole concept of datums controlling a part, who knew those were so useless and impossible. How about just a view on a model, I was unaware that I was rocking the house by naming my views and invoking a standard isometric look at anything. Lets not even get started on that whole assemble component dance where you put the part in, and separately make the mates in any order. 56 parts later, I want to murder a paperclip.
In any case, I think our CADfathers have made this bed and caused our strife so I blame them. Their ineptitude invoked the creation of this alternative platform and whatever orifice the PTC head was up, just allowed them to be out marketed until we all sit at this point. It will be years before that circle comes around and self corrects and I for one don't know if I can afford to watch. Yes I hope pro 53 will be there to run back to because I for one am rolling over in my future grave having to deliver results and trust that I am improving things when I walk away from an assembly that didn't use dimensions and doesn't need constraints to hold it together.
Bottom line, I guess I need to admit that I'm glad I still have pro 33 to lean on, even if that pat on my back is derived from my own Creo 3.0 license file.
I wish I could find some work in pro, all this is so depressing...
...
Fig.1 - Creo 3.0 license file calling out Creo Essentials variable as pro/e version 33
This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
