Creo 3.0 compared to other CAD software

[azimmermann]

The purpose of this critical text is to give direct feedback to developers at PTC.

Creo Parametric 3.0 is such an inefficient software compared to other modeling tools. I don't want to tell names here, but I work with two other well known CAD tools. Modeling with Creo means you have to make cumbersome steps to reach your goal. Many things can be done much faster with other software. Most disappointing point is, that you often can't undo certain steps. You often have to search for a feature or an option, where with other tools you are one step ahead.

I can imagine that PTC has some difficulties transforming Pro/E from an direct modeling to a parametric system. This would explain a lack of a proper organized modeling environment everybody can work with intuitively.

All in all, Creo at the current state is not efficient enough and I would not recommend it.

[bbrejcha]

not so specific however if you are referring to sw or inventor Creo actually has the exact same workflow as those tools however those tools don't have but 2 or 3 add on modules and Creo has over 70 add on modules.

I teach surfacing in both SW and Creo and I will tell you with hundreds of examples where Creo is far superior not even including ISDX or Style.  If you know me then you know this is one of my favorite topics.   However we need to be specific.

I can think of some places where Creo can get better esp with higher order curves and G3 continuity + evaluation tools for surfacing.  SW does not even display tangent lines across a surface.  Maybe this is too specific?

Solidworks needs to develop another module to compare w/ advanced assemblies as w/ Creo.  There are Solidworks cheer leaders that exclaim with jubilation that companies like Orbital should convert to Solidworks.  Orbital has multiple assemblies with over 17k parts and other components.  A large assembly for Solidworks is 500 parts.    This is where most companies doing intelligent comparisons w/ specifics quit.

Tesla made a big mistake when they purchased SW because at the time it  did yet work w/ windchill/ teamcenter or other library systems leaving who ever saves last wins.  They s creamed at developers for a year to finally get something that could work. They went to Catia  in the mean time making the 1990 mistake of multiple cad tools.  I always tell companies if you want to build a compelling project like the tower of Babylon that you want to fail everyone should speak a different language.    Buell  allowed a multi cad organization and successfully failed several times.

I could write on for 20 hrs making specific examples.b  Sounds to me you could use some training or a better attitude.  Oh wait SW users don't need training LOL

Bart Brejcha

Design-engine.com

[rrich-2]

Bart I agree with you 100 percent.   Just because a person dose not know how to use the software like Alexander, does not make it bad software.  I have been using Pro/Engineer since 1989 Version 5. Self taught because there were no classes back then.  I know modeling, assemblies, nc, surfacing, ISDX, windchill and all are easy to use if you use them everyday.  Back some time ago I got an educational copy of SW.  I loaded it and it took me more than 30 minutes to create a rectangular block with a hole in it.  I didn't blame the software I just thought it was hard to use.  Then a SW user gave me 10 minutes worth of explanation on how it operates and I went back and in under 5 minutes I had the same shape.  The same is true for Creo ask someone who knows how to use it and explain why and maybe you will not hate it so much.  By the way I could make the same shape in Creo in 20 seconds. Two features and out.  I could do it in one feature but where would the fun of that be.

[AndreasRingler]

Don't believe the hype. I've worked with ProE V16 to WF5. For the last 3 years with SolidEdge. It took me about a year to adjust to all the limitations. I can work with it now, but the limitations remain and making robust parametric models is just about impossible.

At my last company we had models with 25-30k parts in it. I can't see SolidEdge handling this kind of data, let alone anyone creating such models without tons of errors in it.

[KenFarley]

Pro/E started as a parametric modeling system 20+ years ago. It has never had to transition from a "direct modeling" system.

[KenFarley]

Someone doesn't know what the letters in "PTC" stand for, I suppose.

[MikeBrattoli]

It stood for Parametric Technology Corporation - now it's just PTC

[MikeBrattoli]

One other thing to remember - SolidWorks was essentially developed by many of the same folks who created Pro/ENGINEER (Creo) in the first place.  Bart made an excellent point about advanced surfacing tools (SW isn't even close) as well as large assembly management.

I have used Pro/E (Creo) since 1993 (Release 11) and have taught that same toolset at the college level since 1996.  My employer spent close to a year evaluating the toolsets available in the early/mid 90's before settling on Pro/E (Catia, Intergraph, Matra Datavision, Euclid IS, Schlumberger Bravo, SDRC (Ideas & Master Series) - Pro/E was definitely the superior choice for our business

Like Bart I could write a dissertation about this topic - my fingers would wear out..... 🙂

[AndreasRingler]

This is just a rant, not useful feedback.

[azimmermann]

I agree, maybe this is not the right place to start a discussion on disadvantages of Creo compared to others. Especially because this is just my opinion. Here we have many experienced Pro/E and Creo users versus me, a young quite unexperienced engineer. From my point of view I can compare Creo, CATIA and Inventor because I started working with them about 2 years ago. In my opinion - as I already wrote - Creo is the most hard to master.

For example, look at the way you create a section view of a model in a drawing. How many steps do you need in Creo? Where in Inventor you simply define a line on a base view. And then there are some steps you just can not undo without a reason. For example when you import points in modeling environment, you have to delete them. Ctrl+Z would be way more faster. There are other little issues I am facing sometimes, where in the other software you can "guess" where to find an option, in Creo you have to search for it.

One of my colleagues uses Creo for many years and has difficulties learning CATIA. But he is a proud Creo user. I think this is the point. You can be proud of managing the flat learning curve of Creo BECAUSE it has a GUI that tells you not what to do next. CATIA is powerful as well but it's much mor intuitive, so I can now work with it better.

Don't get me wrong. Creo is surely a powerful tool. It became established.

P.S.: I knew what PTC stands for. Here you can see my lack of experience when I claimed that Pro/E had no parametric functuinalities. Sorry for that.

[HamsterNL]

"For example, look at the way you create a section view of a model in a drawing. How many steps do you need in Creo?"

It does take more steps in Creo, but you will have more control.

We create a datumplane in our assembly, and we will drive the position of that datumplane with relations/parameters. Then we create an Xsec based upon that datumplane. We use that Xsec in a drawingview on our drawings. If our design changes in width or height, the relations will make sure that the Xsec will be in the perfect spot.

[BenLoosli]

http://www.cadhistory.net/16%20Parametric%20Technology.pdf

This website has an extensive look at various CAD companies and their history.

[bbrejcha]

We all offer our suggestions to the improvements of the tool.   The best way you can do that is to join a technical committee.    They don't always understand due to human perspectives or they need to prioritize the changes but I will tell you Creo changes for the good every year with updates.  Your job as a professional in the technical community is to help the product manger understand the perspective and escalate the tool and subseqent implementation.   Not complain an the side lines. 

Catia is the same now as it was 10 years ago.  Hard to imagine but the high end users don't complain because like most humans they resist change.    I know some stubborn users that still prefer not to use intent manager.  Imagine how closed minded they are to all the other improvements they have to deal with at their jobs.     I offer my time for beta testing and I'm excited to see 90 percent considered & 60+ percent added into the user interface.

UG was so impressive in 1997 with their new improvements and menus. UG changed the industry however it hasn't changed or improved much since then.    If you ask me SW did a better job implementing the UG kernel but they should have exposed more in the user interface.

Alias Studio can do some amazing surfacing and has some tools I could only wish for in Creo.  Better to look there for developing the surfacing tools in Creo than backwards to SW, UG or Catia.    I even made a list of functionality that I want implemented into Creo and push each year for items added.  Sometimes the tools in Alias don't make sense because we have not experience that type of project or design and we need a case study to raise the priority of the new functionality.   For example tugging and pulling on a surface control vertices (if you not familiar w/ that search google) and if a developer is not familiar w/ that workflow the priority of developing that type of tools is not escalated.    PTC did an amazing job implementing Surface Edit in Creo Style.   Because we have a construction history in Creo that is not able to be turned off like in Alias,  PTC programmers did an amazing job implementing surface edit and borrowing if you will from Alias like tools (push and pull) and implementing those tools into Creo.  In Alias designers have to break the construction history and the PTC guys figured out how to keep them both.  I was silently blown away.  Freestyle or Sub'D as it's called in industry came from Maya and 3d max (they simply implemented those tools earlier).  People who take my classes for those tools are often early adopters in their organizations and collect a great deal of heat from the old school surfacers.  Except new school surfacers do it in 15 min and update the skeleton and subsequent assembly parts  to boot. 

I challenge all of you to join and participate in the PTC technical committees.  It's a great way to learn + offer insight from your industry to make the tools better.   As long as we get an upgrade every other year Im sticking to Creo!   If you know me I love learning new things.  I also know we can and will probably end up a bit like our parents set in their ways and watching only one news Chanel.  All we can do as engineers and designers is to embrace change and the new plus do it all w/ a great attitude. I try quite hard to stay relevant and participants in our courses assist them to remain relevant.  I try to remain  years ahead of the game w/ respect to workflow and implementing the new tools PTC gives us then ultimately help others embrace those new tools. I work as an instructor teaching design and engineering in a new school of workflow and thought.      Now I just wish Soldiworks would let me project a 3d curve LOL

Bart Brejcha

Design-engine.com

[Inoram]

I think the important thing here for the daily Creo users is he aimed that at the developers. And in my opinion developers don't read these forums. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong. But I think they have at least one community person that reads these forums and sometimes takes things to the developers.

And I think that's a problem. And possibly (just guessing) maybe that's why some of the issues that seem to continue release after release (like the broken pattern tool) don't get fixed. Or maybe just inherent issues with the base code? I don't know. Not being able to contact ANYONE at PTC is a current issue with me and very frustrating. So I'm not happy with them at the moment. PTC communication is a big problem.

[mender]

I read them, and frequently forward threads of interest to PM (who are the people who make the call on intended behavior, which projects to prioritize over others, etc.) with commentary and suggestions (whether to implement and how to design it to handle factors not mentioned in the forum post).  Communication of a pending improvement/fix is up to PM, though they are naturally cautious about appearing to promise things they aren't absolutely sure they can deliver.

As for myself, I generally am most interested in threads on a specific topic (and of course in areas of the software that I am most familiar with), as opposed to 'laundry list' ones, where it proves impossible to even announce the fix of one of the issues noted without the ensuing discussion revolving around the ones that aren't addressed.

[Inoram]

Oh I realize the signal to noise ratio is large. But long time users have seen the same issues persist. And I am more concerned with mold design module functionality than anything else, and I realize there are a lot of other modules.

On top of that, I am been waiting on a quote from my VAR for almost 2 months now, other VARs forward me back to them and say they are my VAR. and PTC just ignores me completely. /shrug.. It's like you don't even want money for the software any more.

[torme]

I'm at a decision point related to this discussion.  I use PTC Creo Parametric 3.0 Academic.  I have several 5th grade students who are learning how to model parts.  We have not attempted assembly or anything else.  Extrude and Revolve are the usual starting points.  A Windows 10 Upgrade wiped out our software which had been  struggling with error messages.  We really need a more powerful computer and a better graphics card.  We have decided to wait for PTC Creo Parametric 4.0 Academic before reinstalling hopefully on a better computer.

We call ourselves the Zheshart English Lego Academy and are located in Zheshart, Republic of Komi, Russia.  The original intention was to link Creo with Lego Robotics (EV3 etc).  We wanted the capability to design and 3D print non-standard Lego parts.  We haven't attempted as yet to create a library of standard Lego parts and use Creo assembly to model Lego structures.  This path, however, seems feasible in the long run.

For Lego Architecture we encountered a different problem.  Creo does not seem to be a good CAD choice for architecture.  Am I missing something?  Any suggestions?

Cheers, Tom Orme

[rmcboaty]

if 5th grade is ~10-12 years, then i think that maybe solidworks would be better.

easier to use, less legacy stuff...

i think that there are also dedicated Lego 3d modellers (if you want to prototype for example before actually building it).

with regards to the computer, if you can get a pentium from ~2012 on, then you're good on its own builtin graphics.

core2duo would probably also be ok with an older "gaming" graphics.

i think that lego robotics is better though, robotics being the future anyway.

how is rasija?

[rubenvillarreal]

It is complicated since it directly depends on the time that you are using CAD tools.

+Creo Parametric - eLearning.

For me, it was the only option to enter in the CAD world, payments methods, reasonable prices, reasonable licenses. Just amazing.

-More you use it, more you like it, more you hate it

I´ve been using Creo since 3 years ago. At the beginning it was amazing! You start from 0 and create more and more things using MANY different tools, then after a few time you want to create more complicate it things (because you realize that you have an amazing palette of options). The problem is that you want more, and it comes to a point where you can´t have more, you just are on the edge or the ¨limitations¨ of the software, then you start to hate it, because you always expect to be when it was at the beginning of the learning process, with an amazing flexibility and many options to do something. But, honestly, ALL CAD software are like that.

I tend to make huge critics here, complaining a lot, report bugs, errors, even some funny posts about using Style. I do that because I love this software, and I want more from them, I do not want to stop using Creo. At the end of the day, it is amazing what can you do with Creo. I always come here to see if someone post a picture of those +1000 assemblies, but nobody does it.

Talking with other guys about which CAD tool is better, is always an endless talk. For me, it depends on the intention of the user, is it for a product? is it for analysis? is it for big assemblies? is it for flexibility? is it for a specific extension?

More objectively, the multiple extensions of Creo are the thing that puts this software on the table. More details? The introduction of Mathcad Prime into Creo and how you mathematically can control a feature of your model it is something EXTREMELY powerful. It is the only CAD software where mathematicians and designers can work together with so much flexibility.

Long answer, hahaha sorry.

[StephenW]

Ruben Alejandro Villarreal Barrios

Here's a 1000+ parts snapshot. And a picture of it in context. In the inset of the ship picture, you can see it painted white behind the yellow structure.

My product is "large" (58 feet or 17680mm tall and close to 1000000 lbs or 454000 kg) but it looks tiny when on the ship.

[rubenvillarreal]

Impresionante! It is always better to look a picture. Thanks for share!

[TomU]

Wow!  So what is it?

[StephenW]

Subsea blowout preventer. No one used to know what that was, but now a lot of people have a basic understanding.

[bbrejcha]

is that done in UG or Creo?  Can't quite tell from the screen shot.

Bart Brejcha

Design-engine.com

[StephenW]

100% creo

EDIT: 100% Pro/E...LOL...this model was well before Creo was a glimmer in a marketing persons eye.

[Inoram]

Nice! And how fast can you spin that around on screen in hidden line mode?

[rubenvillarreal]

[StephenW]

Worst thing users would do is try to highlight something and then spin it.  That's a dog. It's rare to open the master rep. There are some control pods that pretty much grind it to worthless. Recently, we've been using a lightweight and dumbed down shrinkwrap to replace the 2 main ones. At that point, and using simplified reps, we can open the top model and it's not too bad to work on.

Working on the top level assembly drawing and the sales drawing is excruciatingly painful. There is always a lot of waiting, even using drawing management practices.

Here's an image I found on google that gives an indication of scale...there is a little man there on the side

[bbrejcha]

Here is a good example of things Solidworks has no business creating since in Creo we can drive trajectory parameters in sweeps.  The pitch in this example is managed using parameters.

I just posted the image on my personal @bartbrejcha) • instagram instagram.com/bartbrejcha/

Bart Brejcha

Design-engine.com

[rohit_rajan]

Me a Creo ohh..sorry Pro|E fan too.

But one place where Pro|E is too bad is Rendering ..again compare to Solidworks...Photoview 360.In solidworks premium very simple to use and gives amazing results.