Creo function similar to inventor's Ilogic

[CAD_user]

Hello,

I'm evaluating creo for a possible buy. I'm evaluating creo and another cad packages.

There is a feature in autodesk inventor, that it's really powerfull, is the Ilogic. Is this exist in creo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UGHNiZYdJo&index=2&t=30s&list=PLFtrIw0XC9RDOAUaLdaqjgJgdjDca6yLN

[HamsterNL]

You can accomplish that with PRO/PROGRAM.

With INPUT PARAMETERS you define the input of your "program"

With RELATIONS you can calculate which door (a Family Table) should be placed

You can then use PRO/PROGRAM to select/place the correct door in your cabinet.

Sub-assemblies can be driven by EXECUTE STATEMENTS.

We use Excel for the calculations, then drive our models with PRO/PROGRAM.

Not as fancy as iLogic, but it will get the job done 🙂

[CAD_user]

How it works the Pro/program?

[HamsterNL]

PRO/Program will basicly give you access to the model tree of a part or assembly.

There, you can write IF-THEN-ELSE statements around the features or components. You can define INPUT parameters and use EXECUTE statements to drive sub-assemblies.

That, in combination with for example Family Tables and Interchange Assemblies, gives you a very powerful tool to create parametric driven assemblies/parts.

Here's a simple example in the Creo Help Center (please remove all the garbage after the ".html" in the link below)

http://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/usascii/#page/fundamentals%2Fprogram%2FExample_A_Parametric_Design_for_a_Blender_Cover.html

[CAD_user]

Interesting. It's quite similar to what catia calls rulles.

Another question (is outside of the context of this thread), is creo capable of manage multibody components? If yes how we manage them? Is it possible to copy them to another part in context of an assembly?

[dschenken]

Creo Parametric does not use multibody components. A version of this has been on my wish list for a while as a way to handle cases where an item originally concepted as a part is forced to be replaced with an assembly - for example: a sheetmetal part has a PEM nut added.

A google search of "multibody part creo" shows a few requests, but it probably isn't enough to offset some data management problems. Even the Solidworks documentation cautions against using them in place of assemblies.

It might be useful sometimes, but it's a pretty large change and I don't expect Creo Parametric to ever have it.

Creo can do disconnected volumes in a single part, but if the features intersect Creo merges them and they can't have different densities like some other CAD allows. Most anything one would do with multibody can be done with assembly. It's a convenience function.

[CAD_user]

OK. In catia as my workflow, i use a lot of bodies. For example if I have a part that in an assembly needs some special feature to accomudate it, I draw those features in a body for a later occoomudation to the assembly. I think it's quite usefull.

But if this is'nt possible, how do I behave, for the final result be something like this?

https://youtu.be/hyieSLMfuWQ?t=42

[TomU]

While multi-body parts are under development, what you're showing in these two videos can't be done "out-of-the-box" with Creo.  You will need to either write your own custom programs (Java, C++, etc.) or use a 3rd party utility.  For assembling components dynamically and then automatically updating the models for these additions, I would suggest you take a look at Sigmaxim's Smart Assembly or maybe Simplfied Logic's Nitro-Cell.

Here is a older video showing SmartAssmbly in action:

Here is a video showing automation with Nitro-Cell:

[countdown]

"While multi-body parts are under development"

Is it under development? Been wishing this for long time and it was a huge shock when Creo didn't have this function.

[dschenken]

Multi-body parts is nice, but it's not necessary. It's a really old-fashioned way to work and is how CAD models were originally built before assembly modeling really came to the fore.

[countdown]

"old-fashioned way"

And Creo isn't ready to take this feature into use yet.

With layout design multi-body design is very fast and effective. With Creo, this effective way of working is impossible because lack of the feature. Sure it's not necessary but if we go at that level, why we need computers. We could still use pencils.

[dschenken]

Old fashioned = I was building models with multi-body modelers in the early 1980s. Getting rid of that was a big improvement. Until PTC and the like, there were no 'assembly' modelers. Each file was a standalone with parts, 'assemblies,' and drawings all as one garbage chunk with a modeling mode and a drawing mode and a bunch of layers to separate the pieces. It was easily the case that each person would have their own version of a 'part' still stuck in their own work, a version that was out of date or just wrong. By forcing parts to be separate from assemblies so that everyone could use just one version of each, a great deal of error source was eliminated.

Anything that is advantageous of multi-body is better handled with a skeleton model or the Layout module, which is faster.

[countdown]

If I understood you correctly and correct if I am wrong.

It's old fashioned because there is one part which contain all individual solids. All in one is hard to maintain. Right? Is this what you ment?

Nowadays workflow with multibodies is different. Idea is not build a one big mess which contain everything. I do flexible layout design (example Autodesk Inventor or Solidworks) with blocks and multibodies which are easy to convert assembly/assemblies. It's very flexible and easy to simulate movements etc. (example 2d blocks which you can turn solidbodies). How you do this kind of design with Creo? You cannot.

I checked skeleton design:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5qCR-CElPg

Seems you can do 2D motion after all. It's hard to understand why PTC do not put these features together. Why it has to be skeleton modelling and working separately?

[countdown]

Been using Inventor and Creo for years and iLogic and it's way superior compared to Pro/programming.

If I could choose, I would take iLogic every time. Like somebody said, pro/programming get things done. Sure but how much you are willing to use time and effort. Pro/programming is like Creo, a ghost from past.

[pvn]

I am Inventor user. Now have to work with Creo. And I wouldn't recommend it. Inventor despite it's bugs is much more intuitive system. Creo is not.

[CAD_user]

Today I 'm working with catia, and it's not as straightforward as many thinks. It's really powerful and really expensive. I have worked in past with solidedge, solidworks, nx and now with catia, and after get used to them, it's the same. All have their strengths and their weaknesses, some works better for one kind of job, and another works better for other kind of jobs. It's a matter of get used to it and do things like software wants, not like you used to do in other software. Believe me I used to thought like you, until someone show me that is not true. Otherwise everybody would work in inventor, and they don't

[HamsterNL]

I have worked with Autodesk Inventor 5.0 up till Autodesk Inventor 2012, then made the switch to PRO/Engineer. 

Despite the learning curve, I do recommend Creo.