Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 



friend since you have only used creo 2.0 and creo 3.0...well you have not used actual pro/e then....which stopped at pro/e 4.0 i guess.....

pro/e has immense power...every time you think this can't be done..proe has a good way out..its all there..its like a puzzle..i love this puzzle but only till pro/e 4.0...

assembly is good in pro/e..i do not like the solidworks way of assembly....

no doubt solidworks is the easiest to use....

i do not like at all the way creo 2.0 and creo 3.0 have come up....

but trust me pro/e is wonderful...



It's interesting that Solidworks seems to be the default competitor here - in my company (primarily automotive), Catia is the 'other' CAD system, with NX a poor third.

Apart from an out-of-date version of Unigraphics way back when I was at Uni, and RADAN on my sandwich year, Pro/E is really my only CAD experience so I suppose I don't really know what I'm missing... I've been using Pro/E since 2000i^2, and have benefited from a proper training course (three days off-site IIRC) and then being closely guided by colleagues who have also been properly trained.

I'm currently doing a sort of exchange with the chap sat opposite me who is very experienced with Catia - he's helping me with that, and I'm helping him with Creo 2, both of us basically just trying to muddle through asking questions when we need to (no proper training course this time!). The ways of thinking are rather different, and as you'd expect there are a couple of nice capabilities in each package, but it's too early to really make a call as to which is 'best'. Amazingly I do think Catia's drawing module is worse, though - and I'm beginning to really understand the 'P' in 'PTC', because Catia seems much less parametric.


Shell, Sweeps, Blends, etc.
CREO sucks at advanced solid modeling.

I have a model that is a solid cylinder with with 2 "ports" removed from the cylinder, 1 is a sweep and the other is a blend. This is nothing fancy. I want to shell the model to represent a cast part. CREO fails.
I've tried to build this model 10 different ways.
I've tried building the sweep and blend as individual solid features and then trim them back to a thickened extrude of the cylinder. I've tried developing multiple surfaces (another retarded methodology in CREO which takes forever) and errors eventually blow everything up.
And I'm no spring chicken on CREO or CAD in general. I used to be a CATIA V5 instructor and have over 15 years in CAD work, almost all in advanced modeling.

CREO is like working with a politicians trying to explain common sense only to find out that the part of the brain necessary for the conversation was never present in the first place.



CATIA makes CREO and Solidworks look like children's playthings. CATIA runs circles around them.
CATIA's sketcher is infinitely more capable than CREO's, from the ability to quickly link dimensions, to getting geometry built for complex profiels, actually being able to project silhoette geometry, etc.

The only thing I've done in CREO that beats CATIA is the generation of text on models for part numbering. CATIA doesn't perform well at all in that category.


Hmmm, hey Brian, looks like the ports intersect, and I'd imagine that's where the trouble lies?


Probably not the ports, but the thickened surfaces of the ports.

If you shell it using a very small thickness it probably works okay.

But of course you would simply want it to work, without having to figure out first why it doesn't work, and then think of a workaround...


I agree on sketcher, I know some didn't like seeing the constraints displayed like that and I never got why that would be. Seemed like an improvement to know how it solved so you could tweak on it... if it was thinking parallel or conincident or whatever, that was easy to address. Of course rewinding the clock, I recall having to keep the assembly constraints in your head because prior to release 17, there was no dialog to keep you aware of top/top, front/front, and right/right. Then again, the yellow side of the datum meant something back then and the whole basket of misery really made you model with purpose knowing you'd be assembling it all later... anyways...

Thanks for the reply, my suggestion to PTC would be to round up a few of us dinosaurs that know their product (better than they do appearantly) and let us create Creo 4 and fix most all of these F ups for them.

To the posts on SW and Catia, its hard to relate to what you know how to address this because we come from different worlds and before we stray totally off topic, this is a bitch thread about Creo so lets leave it at that. The root complaint for many of us for sure is the fact that our functionality is in there, it just gets moved and hidden further away every release. We are constantly promised less clicks and faster access, and today we have more clicks than ever and this hideous POS front end that is focused on icons and heiroglyphics and ribbon tabs, totally obfuscating our wants and needs in modeling a flipping part. Not only that, but the menu's are still there in some cases, as is query select, but you just can't find it. Try to actually select import data doctor. You can't, it doesn't have a menu and there isn't a button.

Anyhow too many replies to address now so in rapid fire... what is Autohotkey, never heard of it.. SW guy hates accuracy and fails alot, odd, years go by and I never mess with it, it never fails for me, I think that problem is elsewhere... what did I hate about SW, sketches that solve with 89.1 degree square corners and everything about drawing mode, I don't know, I found it horrid... assembly mode in pro/e has critics, really? it's not cryptic at all to me, in fact the addition of mechanism is sweet, we aren't all happy about that?... below the cylinder ports, that looks like a cake walk, how can it not shell? I don't think the intersecting ports would kill it, but it's worth a look. I am more concerned with how the circles at the large end of the ports exactly intersect with the boundary of the cylinder. That seems like a big no-no to me, I would back those into the body a little and get rid of that mass ganglia of verticies. As pictured there are four of these, two each at the end of the circles... blended sweeps and VSS are cash, shell is amazing, combo these for the win seems like the way to go so, try different thicknesses to see if it regens, then turn off one port at a time to narrow down where it pukes, I bet it's pilot error more than the software, pro/e is beyond capable of making that thing man

if you're on Creo 3 post the model, I'll look at it pro bono


mmm. This morning we had a model in sheet metalwork like a wedge of cheese. We wanted to put a 10 degrees angle to both sides and keep the base the same. The base is a void, ie no metal, we wanted to add the 10 degrees from the non bend side, so the base remains a rectangle. Let me see if there is a tool for not found one. This in the end involved a total rebuild of the part. Remade in solid to get the start shape, used convert to sheet metal, it still remains a solid, not very powerful there. Rebuilt the whole model.. no other option.

Now if that was Solid Edge all I would have to do is to drag steering wheel to the fixed base side, apply the 10 degrees, hit mirror option, job done, in minutes. In Creo a whole morning wasted. Pehaps you have a solution to this constant need to rebuild models, when in other packages it is a tweek here and there, Brian.

You also ask why this thread? Cannot you see, it is a way of defining why Creo comes short in so many areas, and if PTC even bother to come here, it is a starting point for them to research how other people have tackled the many issues Creo has. It is a way of being subjective and putting the problems in context.


that is with synchronous modelling right?

i will tell you one think for sure.....if you do it right in pro/e....there will be very few issues....

perhaps that's why everyone..else copied the parametric mode of modelling....

and now suddenly its not worth it right?.....

name a software..which does not use the parametric started with PTC....then everyone followed...


Rohit, I believe PTC have answered your question, with the introduction of Creo Direct.

Parametric, thus is considered old hat, even by the inventors of the mode of modeling.

Yes Siemens bought out the Unigraphics package, took it off the market, then introduced it as Solid Edge with the non history based synchronous modeling, that even PTC have conceded to.