I originally trained in Pro/E and then switched to SolidWorks in 2005. Priorities meant I completed my first project before there was time to send me on the training course. However, I successfully transferred my skills without a problem. After 12-13 years I have just taken a new job which required swapping back to Creo. I consider myself pretty CAD and IT proficient and didn't think it would be a problem. How wrong! It has been the most frustrating 3 months of my professional career. Tasks I know would only take 30 minutes in SolidWorks can take me double that. This time I felt I needed the training course and went armed with a long list of questions. I'm not sure I came away any better off.
Without a doubt it takes longer to create parts in Creo. The interface is not intuitive or consistent. It is so frustrating to know I could be more productive for my new employers. It's like trying to design with one arm tied behind my back. Like somebody else posted, I spend too much time every day on this forum and others trying to find out how to access some basic menu or function.
Today I wanted to sweep/blend between two non-planar profiles with a another compound profile in the middle. It took dozens of features!!! Boundary surfaces, merges & trims. I did it in SW afterwards in 2 minutes.
People keep telling me it'll get better. I get paid to use Creo so I'll use Creo, but I think it'll always frustrate me to know there are better tools out there.
Man it cracks me up when SW users complain about creo. Obviously, if you can't figure out how to do it in creo, they should go back to using SolidQuirks.
I have 20+ years in creo, have become an advanced user in NX, and can get around in SolidQuirks, and, quite simply, creo and NX have power S/Q simply does not have. For instance, when my last company had me evaluate the 2, I gave the S/Q Application Engineer 10 different, difficult step files from things I'd done in creo....and the guy could not faithfully reproduce a SINGLE one. Not. One. He tried 2 fudge a couple of the easier ones, but when he tried to pass them off as "done" in our next company meeting, I caught his glaring mistakes. Then, I went on the S/Q forums (to make some trouble), to see what they were having issues with. I easily solved every issue they had, and most of them were not do-able in S/Q. The one that a high-level Dassault Application engineer was able to come close to solving, took 3 times the features, was nowhere near as robust, and was not anywhere as easy to modify.
Then there's the fact they don't have trajpar, no spinal or toroidial bend, or graph features, and have a hard stop at 100 twists in a trajectory........
So, when people complain and claim it takes MORE features and time in creo than S/Q, I laugh. Millenials these days....LOL
"Man it cracks me up when SW users complain about creo. Obviously, if you can't figure out how to do it in creo, they should go back to using SolidQuirks."
Why the personal insult? Why do you assume you are better than me or anyone else just because you have a different opinion?
I think we’re straying off topic. To bring it back…
Perhaps it depends on the type of product you develop? I work with injection moulded plastic components so lots of complex surfaces. Anyone any thoughts?
To calm down I invested the time to follow the links you put in your last post . The very final response summed everything up perfectly for me........
"Creo Pros over SW:
- Tree rebuilds faster
- more robust parametric relationships - and when they are not you have Reroute
- Very powerful patterning (because ref. features can be pattern and then used to pattern child features)
- not much has changed: an advantage (I'm not kidding, I was away from Proe for 9.5 years and it was easy to pick it back up because not much changed in 9.5 years - just the UI.)
- Autodimension in the sketcher (soft Dimensions) and automatically relationships in the sketcher (although occasionally they can bit you in the A**)
SW Pros over ProE:
- Multibody modeling... need I say more?
- 3D sketches. most of all the versatility you get with 2D sketch but can create 3D sketch geometry - and most importantly Splines. In pro, as you know, curves are not sketches, and are limited.
- Configurations, yes you have simplified reps - but not as powerful.
- Fill feature, SolidWork's Crown Jewel of surfacing features. ProE has the N-sided patch but it was crap 15 years ago and as far as I can see still is.
- Style Spline, more powerful than ISDX or Proe Curves combined.
- UI is built for quick conceptual work. I don't know quite how to state it but it seems for most features that I create in SW in one step, it takes about 5 to 8 steps to do the same thing in Pro.
- visualization of the 3D model and workspace is superior to Proe.
- Hole Wizard Toolbox. Pro has something like it but most Pro users I ask about it tell me not to bother with it (because it isn't worth the effort.) How Pro users live with out Hole wizard is astounding!
If your concern is the ability to create complex surface models, I would pick SW over ProE any day of the week. This was not always the case, but in the mid to late 2000's SW over took ProE in this department."
Well, looks like you gave it a fair shake...3 months and you should be an expert, just like in SW.
Time to move on.
Point is that you can not judge software after you have used other CAD system for so long. It takes many more hours to be objective for that matter.
I really don't understand how someone can come here and cry for not able to make one simple two point axis!? You probably wanted that Creo work in same manner like SW? Maybe one day...
Recently I was forced to make some 2D/3D in Solidworks and that was my most frustrating experience in years. That not gave me idea to go to SW forum and cry about it.
You clearly missed some posts, so let me re-post my answer:
You can also first pick the two points, then click on the Datum Axis Tool.
That's 3 clicks (and holding down the CTRL-button when selecting the points)
That's as close as to your wanted workflow as it can get. Try it 🙂
Point is that there is not extra click in order to get two point axis.
To contribute in thread titled "annoying things about Creo" you have to give some real annoyance, not something that is caused by your ignorance.
Here's the first, just delete the ".bmp" off the end for the .stp file. Attach the .sldprt file when finished, with the same coord sys location.
Here's a link: https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/106111
Looks like the creo file is smoother, more robust, and with fewer features.
Here's my "Crow" chocolate (can't afford the pricier "Dove" stuff...).
The top is perfectly spherical, with a smoooth transition to a triangular surf. See if you can;t get that smoothness....
Here's some wire routing around a toroid. See how I perfectly smoooothly transitioned from a helical trajectory to a right angle, in the winding itself and in the ends termination.
And I got a bunch of even tougher ones!
Frank, this proves nothing. Try actually reading peoples messages and supporting them, instead of pursuing your own personal glorification. You might be more likely to convince us 'doubters'.
Since you have used both systems to such a high level, what do you think are Creo's strengths are and what are SolidWorks strengths?
The most annoying thing with Creo has turned into this thread!!!
You all sound like little children...my toy is better than your toy, so prove it.
Here's another one they could "sorta" solve, but it took 5 features in SolidQuirks to creo's 2, and the radii were wrong, or were not automatically correct per how it would actually be wound. It seems you'd have to do this for EVERY outer loop unless I'm mistaken, and, well, if it was 100 plus loops.....
So, I'm still not seeing how S/Q uses less features less mouse clicks, blahblahblah......
I agree. This old thread has become thinner than diarrhoea!
Agreed. I think Frank is trying to ensure nobody ever reads anything negative about Creo ever again!
Please feel free to ask questions, preferably in a new post. We are more than willing to help.
If you don't need help and only want to complain, you will find lots of compassion on the SW forums.
There are 1000's of product ideas here were constructive criticism is what it's all about. Feel free to "vote up" the ones you would like to see implemented or make your own when you don't find what you are looking for.
The sooner you move past "I did it in SW this way, why doesn't it work that way in Creo", the sooner you will start making progress learning the software and you can add xx number of years on Creo to your resume that will make you a more valuable asset to your employer or to your future prospective employers.
Stephen thank you for your reply. This is the support I expect most of those who visit this thread are looking for.
We understand that our frustration will hopefully be short lived.
When you have been using a CAD tool for a years you forget about 'how' it works and just focus on designing. Then you change to a new CAD system and it can be hugely irritating to be struggling with even basic functions. So people visit forums like this to vent their frustration and hopefully take comfort that they are not alone.
I have good days and bad days.Sometimes I could happily throw the workstation out the window. Hopefully the bad days will come fewer with experience.
I'd also like to thank you @StephenWilliams.
Your's is the most considered and constructive post in this thread since 2012!
Again, 100% incorrect. If you'd actually look into the forums, I've been extremely vocal in my criticism about certain things in creo (the dreaded ribbon), and especially critical of Windchill. A lot of the creo issues have been fixed compared to the early creo version I was stuck on. In fact, I really like creo3.
Ummm, you missed where I said I liked creo3? I have it, NX 8.5 (old), and S/Q 2014 loaded.
For you, there is a way to turn on the "neon" highlight you're used to in SW (and I actually like in creo):
For those that are using neon effect here are some extra neon display control options (the first one, and any others you want need to be in your "config.pro" file):
width of the blur, but is dependent on the glow_line_width
default value was 6.3.
0 gives no highlight
1 barely any glow, only a thicker line
3 starts to show a glow
6 default look
12 getting toward a more flat look
24+ gives same basic effect to the glow_blur_type -1
1 fading glow, further from line, less intense
-1 flat glow, more like a wide-transparent flat line behind selected object (my preference now)
width of the base highlight line that is blurred. when blur-radius = 1 the selection will be wide and opaque. when blur-radius larger, the glow-line will be more transparent but the wider the line_width the more opaque the highlight appears.
"I probably know far more about SolidWorks than you know about Creo."
I'll take that bet, and you'll lose.
I'm going to post some STEP files here, and dare you to faithfully recreate them. All the people on the S/Q forums couldn't, or if they came even close, they used 3 times the features and it wasn't as modifyable or robust. Like I said, S/Q lacks the tools I'll use to create them.
There's a reason the US gov't (Navy, NASA, DOE - I've worked at all 3) uses creo or NX instead of S/Q for aerospace work etc..
I started using AutoCAD in '86, mastered that, took it far beyond where it's 3D capabilities should allow it to go, then switched to Pro/E in '96. Now I'm using NX for now, but still have creo 3 on my system, and while I don't like the NX UI, it's far more powerful than S/Q.