Martin, Indeed with the Legacy search, You can get access to the sweep cut command but the problem is that in creating the sketched trajectory, on a datum plane (on the fly) through a datum point (on the fly) is NOT possible
because the Datum feature creation commands in the ribbon are 'grayed out'.
What is more, it's ridiculous to go back to the very old style Pro/E commands because the Ribbon is not well designed.
I have also found that after creating a hole table and doing any modifications to the table, as soon as I create a text note on the drawing, the table updates to it's original state .
It is true that PTC doesn't do everything correctly, but I think that's partly due to requests/demands, but the single biggest problem in business is the ridiculous hurry up and get it done requirement, as though superiors have any idea what it actually takes to get the job done correctly. If we didn't have the military chain of command thing to deal with and had management that didn't just make demands, but actually managed properly most of our products and software would be far better.
The issue I have with all of the complaints is that you really do have to work with what the software does, and stop thinking it should do something else. Stop fighting it and utilize it, they often know what's best, rather than some user with rather limited knowledge/ability who thinks it should do something else. I think a big part of the problem is that management is making demands of their software guys that probably aren't really what should be done. Marketing is responding to the people who think it should be like solidworks. Solidworks isn't very good, but it lets you use sloppy techniques and still create features where Pro-E says hell no.
Daniel you talk abot slopy techniques, however in sheet metal you can model things that overlap when unfolded and Pro-E lets you get away with it. I will always remember a Solid Edge induction day, where I brought in a sample from Pro-E to see if it would load it up and Solid Edge instantly flaged up the problems. Solid Edge does not let you do silly things like that.
Solid Edge has actually killed off Pro-E and got PTC running like a headless chicken to catch up with the superior non history dependent modelling system. The syncronous tech is a ground breaking game changer. That is why it is market leader....It is designed by actual engineers ,for engineers and not by software programmers with what they think is a great idea at the time.
Solid Edge is a throw-away product that Seimens bought. It hasn't killed anything and isn't a market leader. It was originally developed by Intergraph, which was eventually bought by UGS, which was bought by Seimens. Seimens own flagship NX, itself formerly a UGS product, is a competitor to Solid Edge.
This is what "Synchronous Technology" means to a user - more complexity.
"Because synchronous technology only re-computes faces that are affected by an edit, I may not have to fully constrain a model."
it may be ground breaking, but my interaction with people using solid edge hear in India is they..still use the "history" approach....
yes since "creo" PTC has made some mistakes..user interface etc......but proe is still very powerful and logical software....
That's true, it always has allowed the user to create overlapping flat geometry, but that isn't the type of shoddy techniques I was referring to. It's always been the user's responsibility to check the flat to verify the sheet-metal design for that. I'm talking about model techniques for building models, I've seen solidworks tutorials that can't be followed step by step because Pro-E permit some of the modeling techniques that solidworks permits. I remember one where someone modeled something using draft as a major feature, and the draft geometry collapsed in upon itself. While solidworks allowed it, Pro-E wouldn't. Someone who learned on solidworks, would probably expect the techniques he learned while using it, to also work in other cad systems.
I had a little exposure to solid edge, I was not impressed by it, but to be honest it did have some features that were useful and convenient for specific feature/geometry types.
Creo, and others also have the syncronous capabilities you're referring to, simply using other names for it.
Yes many packages have a history of different ownership. You can trace back solid edge and Solid works to the same Kernel.
Siemens did buy it from Unigraphics with big problems and took it off the market for a few years to develop and introduce the syncronous tech to it, long before Creo was ever launched. Creo is PTC's response to it, introducing syncronous tech only recently.
NX is the flagship but Solid Edge is at a different price point in the market place.
You cannot deny the power of this system.
History vs non history example here: