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."
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:
Ha ha, like all demos, this is of course very coloured. All examples shown are very much in favour of the free modelling approach. Note that all the free modelling changes do not interfere with any other features. What if a pocket depth changes to the extent that it crosses another feature? What if you don't want to rotate that plane around a real edge, but rather a virtual edge?
They are right about one thing though: sometimes you want design intent in your model, and sometimes you want it switched off. Being able to do that is very powerful.
As a former local PTC manager told me a dozen or so years ago: Pro/Engineer's history-based parametric CAD is not the best method, but it does ensure that your model is fully constrained and that the behaviour is predictable. Free modelling CAD is much nicer to design with, but the unconstrained-ness can lead to some very unexpected behaviour.
I officially deny the "power" of this system.
That's like... my "official" denial. I may be a bit punchy from too many meetings lately but... seriously? Why is this even a thread?
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 that....er 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 approach....it 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.
I disagree, while it lends itself pretty well to working with non-parametric geometry it's also been promoted as a means to satisfy late design changes, especially for those with limited capabilities. Personally I'm not real sold on it as the best way to go for having a good model database to work with or from. If all you care about is getting the model changed, and really don't know any better, then it's probably okay. I've always felt that there's a lot of value in having models that can be reused, especially when designs are similar or follow design standards. If you have a complex model with a lot of features, and then someone did a lot of cheap and easy modifications using direct modeling, that model probably won't be very reusable. Of course, "reusable" can mean somewhat different things to different people. For me, reusable in this context is something that can be torn apart to a some extent and made into something without going thru the entire design process again, while retaining much of the design intent or design standards, and preferably also have most of drawing as well. Quite a bit of time, and as we all know, time is money, can be saved by doing so. This is something that is lost on a lot of people, especially those who never learned a CAD system, as well as those who may be somewhat "functional" with a CAD program, but don't really have the capability to successfully make real changes without losing much or most of the model while doing so, and there's a lot of these people out there.