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

Community Tip - Did you get an answer that solved your problem? Please mark it as an Accepted Solution so others with the same problem can find the answer easily. X

How to isolate results to only Creo Simulate Topics?


How to isolate results to only Creo Simulate Topics?



Under the old forum when I went to the Simulate/Analysis part of the forum one would perty much only see Simulate FEA and Mechanism Analysis related posts.

How in this new forum do we return only Simulate FEA related questions/Enhancement requests?



Don Anderson

Creo User since 1994+

Don Anderson
No time Like the Present!
23-Emerald II

It's not there yet. There has been a lot of talk about this, not just on simulate but overall.

The only thing you can do now is go to additional creo questions area and then hit the "label" for analysis and simulate.  Unfortunately you will only get 7 results at this point.

@Tmetcalf and others at PTC are working on the structure and maybe they are getting close to making the whole mess a little more user friendly.



It's difficult not to be jaded. I returned to this latest incarnation of the forum simply to post dozens of simulate enhancement requests before I retire thinking, maybe, perhaps ... PTC might fix finite friction before then.


There are so many categories, labels, tags here.


For Simulate we have possible labels I have identified so far :









I'm sure I have seen 'Mechanica' somewhere; or was that a 'tag'?


I started posting my ideas under 'STRUCTURE' but cannot add more labels after posting


On creation of a post, not all the labels are there so they cannot be added in the first instance.


Searching other 'labels' I find I have duplicated some previous requests. Any votes for an idea, unless linked with other similar ideas by a community elf will therefore be diluted at best with the probable result that users appear disinterested.  The requests I had duplicated are years old. We have 'HOT', 'TOP' and 'NEW' but no 'WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS AND THIS IS OUR VIEW, NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT'. Were these older posts considered at all or did the user waste time?


Not only do I find this sytem impossible to use but I now find it's a race to retirement between me and Simulate. Without defining a timeline, a decision to replace Simulate with Ansys has been made at some user group meeting apparently. I cannot find info on this and I'm not going to spend hours looking. It was proposed to me in a PM yesterday that I not waste my time posting more ideas as money will not be spent on Simulate development by PTC given the direction of travel toward Ansys.


Although off your topic of forum structure and search-ability, I will park some ideas here, a non-exhaustive list of the top of my head:


  • Rotational solids from shells like we used to in Mechanica, the mapped mesh method is difficult to use, time consuming ...
  • Allow mapped, prismatic at all levels in the assembly tree.
  • Box/individual select elements in post processor for realtime stats e.g. average stress, max-min
  • Improve the output options from dynamic studies. Add discrete linear damper element, gyroscopic effects, spin softening, more modal combination methods, fix post processor dyn freq phase problems, combine prestress and dyn time, read in a complete time series and not limit the number of rows, constraint force measurements, actually implement some better CPU use ...
  • Mesh dilation control.
  • Fatigue advisor - permit a complete time series to me read in, don't limit the rows.
  • API to let us play with the results
  • Constraint equations API
  • Clip the mesh as well as the structure when capping
  • Allow process quiescence and/or restart points.
  • Output signed VM stress (or let us play with the results)
  • Time steps/user defined steps confusion. No need for both.
  • Time step input form is difficult to use.
  • More mesh stats, allow identification of highest aspect ratios (by capping?) and not just approximated elements.
  • Publish how to access the binary results file so that we can write our own code to play with the results. (ascii output tends to be too big)
  • Keep node numbering constistent if re-using a mesh.
  • Permit part/assy mesh to be reused if part has been moved to a new position. Do not renumber the nodes.
  • Fix the number order in outputs such as the summary file. I like 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 ... not 101-109, 10 , 110-119, 11, 120-129, 12, ...
  • Bring back animation of contact solutions, user chooses number of steps and is not limited to 0 & 1. Like we used to.
  • Thermal - Let us use both convection and radiation simultaneously.
  • Improve the Analysis Definition dialogue for many load/constraint cases
  • Give us back asynchronous RPT, PAS, STT windows. We used to be able to leave these windows open and return to the model or shutdown the software, give the licenses back (except the engine), I have to use wintail. (tail -f for unix users).
  • Node ID's in the post processor.
  • Pattern fasteners
  • Cable element
  • Publish much more technical information of how SPA and MPA works, what the advanced SPA actually does (the maths)
  • etc


I guess 'kudos' points is better than some category of space cadet I was awarded in an earlier version of this.

Top Tags