my opinion on creo by user catia

[lelevt]

hi to all after several years of modeling in catia v5 in different sectors, especially automotive plastic components, where I acquired a deep knowledge of the software (I was also company teacher for other designers) I entered a company where I started working with creo 3.0.
I knew that the approach would be very different, that I had to put myself in the head of starting from zero, and also that I could not have the potential of caia but little less than what I felt.

but

After 1 year in which I put it all through classes with an official ptc teacher, I can say I ran into the worst example of software I have ever used. it is according to a cad and a software conceived decades ago, carried out changing the graphic garments and little more.
its obsolescence is clearly visible, starting from small things like the distinction between uppercase and lowercase and the refusal of space in file names, typical characteristics of the computer of another era and above all in conflict with the windows environment on which the software turns, up to many other things now difficult to list.
the power of the software is there, I don't deny it, but it is hidden under such a cryptic and Moroccan approach to make it almost unusable. a software that fails to interface with the user has already lost in departure, and gradually serve aesthetic embellishments like the commands organized in office style, because the logic of operation does not change.
the novelties of each release seem to me more than anything else you find advertising and addition of new functions, but the part of the modeling remains unchanged and very lacking. I think the absence of solid multi-body and boolean operations is absurd, which could greatly streamline the work.
Perhaps after years of training and experience I would be able to use it fully, but I do not see why having to bang the head on a piece of software like this when there is a caia that, as complex as it is, everything is much more linear and intuitive and without limitations.
now fortunately use solidworks. Although it is less powerful, I found it more usable but he also makes me regret a lot of catia.

I believe that those who "are well" are especially the people who started with pros decades ago and have never tried anything else, because other explanation I can't find.
I would recommend to those who are evaluating the purchase, to weigh very well! spending more buying caia could be very well spent money!

 

[320i S]

hi to all after several years of modeling in catia v5 in different sectors, especially automotive plastic components, where I acquired a deep knowledge of the software (I was also company teacher for other designers) I entered a company where I started working with creo 3.0.
I knew that the approach would be very different, that I had to put myself in the head of starting from zero, and also that I could not have the potential of caia but little less than what I felt.

but

After 1 year in which I put it all through classes with an official ptc teacher, I can say I ran into the worst example of software I have ever used. it is according to a cad and a software conceived decades ago, carried out changing the graphic garments and little more.
its obsolescence is clearly visible, starting from small things like the distinction between uppercase and lowercase and the refusal of space in file names, typical characteristics of the computer of another era and above all in conflict with the windows environment on which the software turns, up to many other things now difficult to list.
the power of the software is there, I don't deny it, but it is hidden under such a cryptic and Moroccan approach to make it almost unusable. a software that fails to interface with the user has already lost in departure, and gradually serve aesthetic embellishments like the commands organized in office style, because the logic of operation does not change.
the novelties of each release seem to me more than anything else you find advertising and addition of new functions, but the part of the modeling remains unchanged and very lacking. I think the absence of solid multi-body and boolean operations is absurd, which could greatly streamline the work.
Perhaps after years of training and experience I would be able to use it fully, but I do not see why having to bang the head on a piece of software like this when there is a caia that, as complex as it is, everything is much more linear and intuitive and without limitations.
now fortunately use solidworks. Although it is less powerful, I found it more usable but he also makes me regret a lot of catia.

I believe that those who "are well" are especially the people who started with pros decades ago and have never tried anything else, because other explanation I can't find.
I would recommend to those who are evaluating the purchase, to weigh very well! spending more buying caia could be very well spent money!

hi, I used catia v6 for 2 and a half years at many levels, passing by surface modeling (I must be sincere), to management of assemblies of components of more than 3000 objects.
from the other I have pro-e experience and then I have been creating for about 14 years.

to read if you put me as before the fact of the nomination of objects, makes me understand that maybe you have seen little of this software.
on the other I can tell you candidly that if on the modeling side of the individual object, catia is a great program under almost all points of view (environment sketch no, I'm sorry, creo has several extra commands, constraints first, the possibility to create relationships within the sketch and not necessarily outside).
In the axiemi field, I create is really far ahead of caia and already all in the basic package, if we put the advanced assembly, the possibilities grow exponentially.
without entering into the bows of the programs, I put you only 3 aspects where I create is light years ahead of catia:
-Logic tree management components (repeat and grouping for a pre-industrialization product)
-Series of components (but already in the environment part you have several extra possibilities) and series of series
-management of partial representations of assemblies parallel to explosions and analysis mechanisms.

Surely there are some "symmetry" caskets like the symmetry bond, but already the fact that to reorder the components you cannot have additional parameters but only the name of the object, makes you soon forget that something more.

on average a set of 2000-2500 components even with catechism v6 I used 30% more time than with creo.

 

[Diabolikke]

hi to all after several years of modeling in catia v5 in different sectors, especially automotive plastic components, where I acquired a deep knowledge of the software (I was also company teacher for other designers) I entered a company where I started working with creo 3.0.
I knew that the approach would be very different, that I had to put myself in the head of starting from zero, and also that I could not have the potential of caia but little less than what I felt.

but

After 1 year in which I put it all through classes with an official ptc teacher, I can say I ran into the worst example of software I have ever used. it is according to a cad and a software conceived decades ago, carried out changing the graphic garments and little more.
its obsolescence is clearly visible, starting from small things like the distinction between uppercase and lowercase and the refusal of space in file names, typical characteristics of the computer of another era and above all in conflict with the windows environment on which the software turns, up to many other things now difficult to list.
the power of the software is there, I don't deny it, but it is hidden under such a cryptic and Moroccan approach to make it almost unusable. a software that fails to interface with the user has already lost in departure, and gradually serve aesthetic embellishments like the commands organized in office style, because the logic of operation does not change.
the novelties of each release seem to me more than anything else you find advertising and addition of new functions, but the part of the modeling remains unchanged and very lacking. I think the absence of solid multi-body and boolean operations is absurd, which could greatly streamline the work.
Perhaps after years of training and experience I would be able to use it fully, but I do not see why having to bang the head on a piece of software like this when there is a caia that, as complex as it is, everything is much more linear and intuitive and without limitations.
now fortunately use solidworks. Although it is less powerful, I found it more usable but he also makes me regret a lot of catia.

I believe that those who "are well" are especially the people who started with pros decades ago and have never tried anything else, because other explanation I can't find.
I would recommend to those who are evaluating the purchase, to weigh very well! spending more buying caia could be very well spent money!

Don't think your judgment is absolute. I can assure you that many designers create that I know, with many years of experience, when they were forced to use catia, even with adequate training and time to impratichise they found it uncomfortable, unfunctional, Moroccan and with an obsolete interface. I believe that it depends exclusively on the different methodology that every cad expects to get used to.
Bye.

 

[calacc]

I believe that those who "are well" are especially the people who started with pro/e decades ago and have never tried anything else, because other explanation I cannot find

I started with creo in 2012 with the 1.0 having tried inventor and solidworks. Perhaps I will be a white fly but I must say that I am not absolutely repented of the purchase that made the company in its time. as he said before [MENTION=69538]320i s[/MENTION] one of the strong points is the sketch environment. I can confirm it! I must say it was one of the key points for choice. keep in mind that you are comparing two products using far-off working methods, i.e. multibody and single-body. These are substantial choices that involve a conceptually different working method and does not represent at all a gap of one compared to the other.

 

[lelevt]

definitely the caia assemblies are not the maximum and is its weak point, partly because the kinematics is a package apart that you pay and also a lot.
I have always worked in companies with "just components" but geometrically complex, so for me the solid modeling part and surfaces comes first of all. in the areas with large assemblies of relatively simple pieces in fact I would never recommend caia because it would not make sense.

file names speech I don't consider it a sin let alone, but it's just for me a "symbol" of how the basic structure of the software is obsolete.

about the pro-e/creo designers who pass to catia, I tell you that I also met, and especially worked on catia files created by them. he had precisely because they have the way of working pro-e, with catia in the modeling of the single piece they work in a wrong way and not exploiting its potential, until they do real disasters. For example, creating a structure of the purely sequential tree instead of ramified and creating excessive unstable links.
to say that if one passes from one system falls to another but without changing the way of reasoning, inevitably any cad will be indigestion.

the sketch do creo environment? It is not bad but absolutely not better than that of catia or solidworks, and however always penalized by the bizarre selection systems, confirmation, cancellation.

 

[Diabolikke]

I have been working with pro-e\creo since 2005 and I find it fantastic under so many points of view. It is true that I know little other competitors so my judgment is partial, but it is a cad system that I would not change.

 

[320i S]

by the way, wanting the presence of a multibody system in a feature based, tells me that you [MENTION=2946]lelevt[/MENTION], you are trying to shape as with catia on creo, when it comes to completely different modeling languages with precisely the pros and cons with says calacc.

At the time that I approached caia v6, I clashed myself with this problem, it was not easy to admit it, but it is a fundamental step and surely the transition to solidworks was facilitated by the experience with creo.

 

[320i S]

definitely the caia assemblies are not the maximum and is its weak point, partly because the kinematics is a package apart that you pay and also a lot.
I have always worked in companies with "just components" but geometrically complex, so for me the solid modeling part and surfaces comes first of all. in the areas with large assemblies of relatively simple pieces in fact I would never recommend caia because it would not make sense.

file names speech I don't consider it a sin let alone, but it's just for me a "symbol" of how the basic structure of the software is obsolete.

about the pro-e/creo designers who pass to catia, I tell you that I also met, and especially worked on catia files created by them. he had precisely because they have the way of working pro-e, with catia in the modeling of the single piece they work in a wrong way and not exploiting its potential, until they do real disasters. For example, creating a structure of the purely sequential tree instead of ramified and creating excessive unstable links.
to say that if one passes from one system falls to another but without changing the way of reasoning, inevitably any cad will be indigestion.

the sketch do creo environment? It is not bad but absolutely not better than that of catia or solidworks, and however always penalized by the bizarre selection systems, confirmation, cancellation.

there is a reason why the name of the files is so, that is the total compatibility with the later versions of the program, for those who have very old databases, also with the pdms, the nomination section of the file, is replaced directly by the code or a progressive numerical value.
from the other, the possibility to call the files as you want, generates a lot of abuses of all kinds (double or triple spaces, so long names that are not inside a logical tree of "human" size etc.)

tell me what is in the sketch solidworks or catia environment, which is not in creo, to prefer the first 2.

 

[lelevt]

by the way, wanting the presence of a multibody system in a feature based, tells me that you [MENTION=2946]lelevt[/MENTION], you're trying to shape like with cat on creo

I wouldn't say since I create working like a multibody is definitely impossible.
I attended courses very carefully and spent months analyzing the creo files already present in the company, following tutorials and online guides. I understood the difference in modeling method, and my conclusion was that the multibody method is enormously more functional.
we always talk about complex parts, not simple parts in large assemblies.

320i s, you miss that solidworks is multibody.

 

[lelevt]

tell me what is in the sketch solidworks or catia environment, which is not in creo, to prefer the first 2.

the superiority of the cat sketch is not as much for how geometry is created but for how it is placed. a little difficult to explain in words but ultimately more functional and stable in updates.

 

[lelevt]

there is a reason why the name of the files is so, that is the total compatibility with the later versions of the program, for those who have very old databases, .......

I know of this, in fact, in my opinion the choice of creo in a company makes sense only in the case of necessity to exploit the archive of the past, and in fact at the moment is definitely the thing on which ptc points since until now a complete rewriting of the basic engine of the software there has never been

 

[320i S]

I wouldn't say since I create working like a multibody is definitely impossible.
I attended courses very carefully and spent months analyzing the creo files already present in the company, following tutorials and online guides. I understood the difference in modeling method, and my conclusion was that the multibody method is enormously more functional.
we always talk about complex parts, not simple parts in large assemblies.

320i s, you miss that solidwork is multibody.

solidworks was born as a feature based, so much so that in the middle of 2000, he had programmers taken to the ptc.

I repeat that the multibody system is a modeling language, the feature based is another, make a comparison you do it only according to your experience with the cad in question.
complex components I made them myself with creo (still in pro-e version), if you strutturi with order and group in an oculated way the model tree, is equally manageable.

 

[320i S]

the superiority of the cat sketch is not as much for how geometry is created but for how it is placed. a little difficult to explain in words but ultimately more functional and stable in updates.

I still don't follow you, I remind you that I used v6, the only particular thing I remember, is that you can omit quotas and references, with all the risks of the case, and that you can isolate the sketch at any time, and also here with risks.
on the stability of updates, I still don't understand, if the sketches jump in regeneration, there is something that doesn't go upstream.

 

[320i S]

I know of this, in fact, in my opinion the choice of creo in a company makes sense only in the case of necessity to exploit the archive of the past, and in fact at the moment is definitely the thing on which ptc points since until now a complete rewriting of the basic engine of the software there has never been

mmm you are forwarding to a topic that you know little, believe me, there are many commands that in the case of old maths, are re-edited with the old interface (type environment unix) but for the new maths, you can only use the last-generation commands (so more efficient), example the hole feature: from wildfire 3 to 4, are 2 different commands.

 

[lelevt]

solidworks è nato come feature based......

it will also be born as a feature based but then they obviously added the possibility of having the multibody and Boolean operations, and the thing in fact turns out to be very useful.

I still don't follow you, I remind you that I used v6, the only particular thing I remember, is that you can omit quotas and references, with all the risks of the case, and that you can isolate the sketch at any time, and also here with risks.
on the stability of updates, I still don't understand, if the sketches jump in regeneration, there is something that doesn't go upstream.

If talking about sketch positioned you don't follow me, then it means that you've never exploited that potential and used the sketch as you're used to using it in creo.
sketches jump into regeneration for a thousand reasons and it happens daily, with catia if you know how to work you can create a bomb-proof sketch if you want it.

mmm you are forwarding to a topic that you know little, believe me, there are many commands that in the case of old maths, are re-edited with the old interface (type environment unix) but for the new maths, you can only use the last-generation commands (so more efficient), example the hole feature: from wildfire 3 to 4, are 2 different commands.

I know the subject well in fact several times I worked on files where the "old" features were present, and I also touched having to fix them because they missed references. The software must also contain all the old pro-e code, and the kernel remains the same otherwise it would not be possible to work on those old features.

 

[Diabolikke]

but because we do not start posting practical examples to prove that catia is better than I create so we have a little fun. The chats are zero, they count the facts.

 

[marcof]

solidworks è nato come feature based,

it will also be born as a feature based but then they obviously added the possibility of having the multibody and Boolean operations, and the thing in fact turns out to be very useful.

apologize both, explain why, how do you clearly show from what you write, being born as a feature based is in contradiction with the multibody and the Boolean?
solidworks is feature based and in fact the Boolean are features that are in the tree of history and that can be reordered only according to the story itself and the father functions. Similarly all freeform functions are feature based and parametric. in swx there is no context modeling or a mixed environment as on solidedge or nx.
the multibody then I'm afraid that there really is no bat about being feature based.
Are you sure you don't mess up?

 

[marcof]

but because we do not start posting practical examples to prove that catia is better than I create so we have a little fun. The chats are zero, they count the facts.

forward there is place:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/35324-focus-sull-usabilità:smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

forward there is place:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/35324-focus-sull-usabilità

What a good time!

to reread those discussions, with a little stiff hair, you understand who frequents the forum to share and know and who instead to sell something more....

 

[320i S]

apologize both, explain why, how do you clearly show from what you write, being born as a feature based is in contradiction with the multibody and the Boolean?solidworks è feature based and in fact the Boolean are features that are in the tree of history and that can be reordered only according to the story itself and the functions father. Similarly all freeform functions are feature based and parametric. in swx there is no context modeling or a mixed environment as on solidedge or nx.
the multibody then I'm afraid that there really is no bat about being feature based.
Are you sure you don't mess up?

No need to add anything else.
for what little I have seen of solidworks, I have always seen feature, the multibody system I can acknowledge that there is in the last versions (see who is the mother house), since after 2014 I did not have a chance to see, but that it became totally multibody would seem quite strange to me.