from creo to solid works

[10boom85]

Good morning, everyone!

the company for which I work design with creo elements for about 5 years.
cause acquisition by an American group that uses sw, we are now in the evaluation phase to understand what would really imply migration from creo to solidworks of all our archive drawings and assemblies (at the moment managed by siemens teamcenter and in the future by enovia... but the question pdm/plm would leave it to another thread).

I would have some general question to which I hope some users of the forum can shed light:

- what are the pros and counter engineers of solidworks vs. creo? the company produces mechanical components from plastic molding and extrusion.
- what could be the impacts in time and investments for a complete conversion of the 3dd/2d archive from creo to solidworks?
- how solidworks handles fems compared to creo?
- over the years we have created parametric tools for the automatic creation of 3d models and placed on the table, is it possible to convert these from creo to solidworks?

I thank you in advance for all your comments that will certainly be of valid help!

Hi.
Andrea

 

[marcof]

Good morning, everyone!

the company for which I work design with creo elements for about 5 years.
cause acquisition by an American group that uses sw, we are now in the evaluation phase to understand what would really imply migration from creo to solidworks of all our archive drawings and assemblies (at the moment managed by siemens teamcenter and in the future by enovia... but the question pdm/plm would leave it to another thread).

- what could be the impacts in time and investments for a conversion complete 3dd/2d archive from creo to solidworks?

you referred to "conversion", but in reality it will be about to remake practically everything from scratch one piece at a time. I don't want to have seemed drastic, but at the level of cad models I think I'm not wrong much. for the rest of your questions I pass the word.

 

[10boom85]

you referred to "conversion", but in reality it will be about to remake practically everything from scratch one piece at a time. I don't want to have seemed drastic, but at the level of cad models I think I'm not wrong much. for the rest of your questions I pass the word.

Thanks marco!
looking on the web I found some information about a sw tool called "featureworks" which, once imported the creo model in sw, helps to rebuild the tree of features... Sorry if I say stupid but with solidworks I have no experience!

Hi.

 

[DANI-3D]

Hello everyone
I in the past made the reverse passage, from sw to wf5, but I do not think there are many differences. I behaved like this: the old projects I converted them into iges and I reopened them with the new frozen software without the possibility of changing them. while for the most current ones with patience I have reconstructed everything.
there are functions that allow you to open other software files, but you lose a lot of information, such as references, parameterizations, relationships, constraints, cinematic connections. open a project, everything seems fine then after a while you work there find all the pieces moved.
I have done this a few years ago, I hope that in the meantime things have changed, but I doubt very much. I hope to be wrong, even because every now and then the problem is back.

 

[tartufon80]

Thanks marco!
looking on the web I found some information about a sw tool called "featureworks" which, once imported the creo model in sw, helps to rebuild the tree of features... Sorry if I say stupid but with solidworks I have no experience!

Hi.

Bye!

last year in the company considered the change of software cad.
My experience is that everyone promises miracles, then when you give them concretely a good axieme and you say "ok, let's try this", everyone turns back and they start finding "cultivates". Whatever the software, I think it's impossible a painless passage, so I agree with marcof and dani-3d.
for the complete "conversion" of the archive, from us it was proposed (by whom pays) to entrust to external this task (with mine, and some colleague, fat and silent laughter)...the thing died there.
I can't tell you, because I don't use it.
on the parametric tools (if you refer to pro/program also from us there is something in this sense) I believe, as for the speech of the archive, that you can put your soul in peace.

I greet you, in the hope that someone more competent than us can deny us. but I fear that at present the situation is this.

 

[marcof]

Thanks marco!
looking on the web I found some information about a sw tool called "featureworks" which, once imported the creo model in sw, helps to rebuild the tree of features... Sorry if I say stupid but with solidworks I have no experience!
Hi.

imho featureworks invented it to have an extra grimaldello that would allow to expel the convictions of those who have to change cad and fear that it will be a bloodbath (because it will be a bloodbath...). little more than a mirror for the alodole. read: "It doesn't serve a snipe if not for some cube with two holes." Besides, it only works with solids, so if you want to use the surfaces you will have them as imported models to thicken. Let's just forget if you have top-down assemblies. .
try to watch this video
[youtube]t2pznm8ze0[/youtube]as you see are simple models and the challenge for the recognition of features is not indifferent. You also need to redefine the sketch odds, and if they're complex you can't rely on the automatic solution that slams the odds so much to the right kilo to have the sketch completely defined. that simple model that you see at the minute 24:27 the guy takes almost 7 minutes to convert it, and take into account that it is material from demonstrations, then tried and tried so he already knows by memory where to go to click in the various options. I want to see him on a model, even simple, that he never saw. I am sure that to remake it in swx from scratch, having at disposal a table 2d of the historian with quotas, uses half time.

 

[10boom85]

Thank you guys!
as I presumed the matter will be osticated in all senses... especially because we are talking about:

~5000 parts
~11000 tables
- 6000 assemblies

I'll keep you informed!
If anyone had any other comments, please post them.

Good day to all

 

[luca1669]

I have worked about 6 years with pro/e(creo) and 3 with solidworks and according to me what has been suggested is very valid.
I add these ratings:

- what are the pros and counter engineers of solidworks vs. creo? the company produces mechanical components from plastic molding and extrusion.

according to my opinion as a solidworks interface is a bit more user-friendly and also as functionality has very smart features (short 3d first). creo is much more rigid and "difficult" to use but it is more difficult to create unmanageable models. solidworks leaves you more freedom but if you are disordered it is easier to mess up.
if the company often shapes parts with organic shapes or complex surfaces I would never pass to sw considering that you already know how to use creo; However at technical level there are no such differences to have to exclude sw.

- what could be the impacts in time and investments for a complete conversion of the 3dd/2d archive from creo to solidworks?

as already mentioned in the post before depends on what you mean as conversion: if you want to have editable models and assemblies in sw, and associated tables means remake everything. conversion that guarantee you who sells you cad means exporting everything losing feature and for the tables means non-association. I have never seen the archive recovering it completely; However, there is no mention of an immense archive. timing and costs depend on the complexity of the models you have.

- over the years we have created parametric tools for the automatic creation of 3d models and placed on the table, is it possible to convert these from creo to solidworks?

for parametric tools I mean models managed by pro/program (one time it was called so). even in this case it means to recreate them completely in sw. from the point of view of the sw programming leans on windows libraries so the creation of macros or programs previews to know API commands that when I used pro/e was not necessary; for simpler operations, it was enough to change the trail file properly and the game was done.

I hope I didn't mess with your ideas anymore.

 

[10boom85]

I have worked about 6 years with pro/e(creo) and 3 with solidworks and according to me what has been suggested is very valid.
I add these ratings:



according to my opinion as a solidworks interface is a bit more user-friendly and also as functionality has very smart features (short 3d first). creo is much more rigid and "difficult" to use but it is more difficult to create unmanageable models. solidworks leaves you more freedom but if you are disordered it is easier to mess up.
if the company often shapes parts with organic shapes or complex surfaces I would never pass to sw considering that you already know how to use creo; However at technical level there are no such differences to have to exclude sw.



as already mentioned in the post before depends on what you mean as conversion: if you want to have editable models and assemblies in sw, and associated tables means remake everything. conversion that guarantee you who sells you cad means exporting everything losing feature and for the tables means non-association. I have never seen the archive recovering it completely; However, there is no mention of an immense archive. timing and costs depend on the complexity of the models you have.



for parametric tools I mean models managed by pro/program (one time it was called so). even in this case it means to recreate them completely in sw. from the point of view of the sw programming leans on windows libraries so the creation of macros or programs previews to know API commands that when I used pro/e was not necessary; for simpler operations, it was enough to change the trail file properly and the game was done.

I hope I didn't mess with your ideas anymore.

All clear luca!
thanks for feedback.

Good day

 

[mguerra]

I am about to come across a passage from creo elements to solidworks because the company for which I work seems to have decided in this direction.
personally I have been working with I create for years and I find no particular reason to change.
I was wondering what will happen to all the complexes in which revisions of some components are handled. Is everything going to be done?
and if really the tables will lose the link with the model, if I even had to add a hole and update the table I should do everything again?
Third question, dealing with mechanical carpentry prototypes and therefore particular and complex all dissimilar use a parametric as sw would really bring advantages?

 

[Matteo]

I answer for my part, the fem simulation.

both systems have an integrated module (mixed creo, swx simulation), these respective advantages:

simulated creo (promechanica):

+ integration with the very good cad, slightly higher than that of swx (which is however excellent)
+ positioned slightly more towards the world of professional fem (which is not always an advantage, but in my case yes)
+ post processing in a distinct cad environment (very lighter with heavy simulations)
+ altogether more stable, even if it happens some inconvenience (historical solutor instability with dynamic analysis, type response in frequency, which seems to be now resolved: I can't check why, since I've been working on my own, I don't have the "advanced" license anymore, but only simulated base.

swx

+ integration of the very advanced carpentry module ("structural memebers") (so automatisms pushed from cad to fem: attention, usually is an advantage, but if the model is very complex, I prefer a manual management)
+ excellent management of contacts between 3d elements (creus is approaching in recent years, but swx, through cosmos, is in place for a long time on this front)
+ excellent integration (but it costs...) with the cfd module (also here, I create is approaching, among other things uses the same cfd solutor of third parties, that is floefd).

I do not adhere to the eternal question of the p vs h formulation of the functions of form, because advantages and disadvantages are only experienced during advanced use.

 

[painaz]

quoto every single syllable of what other users have already said.

as to the "feature recognizer" and the like for what I have seen, they are good for importing "lego" style models.

with the parametrics the great trick is that it is not only difficult to reconstruct the features automatically in other cads, but that it is not taken into account that actually the pieces sigoli are born with references tied to the assemblies. and the more the assemblies are complex the more it is guaranteed to the lemon that there is half the top-down, then skeletons. I sincerely do not know if solidwork is now so smart that it can recognize a skeleton and make it the equivalent of the sw layout, it is already difficult to build a technology that recognizes the constraints of together!

In short, boards and models you will have them, but because they are really usable in design I fear you will have to make them healthy plant.

The so-called painless passage between a cad is the other for how I see it are promises to want marks. Perhaps with s.e. and synchronous technology you can pass without remaking everything, with direct modelers instead it is feasible and I think it is why I noticed that the design studies that interface with other cad systems look with much interest to creo direct modeling or simila.

 

[mguerra]

we on creo elements do not have customizations or particular macros created for us. so I am not afraid of this, but we found a good level and balance makes our needs and the response of the cad.
the only thing that frightens our it and is pushing them to change is that it seems that the mother house of creo elements is a little abandoning the product to point to other.

 

[cacciatorino]

the only thing that frightens our it and is pushing them to change is that it seems that the mother house of creo elements is a little abandoning the product to point to other.

Excuse me, are you a big company? If you're a pmi like 99% of our country's, I would limit myself to releasing updates until you figure out what the future is, and in the meantime I would have saved a lot of money to invest in the future transition. If the cad suits your purposes I don't see any reason to keep paying for updates, that the only useful thing you could get would be matching the compatibility with future dwg formats.

I don't think you're a mega aerospace or automotive company for which considerations like this could make sense, because in that case I don't think you'd ask for suggestions in a forum.