my opinion on creo by user catia

[320i S]

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 have answered
consider also that in catia v6 there is hybrid modeling and ask the question of why.

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.

I am talking about pure sketch environment, not the possibility offered to use sketches, here I acknowledge the possibilities in more offers from catia and I have said it from the beginning, critic heavily instead, among the many things, that to put 2 equal measures, I have to leave the sketch and create a relationship outside, keeping me also all the quotas present, without knowing what they are tied and what not (creo puts you a letter "l" or "r" with a progressive)

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.

otherwise you have the nice surprise in catia v6 until the 2013x release, where it did not recognize the v5 maths, and the amounts as they were step.

 

[320i S]

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

But I see that practically nobody put video...

 

[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 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?

a pure multibody, to make it simple, it is as if it were a set, each body can be reorganized sooner or later and are perfectly released between them, this helps a lot in the modeling of very complex parts, but it still requires a mountain approach of a certain type.
a feature based instead proceed in sequence, simulating much more the real realization process and you can reorder the features only if they have no references with the features you want to put after.

the mixed mode (or hybrid as it calls it catia) however is much more similar to a feature based, than to a multibody in my opinion.

we say that with creo, you can also simulate a multibody environment, but passing through the mode together with the module advanced assembly

 

[ceschi1959]

a pure multibody, to make it simple, it is as if it were a set, each body can be reordered sooner or later and are perfectly released between them

nx is a multibody features based and has always been since the night of time and has a sequential features tree. it is not so: if you make a solid starting from the hege of another solid they are also dependent in chronological order.
p.s. why not move the thread for example in multi body vs single body? Here it seems that we are challenged to those who have it longer and as the hunter said it seems to me a few posts ago is certainly not the spirit of the forum. moderators. . .

 

[cacciatorino]

But I see that practically nobody put video...

the first post of the linked discussion contains links to other debates in which the specific themes proposed were addressed. Unfortunately, some of the speakers later removed the videos he had uploaded.

 

[cacciatorino]

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.

It is a nominalistic question: to be multibody in solidworks (and for a while also in solid edge) means to have, within the same file of part, bodies that touch but are disjoined, ie then in the table you see the separation line between each other. in solidworks then you can also associate with each of them analytical prophecies, to realize the distinct cutting. are typically functions of together but that, if implemented in a part file, allow some management simplification. You mean something different, but just get along with the terminology instead of heading to say that's not there or there.

p.s. note in margin: since I frequent cad3d.it I see that ptc users are invariably those with the attitude more from fan-boy of all others, i.e. my software is better in everything and for everything compared to competitors, which instead other users do not show on average a more rational and detached attitude, coming to spread for obvious features lacks of their software that are evidenced by objective comparisons. In short, it seems to hear apple users a few years ago, is based on this marketing ptc?
to me it sounds strange to think that 90% of the companies that do not choose pro/e-creo is made by blind people who do not understand the truth, perhaps it is simply customers who have found better other products.

 

[cacciatorino]

p.s. why not move the thread for example in multi body vs single body? Here it seems that we are challenged to those who have it longer and as the hunter said it seems to me a few posts ago is certainly not the spirit of the forum. moderators. . .

Unfortunately the first post was written specifically to blow the fly to the nose to the ptc users, there was to expect a follow-up of this kind :biggrin::finger:

 

[320i S]

the first post of the linked discussion contains links to other debates in which the specific themes proposed were addressed. Unfortunately, some of the speakers later removed the videos he had uploaded.

I had given a first eye superficially through cell, I apologize.

 

[320i S]

It is a nominalistic question: to be multibody in solidworks (and for a while also in solid edge) means to have, within the same file of part, bodies that touch but are disjoined, ie then in the table you see the separation line between each other. in solidworks then you can also associate with each of them analytical prophecies, to realize the distinct cutting. are typically functions of together but that, if implemented in a part file, allow some management simplification. You mean something different, but just get along with the terminology instead of heading to say that's not there or there.

p.s. note in margin: since I frequent cad3d.it I see that ptc users are invariably those with the attitude more from fan-boy of all others, i.e. my software is better in everything and for everything compared to competitors, which instead other users do not show on average a more rational and detached attitude, coming to spread for obvious features lacks of their software that are evidenced by objective comparisons. In short, it seems to hear apple users a few years ago, is based on this marketing ptc?
to me it sounds strange to think that 90% of the companies that do not choose pro/e-creo is made by blind people who do not understand the truth, perhaps it is simply customers who have found better other products.

I would like to point out, I have no intention of making a comparison between solidworks or other cad out of this discussion, solidworks has been called into question simply because considered simpler intuitive and stable of creo, to my pararevu only because there is upstream an experience with the logic of creo itself: if lelevt was passed from catia to solidworks, I am sure that it would express similar concepts that it has expressed to create, simply because

I repeat that of catia I admire the possibilities offered in modeling environment, except for the sketch environment, which lack tools of strong simplification (relations between elements of the same sketch, you fan all out of the sketch itself....when you have many.....).
in the environment together, the differences are wasted in favor of creo, but already a wildfire 3 of 2007 allows more things with greater solidity, both within 3d and in that 2d; wished or not dassault?, sincerely I care little, but this is a fact.

fanboy speech: I personally talk about what I saw and touched with hand, the rest intrigues me, but I certainly do not take the parts or not of anything, without knowing facts and possibilities.

about what and how companies choose: you could open a chapter really aside.

 

[lelevt]

I also as the hunter said I saw a fanboy attitude that initially insurrected me, I do not talk about the forum, but of colleagues who were in the company the so-called "power user". one of these among other things is what made the company buy, as an unmarked choice both for the technical aspect, and commercial, because our main customer uses solidworks. He was one who had never used other cads in his career except for a short swx experience.
and even more evident was when I did the course, I had the impression that the teacher was brainwashing me to convince me that he had the best software in the world. some beautiful things yes, but as I repeat everything so cryptic to lose the reason from the nervous.
I still remember that he showed me the function, created for tyre manufacturers, which makes you roll up a flat geometry. He had trouble himself showing me it, and I tried to do it again... Maybe if I was half a day studying step by step a tutorial.... that if I hadn't used it again soon I would have already forgotten how to use it and again with the tutorials.. .

about the multibody, those that 320i s calls cad "multibody puri" I have never seen them, maybe at the dawn was so I have no idea. today's multibody in the parametric modeling greatly facilitates the workflow because you can work separately on a zone and then then assemble it on the main component with boolane operations (in the catia the "relimit union" is fabulous). leotards can be related to each other so it is not said that it is possible to reorder them freely.

otherwise you have the nice surprise in catia v6 until the 2013x release, where it did not recognize the v5 maths, and the amounts as they were step.

Sure, because from v4 to v5 to v6 the software has changed deeply so it is not absolutely guaranteed compatibility. If from v5 to v6 the difference is not very obvious, it is clear that v4 to v5 do not even look like it. is the counter to the complete rewriting of the software. the pro is to leave behind the code "obsolete".
the rest with any program is like this.

 

[lelevt]

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.

I currently use solidworks 2014 and use multibody, I don't know from what release they introduced it but it's definitely from before 2014. Obviously usual speech you used a cad not for how it was conceived but for how you used to use pro-e and you did not deepen knowledge.
I think about the feature based and multibody issue you have confused ideas. all parametric cads are feature based, having the multibody is an extra possibility.
Who knows why even the ptc teacher made me these speeches "the cad multibody are old stuff is no longer used that method... "

n.b. attention that I do not mean the use of multibody as "simple alternative to a set", which is a practice that I find horrible.

 

[320i S]

I also as the hunter said I saw a fanboy attitude that initially insurrected me, I do not talk about the forum, but of colleagues who were in the company the so-called "power user". one of these among other things is what made the company buy, as an unmarked choice both for the technical aspect, and commercial, because our main customer uses solidworks. He was one who had never used other cads in his career except for a short swx experience.
and even more evident was when I did the course, I had the impression that the teacher was brainwashing me to convince me that he had the best software in the world. some beautiful things yes, but as I repeat everything so cryptic to lose the reason from the nervous.
I still remember that he showed me the function, created for tyre manufacturers, which makes you roll up a flat geometry. He had trouble himself showing me it, and I tried to do it again... Maybe if I was half a day studying step by step a tutorial.... that if I hadn't used it again soon I would have already forgotten how to use it and again with the tutorials.. .

Also from me we have customers who use caia, nx, solidworks and others, we often load native maths without passing through universal formats and if they require it, we can then export in native format, I don't see the problem working with different cad maths.
on the rest quoted, I do not express myself, I seem more blurred than a

about the multibody, those that 320i s calls cad "multibody puri" I have never seen them, maybe at the dawn was so I have no idea. today's multibody in the parametric modeling greatly facilitates the workflow because you can work separately on a zone and then then assemble it on the main component with boolane operations (in the catia the "relimit union" is fabulous). leotards can be related to each other so it is not said that it is possible to reorder them freely.

not to be pedant, but you can also do with creo, with different techniques of course, but the result you get.

Sure, because from v4 to v5 to v6 the software has changed deeply so it is not absolutely guaranteed compatibility. If from v5 to v6 the difference is not very obvious, it is clear that v4 to v5 do not even look like it. is the counter to the complete rewriting of the software. the pro is to leave behind the code "obsolete".
the rest with any program is like this.

But currently catia v6 also reads v5, so where is the difference if you have both codes inside?

 

[lelevt]

also from me we have customers who use catia, nx, solidworks and others, we often load native mathematics without going through universal formats....

you can certainly load the maths of other cads, but you always get the "dead solid" as if you had loaded a step. ok you don't have to pass for a format of exchange but it changes very little, the advantage is minimal. for export the same speech.

not to be pedant, but you can also do with creo, with different techniques of course, but the result you get.

Yeah, I saw those techniques. the concept is that geometries are created leaving them as surfaces and solidifying them only later. I feel more like a way to satisfy a shortage than a real technique, plus with a minimally complex file it becomes a real mess to rack up. at this point why not introduce the real multibody? ah you know why, the geometric kernel does not support them and you cannot change the kernel because otherwise you lose compatibility with the old files, you always turn on this speech.

But currently catia v6 also reads v5, so where is the difference if you have both codes inside?

v6 is very related with v5 so between the two there is no net break, the modeling engine is the same, or very similar. the net break was between v4 and v5, and on that occasion they had cut completely with the past.

 

[320i S]

I currently use solidworks 2014 and use multibody, I don't know from what release they introduced it but it's definitely from before 2014. Obviously usual speech you used a cad not for how it was conceived but for how you used to use pro-e and you did not deepen knowledge.
I think about the feature based and multibody issue you have confused ideas. all parametric cads are feature based, having the multibody is an extra possibility.
Who knows why even the ptc teacher made me these speeches "the cad multibody are old stuff is no longer used that method... "

n.b. attention that I do not mean the use of multibody as "simple alternative to a set", which is a practice that I find horrible.

Sorry, eh, you wrote this first:

320i s, ti sfugge che solidworks è multibody.

I just made you aware that solidworks is a feature based, and that your best approach, in my opinion is due to the fact that you had the experience of creating behind you.

clear that for what little I used solidworks 2011, I did not deepen, I was interested to do what was asked, I did it and I did not complain; Of course if I could handle certain aspects as I manage them with creo, I would have preferred, but I certainly do not go to denigrate so heavily other software.

I do not understand why you continue to quote ptc teaching, I find it useless under all points of view; and do not believe that teachers of other cads, do not criticize competition.

 

[320i S]

you can certainly load the maths of other cads, but you always get the "dead solid" as if you had loaded a step. ok you don't have to pass for a format of exchange but it changes very little, the advantage is minimal. for export the same speech.

There is a good difference instead, because the transformation of other cads in step or igs, loses a lot of information on the knots of the surfaces, almost never a cay (for example) in step, is "closed" and solid, while natively it is extremely precise and processingable.

Yeah, I saw those techniques. the concept is that geometries are created leaving them as surfaces and solidifying them only later. I feel more like a way to satisfy a shortage than a real technique, plus with a minimally complex file it becomes a real mess to rack up. at this point why not introduce the real multibody? ah you know why, the geometric kernel does not support them and you cannot change the kernel because otherwise you lose compatibility with the old files, you always turn on this speech.

call it as you want, is the result and the speed in getting it that counts, have you been able to use the advanced assembly?
can be that in the future add multibody to align with competition, you are also programmer so you have absolute certainty that you can not do?, congratulations in case.

v6 is very related with v5 so between the two there is no net break, the modeling engine is the same, or very similar. the net break was between v4 and v5, and on that occasion they had cut completely with the past.

summing up, v6 is so new that he has given a gap with the past, then instead you tell me that it is closely related with the v5 in order to be able to open the same maths....so?, which of the 2?, because I also create is so, only that the only hybrid version of bridge was the wildfire 5 / creo

 

[marcof]

a pure multibody, to make it simple, it is as if it were a set, each body can be reordered sooner or later and are perfectly released between them

But no idea! a multibody modeler allows you to have inside a separate body part file. who can be separated and with father-son relationships (and will be partly related to modeling history) or separated without any relation father-son (and have no relationship with each other in the tree of history).

a feature based instead proceed in sequence, simulating much more the real realization process and you can reorder the features only if they have no references with the features you want to put after.

in this context, of the multibody, I have to repeat a "but not even by idea!" feature based means that it is based on features and those reorders according to the parent relationships. If you work on two, three or n. disjoined bodies within the same part the various bodies can reorder them as you like in the tree of history. in swx you can, within a part, import a part from a file that can be neutral or native to swx. the imported part is placed on the existing geometry using the constraints that there is also in the axioms

the mixed mode (or hybrid as it calls it catia) however is much more similar to a feature based, than to a multibody in my opinion.

I think you mess with the terminology. on hybrid modelers as if or nx I do not express myself having never tried them but there is a part of chce modeling is multibody and feature based and you can have a part of modeling that they call "sincrona" that if I remember well is histoy free, analogously to what happens with a contextual cad.

 

[cacciatorino]

I think you mess with the terminology. on hybrid modelers as if or nx I do not express myself having never tried them but there is a part of chce modeling is multibody and feature based and you can have a part of modeling that they call "sincrona" that if I remember well is histoy free, analogously to what happens with a contextual cad.

I believe that in this hybrid case it should be understood as solid/superficial rather than as parametric/synchronous. I propose for this interpretation because historical users of pro/e most likely do not know or aborte the syncona/context modeling

 

[cacciatorino]

are you also programmer so you have the absolute certainty that you can not do?, congratulations in case.

We never lose sight of mutual respect, it serves to keep the tones low and fruitful discussion.

summing up, v6 is so new that he has given a gap with the past, then instead you tell me that it is closely related with the v5 in order to be able to open the same maths....so?, which of the 2?, because I also create is so, only that the only hybrid version of bridge was the wildfire 5 / creo

probably v6 is new only at the user interface level, but the engine is the same, as when the ptc is passed from pro/e classic to wildfire, which basically was just a re-carriage of the "old" software. and as I believe it is the present creo.

 

[lelevt]

summing up, v6 is so new that he has given a gap with the past, then instead you tell me that it is closely related with the v5 in order to be able to open the same maths....so?, which of the 2?, because I also create is so, only that the only hybrid version of bridge was the wildfire 5 / creo

the net detachment with the caty past has done it passing from v4 to v5, is that to which I refer. They don't even look like each other.
the passage to v5-v6 instead is not of substance, is a little like the passage from pro-e to creo.

 

[320i S]

We never lose sight of mutual respect, it serves to keep the tones low and fruitful discussion.

My question is, nothing sarcastic.

probably v6 is new only at the user interface level, but the engine is the same, as when the ptc is passed from pro/e classic to wildfire, which basically was just a re-carriage of the "old" software. and as I believe it is the present creo.

the most important aspect of v6 according to me is that it is born in everything and for everything related to its pdm (obviously well done among other things, even if it lacks some functionality in duplication).