my opinion on creo by user catia

[lelevt]

Sorry for my absence, I add some point after reading some messages.

on the multibody question, I think you have misunderstood why I think it is extremely useful.
starting from saying how the multibody should not be used: should not be used as a set (at least in cads that I know catia and sw), and although some do, it is a bad way of working, and the multibody was not created for this.

the purpose of the multibdy is however to obtain at the end of the modeling a single solid within the part file. but the Boolean operations (especially the relic union of catia) facilitate the modeling.
An example? a popspec of fixing the model alone with all its forms and fittings, then the "inglobo" to the rest of the solid. sforms and rays in this way work on the simple geometry of the popspec, and not on the perhaps complex geometry of the component on which they go to bind, with the risk that they do not go to good end. I can also make copies of the poppet solid to replicate them n times with different positions and rotations, and then join the rest of the solid. for plastic design these are things on the agenda.

 

[+forte]

creo7 multibody

 

[Gianluca Veronesi]

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!

fully shared consideration. I have begun to use only pro-e pirma and now I create you very well. then I changed company and in this use solidworks that graphically is much more approachable even if the methods of use of the sofware and the commands are different.