Creo Explained – Part 3

<< Part 2

As I explained in Part 2 of this series I don’t believe PTC is going to maintain two sets of code bases for two platforms – one for Pro/ENGINEER and the other for CoCreate. It appears that they are dumping CoCreate in favor of Pro/ENGINEER. But the real question is how will this affects users of Pro/ENGINEER and CoCreate, especially CoCreate.

Well, users of Pro/ENGINEER do not have to worry about a thing. You can think of Creo Parametric 1.0 as Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 6.0. In fact, PTC programmers haven’t even changed the description and version number of parametric.exe (formerly proe.exe)

The product name still reads “Pro/ENGINEER”. Looks like PTC programmers didn’t get the “Creo Name Change”  memo from Marketing. 😉

As regards users of CoCreate, things begin to get interesting. From what I understand, in time PTC will put all the features and capabilities of CoCreate into Pro/ENGINEER. Obviously they can’t do that by simply adding stuff to the existing Pro/ENGINEER platform quite simply because Pro/ENGINEER is a rigid history based parametric modeling system and CoCreate is a flexible direct modeling system. The process of geometry creation and modification are almost diametrically opposite to each other.

So this is what I believe PTC did. They took Pro/ENGINEER and made two copies of it. They called one Creo Parametric and the other Creo Direct. They didn’t do much to Creo Parametric. But they changed Creo Direct in such a way that the entire history based parametric modeling workflow of geometry creation and editing was completely hidden from the user. They then threw in CoCreate’s 3D CoPilot and the intelligent toolbar (now called Live Toolbar) and the user started getting the look and feel of CoCreate oblivious to the fact that Pro/ENGINEER is running under the hood.

3D CoPilot and Live Toolbar

Siemens PLM is solving this “how to give users the best of both worlds” problem in their own way. They are giving users a single program that does both things and the user needs to do the book keeping of features while switching from one mode to another. PTC is giving the user two entirely seemingly different programs and makes the software do the book keeping of features.

I will explain exactly how that is done in the next part of this series.

Part 4 >>

  • Pingback: Creo Explained – Part 4 |

  • Pingback: Creo Explained – Part 2 |

  • Deelip,

    One thing to mention about Siemens PLM  …  Solid Edge ST1 essentially started out as two programs.  The user had to decided if they wanted to work in traditional mode (which was the history based mode all Solid Edge users had used in the past).  Or, they could work in Synchronous mode which would be more like working in Co-Create or SpaceClaim.

    At the assembly level, it could mix and match History based or Synchronous based parts but you had to made the decisions up front about the format of the part.

    It turned out customers really wanted to mix the approaches beyond just combining them at the assembly level. So, a couple years later Solid Edge ST3 came out.  In this version, you could run completely in Synchronous mode, run completely in “Ordered” (history) mode, or mix the two.  


    • d3print

      Not sure about that completely mixing with syncro and ordered mode.
      If the feature dissapear when changing from ordered to sync mode, is that completely mixed? I say it`s completely missed ;).

      • I didn’t quite understand.  Features are supported in Synchronous and they don’t disappear.

  • Roger

    I guess what d3print means is that when you switch from ordered to sync, the ordered features are not available in the sync environment without firts converting them to sync features.  That said, when you do convert them, the dimensions applied in ordered come over to sync so they dont need re-applied (as seems to be the case in the video of Creo).
    To the casual observer this is a limitation, but in practice there are actually some very good reasons why applying features (say rounds) in ordered “on top” of a sync model is actually desirable.

    • Hmm, so just to clarify. You mean that we apply rounds and chamfers in synchronous mode while holes in traditional mode?

      • Roger

        No, holes in sync.  Rounds and chamfers can be applied in sync but sometimes there are advantages in applying them in ordered.  If you go over to Matt Lombards blog and read his post you will find a very good explaination as to why this can be advantageous.  Bear in mind, switching between sync and ordered while modelling is only a single mouse click, so it simply becomes part of the workflow – you are not swithing to a separate application.

  • kolay mı be