Direct Modeling In Creo

In “What Exactly Is Creo? – Part 5” I wrote:

For me the key breakthrough (if any) will be in the way Creo does direct modeling. If Creo’s direct modeling is simply automating the hack and whack approach now being used by history based parametric modeling users, then I would hardly consider that as a breakthrough. It will be a time saver, that’s all. Autodesk is trying to achieve something unprecedented by making the software so intelligent that it can pick apart the history tree and incorporate the direct modeling changes made to it, all the time. From the limited understanding that I have on Creo (because I don’t have the software yet) I gather that the software can edit the feature tree if the direct modeling changes made are simple. But if they are complicated, Creo Elements/Direct simply adds a move face feature to the feature tree (which is invisible to the user) which then shows up in the Creo Elements/Pro. If that is indeed the case, then this whole thing is simply reduced to mere automation of an existing task.

Today in a post titled “Smoke, Mirrors, Creo, Ninjas: All good things“, Al Dean of DEVELOP3D wrote:

At its very core, Creo is still a history and feature based modelling system – whether you’re using the Creo Parametric or the Creo Direct app. What PTC has done is an excellent job of hiding the fact away from the user of the Creo Direct app. That’s the one fundamental thing to realise. Creo Direct looks, feels and works like a direct modelling system. All of the user experience flags are there. Grabbing faces, deleting data, re-applicable of rounds, maintaining of geometric relationships where possible. It looks and feels like CoCreate does, like any of the other systems do. But underneath the hood, its storing a history of every edit you make, every feature you create. You just don’t see it.

So as I guessed eight months ago and as Al understands it today, PTC has implemented Direct Modeling in Creo by simply automating the process of adding features to the bottom of the feature tree. If that is indeed the case then, then in my opinion, Creo is hardly a breakthrough in 3D modeling technology. But as Al points out, who gives a shit, as long as users can get their job done and this method of direct modeling solves more problems than it creates.

  • Cmon

    why should they throw away the valuable history of modeling operations, while it does provide the same experience and properties of a direct modeler?

    • Nobody is asking them to throw away the feature tree. The real breakthrough would be to incorporate the direct modeling operations in the feature tree, not append move face features to the bottom of it. That’s being done for years.

      • Cmon

        yes, you’re right. a messy feature tree from top to buttom and without design intent is of no use for parametric design. i guess the reason why someone would like to pass the model from direct to parametric is to obtain a model with valuable history and design intent, not junk like what creo direct to parametric makes as seen in this shot: (its modeled in creo direct, brought to parametric before moving the darker green face and after, as you mentioned in this post, it confirms that history is recorded and not shown until brought to parametric, even the blue cylinder that is eliminated, appears as an extrude.)
        http://oi55.tinypic.com/ek0oeg.jpg
        http://oi52.tinypic.com/k2idyr.jpg

        however i doubt anyone would like to design a part form start to finish in direct and move to parametric to gain a neat history tree and design intent.
        is it a breakthrough? no. its only a smarter version of solidworks move face.

      • Lee

        Don’t understand your point. If you have a simple hole in a history tree and later on you change the radius of the hole with direct editing manipulations then, yes, it is more desirable to change the existing hole feature in the tree rather than create one more “change radius” feature. But this approach is not flexible at all because the idea behind direct modelling is your ability to move just anything. This “anything” can contain surfaces from many features at the same time. I am quite sure that in more complex examples it is just theoretically impossible to make such changes in existing features that completely match results of your direct modelling manipulations.  So appending new “direct modelling” features at the end of the tree seems to be more universal and flexible solution that is supposed to work anytime not for simple examples only.

        • Precisely. That’s why I say that this is not a breakthrough in modeling technology. Its merely automation of any already established way of doing things.

  • Shyamalroy

    Deelip when you look at your watch do you wish to know what time it is or how the watch works?

    • When I look at my watch I wish to know what time it is. That’s also why I don’t think the watch is a breakthrough in technology.

      • the watch is one of those technological innovations that passed so quickly into just a ‘product’ that you don’t think about it – but 300 years ago, it was a breakthrough that opened up the world with accurate navigation.

        but yeah, your watch might be shit mate 😉

  • It would matter because PTC calling new product a breakthrough (call it digital watch) and using same old technology (as Mechanical watch) at back end. Why users will switch/change their existing watches (CAD software).

  • Cmon

    Up to now,direct editing has failed in my opinion.  one of the main selling points of these products is making changes to models for FEA, but in reality 90% of times, they fail to make those changes, whether its Spaceclaim, ST,Fusion,etc. they only work on  carefully selected models.

    • Tomas Vargas

      You are  missing the soul of SC, which is to help you interoperate between 8 closed bear traps , also known as traditional CAD systems.  If it also helps you prepare models for CAE or CAM,  with Bid or conceptual modeling good.  How long did it take you to master SC ?    Compare it to  the learning curve of CATIA V4 ?  Pro-E 1 ?   
       For example try to read  a CATIa V4 file into adopted child Solid Works ,  or Inventor or any other  ? You had to live nightmares with IGES & STEP.   Direct Modeling should be an engineer´s entry door ( always open )  to 3D CAD.    I mean hands on  project,  product, engineers not CAD operators.

  • Cmon

    direct editing works on dumb models and produces dumb results, try to change:
    http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7125/57462332.png
    to
    http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/8366/46478027.png
    i tried Spacecliam and creo. both failed.

    • Tomas Vargas

      Did you try with mechanical desktop ?   Pro-E 2001 ?  Solid Works ?  Anybody could break Pro-E with a Cube and 2 rounds,  the third would fail,  it could also model a complete engine.   If you help the software you get ahead,   If you try to break it,   you will.   

      • Cmon

        you don’t need to try to break direct editing,it’ll fail on its own, the chances are high direct editing a complex geometry like an engine would break it too, when it fails on such a simple model.

    • Paul Hamilton

      This example works fine in Creo Elements/Direct Modeling. Doing this example in a history-based system with native geometry is simple – if you created the part right. Doing it with imported geometry is another thing.

      It is unfortunate that there are so many examples of immature direct modeling/editing out there, but it is just a mater of time. There is a place for this technology in product design and that is why it is getting so much attention right now. Thousands of companies around the globe use Creo Elements/Direct for complete art-to-part product development. Capturing design intent and controlling geometry is no problem with it – even on imported geometry. Certainly you can always find ways to break it, but there is always a way around. You should never have to rebuild parts – it’s just geometry.

    • That worked for me in SpaceClaim, but like others mention, it’s trivial.  For more complicated operations the preferred way of moving something is to split it off the body using something like SpaceClaim’s split body, heal the surrounding geometry using something like SpaceClaim’s Fill tool, then putting it where you want it using something like SpaceClaim’s Combine tool.  That almost always works, no matter how complicated the geometry, and it’s usually still faster that redefining features.

  • Dave Ault

     OK guys I will bite on this. Why just for curiosities sake don’t you think SE will do this? Here you go in real time in ST3.

      Now all I have to do is slap some dimensions on there and I have precise location where ever I want.

  • d3print

    If block`s created first and then cylinder. Does it still works in SE?

    • Roger

      Yea works fine, it doesn’t seem to make a difference what the creation order is.

      • d3print

        Ok, when you move cylinder first to lower right corner and then to middle of second box, does it still works?

  • Cmon

    if its trivial why it fails?

    http://bit.ly/jUsOMP

    • Ken

      Looks like it’s trivial to me… If you’re not using SpaceClaim 😉

  • Dave Ault

      OK here is this “problem” in an imported IGES file just to address the question of working with imports. In SE this is where ST proves it’s worth more than anywhere else. It is one of the things that helped me to choose SE because importing did not really matter I could still work on things and indeed do it faster than the history based  program that created it. Now I know I am getting a little silly with it at the end but I think you all get the idea. 

    • Cmon

      ST looks good, at least for trivial cases 😉

      • R. Paul Waddington

        Here you go Cmon.  Just using plane Jane AutoCAD for this trivial 😉 task.

  • d3print

    There are two different part (part copies), not one solid! Does it matter?

  • Paul Hamilton

    If you really want to test out your favorite direct modeling/editing tool of choice here are two more simple examples.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ku8HhWyAZU

    There are others if interested: http://www.youtube.com/user/phamilt#p/u

  • Dave Ault

     If you are asking in reference to my post, no it does not matter.  I could do the cylinder inserted into the blocks but since ST is not actually merging the various shapes like a parametric modeler would do it is still recognisable as a cylinder. Same is true for the imports and if the cylinder was merged into the block by another cad program I can move the cylindrical extrude over to see the bottom face and do an extrude there to give me the full length and then move it however I want. I can’t think of any scenario where this will not work in SE.

  • Dave Ault

     If you are asking in reference to my post, no it does not matter.  I could do the cylinder inserted into the blocks but since ST is not actually merging the various shapes like a parametric modeler would do it is still recognisable as a cylinder. Same is true for the imports and if the cylinder was merged into the block by another cad program I can move the cylindrical extrude over to see the bottom face and do an extrude there to give me the full length and then move it however I want. I can’t think of any scenario where this will not work in SE.

    • D3print

      Ok, nice to know.

    • Cmon

      It doesnt merge? meaning you can’t put a fillet there like Paul has done in cocreate?

      • Dave Ault

          Not sure what you are asking here. Merging had nothing to do with fillets and the part I have been discussing from your post way up the line here had no fillets.  Paul introduced some parts that had no bearing on the original discussion of your part and I have not bothered with them. Merging for the sake of my discussion RE your part means that seperate extrudes are combined to be one solid  feature and not a set of three placed on each other. 

  • Dave Ault

      OK here is the rod part, imported and all shapes are merged as you can see in the hidden line revealed wireframe mode. I drag the cylinder over and stop with part of it out of the blocks. In this case it goes the correct length desired. The pause recognises it as a seperate feature and now I can move it however I wish 

  • I am not familiar with this information but I know what exactly is creo? I want more information about creo. Keep on posting.

  • Neil

    Could you please answer the question directly? Please attach videos that shows how the new Creo Direct or the old Creo/Elements Direct (aka CoCreate) can perform the change that Cmon described?

    Instead of answering directly (pun intended) you keep changing the subject.

    • Paul Hamilton

      Didn’t think I was changing the subject. Sorry about that.  As I mentioned before, this example can be done with Creo Elements Direct Modeling (CoCreate) and here is the video. This is a single body model with no structure in it – just a blob of geometry. 

      • Cmon

        nice, thanks for the video.

      • Dave Ault

        This is a double post and sorry about that all but i grabbed the wrong reply button. Was this part created inside of Creo? Can you show us a part being inported and then edited to see how a “dumb solid” will work here?:”

        • Paul Hamilton

          It’s a dumb solid, but that is the case with any geometry created in CoCreate. they are all dumb solids. I will try to make another video showing the import. I also hope to make videos of Direct editing in Creo Parametric and Creo Direct. Just need to find the time. Perhaps tonight.

          • Tim

            Pault, i can`t do it in cocreate 17, could you do the next video in 17? from start to finish?

          • Paul Hamilton

            Tim, I finally got to try it on v17, and sure enough it does not work as well as 18. I guess that is progress :).  I can make the change easy enough, but not with a simple drag. I also played with 18 more and there are some positions in the part where I try to place the cylinder that won’t solve – so it is not perfect, but better than 17. But even if the simple drag doesn’t provide the needed results, there are many other simple ways to accomplish the task. In direct you should never have to start over. Any geometry is of value.

      • Neil

        Thanks, Paul.

        But frankly, this example seems to question the general wisdom that direct modeling ALWAYS allows easy ad hoc changes. Blake Courter has yet to show how to do this in SpaceClaim. And, may be SolidEdge cannot handle this if there is a fillet between the cylindrical face and the rest of the body. And even with CoCreate, we have a user (Tim) who cannot figure out how to do this.

        Now contrast this with history-based modeling. Of course, if the model was done to facilitate this change, this task would be utterly trivial.

        But even if the model was not done to help this change, it is not hard to do make this change. You would simply make a new cylindrical extrude, if necessary add the fillets. You would make sure that the height of the cylinder, the radius of the fillets etc. are equal to the original values. Then you would simply delete the old faces, with healing option, to get the model to match what you want. Of course, as a parametric model these changes would not score well! But remember, our objective was to find the easiest/fastest means to create a particular geometry, starting with a given geometry.

        • Dave Ault

            This is a bit of a different conversation here. For basic intitial geometry creation history based quite often is as good as direct editing.  Where the big differences are in my opinion is when you need to edit it as in the creation of a family of parts or when you are working with imported geometry.  This takes the conversation into the world of what is Direct editing good for anyway?  Here are links to imported parts I had to work on recently that shows why the concept of direct editing is so powerfull. Read the captions for what was being done here.  http://youtu.be/BTaJvXDYRdc and http://youtu.be/Ani-ZB8IMp4.

        • Apologies for the delay, guys.  Didn’t notice all of the discussion.

          Here’s an example of the slice-and-dice technique in SpaceClaim.  It’s fairly general-purpose, and works in cases where one tool gets sticky.  Combined with advanced round removal and defeaturing, it’s a powerful technique for editing models.  

          http://www.twitvid.com/9S127

          Of course, our Move tool should probably handle this case, and I’ll pass it along to the right folks.  

      • Neil

        Thanks, Paul.

        But frankly, this example seems to question the general wisdom that direct modeling ALWAYS allows easy ad hoc changes. Blake Courter has yet to show how to do this in SpaceClaim. And, may be SolidEdge cannot handle this if there is a fillet between the cylindrical face and the rest of the body. And even with CoCreate, we have a user (Tim) who cannot figure out how to do this.

        Now contrast this with history-based modeling. Of course, if the model was done to facilitate this change, this task would be utterly trivial.

        But even if the model was not done to help this change, it is not hard to do make this change. You would simply make a new cylindrical extrude, if necessary add the fillets. You would make sure that the height of the cylinder, the radius of the fillets etc. are equal to the original values. Then you would simply delete the old faces, with healing option, to get the model to match what you want. Of course, as a parametric model these changes would not score well! But remember, our objective was to find the easiest/fastest means to create a particular geometry, starting with a given geometry.

        • Paul Hamilton

          Neil,
          It
          is true that a simple drag or push in direct modeling does not
          always give you the results you want – but that is not the key advantage
          of direct modeling. With direct modeling
          there are always simple, and relatively fast ways to work
          through the geometry to get the results you need. There is never a need
          to throw away geometry and start over – something I see history-based  users doing frequently. It’s not that
          their geometry is wrong; it’s usually that
          the tree structure won’t support
          the needed edits/design intent. I wonder how many that are reading this have
          had to do that.

           

          In
          CoCreate besides dragging the feature, I
          could rather move the edges and patch in new surfaces, I could
          cut the surfaces and paste them back into the solid, I could cut the solid
          like Blake did in SC and move and unite. Whatever works best for you depending
          on the geometry and topology. In the end the result is the same – a valid B-Rep solid.

           

          The
          key benefit of direct modeling is that it eliminates the dependence
          on proprietary data (the history tree), modeling standards,
          and planning ahead.

          • Neil

            Paul, my initial comment was prompted by what I saw as less than candid claims from the direct modeling boosters. Now both you and Blake are saying that we have misunderstood what direct modeling is all about. So it is not about “directly” pushing and pulling and twisting and moving of faces, but rather about… what exactly?

            Techniques like copying bodies, faces, and edges, creating patch surfaces, stitching surfaces, booleans, etc. are legitimate tools of history-based modeling especially with surface modeling. So you should not count them among what is exclusive to direct modeling.

            You also claim that one should NEVER start fresh. That starting fresh in history-based modeling is ALWAYS bad. Is that really true?

            You have often tried distinguish CoCreate as a “mature” product, so it was amusing to see you explain to Tim that the 17th version of your product doesn’t work well enough relative to a seemingly simple change!

            I think direct modeling failed to catch on because it “over promised”. I am trying to understand when and where direct modeling is appropriate. Now you have added what direct is modeling, to the questions I am looking for answers to.

          • Cmon

            Very well said Nail.

          • Paul Hamilton

            Neil, perhaps we are talking about two slightly different things. For me direct modeling provides a complete different methodology for product design. Direct editing is just a small part of it. Depending on process and product characteristics, direct modeling MAY provide a better methodology. Certainly, depending on process and product characteristics, history-based modeling MAY provide a more suitable methodology. For many companies around the globe, the cost of the structured model does not yield a high enough return to justify the investment. As such they choose direct modeling as their primary design platform.

            What is exclusive to direct modeling? Geometry is the “master”. That is all. Because of this, depending on your situation, it might be easier to learn, there is no need for modeling standards, geometry is geometry regardless of where is was created or how it was created, there is no need to plan ahead before you begin modeling, the model creation process has no impact on the ability to edit, working on the design as a team can be easier, …

            There is no geometry you can create with one methodology that you can’t create in the other. There is no edit that can be accomplished in one that can’t be accomplished in the other (if you don’t care about the structure in the tree). Certainly the process and ease of doing it may vary, but whatever, we just need to get our job done the best we can. If direct modeling/editing doesn’t help you do that, forget about it. Although the number of people taking advantage of it is growing rapidly every day, it is “catching on”. The CoCreate product for example is experiencing record growth – higher than it ever has in its last 18 years of existence. These companies are not purchasing it solely for it’s geometry editing capabilities, but rather for it’s ability to support their “design” process better.

            Most all of today’s CAD tools (history or direct) can now do some level of direct editing. It is very likely that investment in the technology will continue – as long as people are paying money for it – and they are now more than ever before. Use it if it helps you and ignore it if it doesn’t, but it is obviously helping a lot of companies out there be more productive.

    • Cmon

      Neil, creo parametric did it, although it requires selecting the bottom surface too, without it, it doesn’t work. see here, somehow it didn’t capture my cursor. i wait for Paul to record his screen!
      http://bit.ly/lFbGrr

      • Dave Ault

          Cmon,
            After looking into this the example Paul used with fillets it can’t be done exactly as he did them in SE. Of course there will be things that SE can do Creo can’t. No I don’t have a specific example to point to because I don’t have a clue how Creo works but this is true with any software comparison. People trot out things that make them look good on all sides and you have to decide ultimately what has the most usefullness in your world. Let us see how his stuff works for imported parts shall we;-}

           

        • Cmon

          Dave,thanks for showing SE. i left a comment yesterday, but somehow it didn’t appear here. this one is done on an imported IGES from solidworks 2011. which can be seen in the feature tree. again, it won’t work without selecting the bottom surface.
          http://bit.ly/kZ7Yre

    • Dave Ault

       Was this file done with a part created inside of Creo? Can you show us a file being  imported from another program to see how the “dumb solid” will work here?

  • Dave Ault

    Just for clarifications sake here the IGES files I am importing were created in VX14.5 so these are true imports from another modeler and not something just saved out as an IGES file from ST3 and brought back in.

  • Roger

    Solid Edge ST3 again.  Doesn’t quite react the same as Co-create but works well and makes sense.

    • Tas_georg

      Roger.. how did you make this with Solid Edge ? I am trying to replicate  this but live rules block me. I set the same option in live rules as is shown but still the problem exists. Is it native geometry or imported?

      Thanks, Tas_Geo

      • Tas_georg

        Roger, don’t bother.. I was finally able to find the solution. The fillet is done in the ordered env so every time the cylinder (face set) is moving then the fillet feature is applied to the new geometry. 

        If you try to put the fillet in sync and move the cylinder, you get the errors I was talking about because there is no fillet feature but a set of faces.

        I really love the technique.

        Thanks Tas_Geo.

  • Roger

    I duplicated Pauls first video in  SE ST3 and it seems to work well.  I stopped at the mirror part as the workflow in ST is a bit different and isn’t quite a direct comparison. 

     The second video with free-form surfaces is “hats off” to co-create however. 

    Kevin, you need to cut us SE guys a little slack.  For years we have looked on in envy at the buzz generated by SWW and while the SE Summit was modest in comparison, think of it a bit more like an unplugged gig from your favourite artist – up-close and personal.

    In terms of SE marketing?  This is the company that has no logo and can’t even decide what font to use!!  It has a reallllly long way to go.
    The idea that it going to do serious damage to SW in the short term is fantacy but in the meantime we are enjoying having fun with some great tools.  Sync is not for the casual user and actually takes a bit of learning – but once you get it there is a freedom and immediacy that is hard to give up.

  • Cmon

    With all due respect,there’s nothing interesting in your video, you turned it into a multibody part and moved the cylinder body then merged it. you can do this in any  history based CAD. your move face tool should handle this, but it fails “Trivial” cases.

    • d3print

      Depending how you look at it!  Whit all respect, Spaceclaim is best, fastest and nicest to use than any other MCAD in this moment. Why you walk when you can fly?

    • Well, most history-based CAD systems also have a move face feature.  If that works for you, use it.  

      That is a simple case that should work in any system, direct or history-based.  It probably will soon in most CAD systems after this thread.  Many others work immediately.  The important point is that it’s still very easy to do.  I think that most direct modeling vendors, including us, show a disproportionate amount of drag and drop when slice and dice is more a more dominant workflow.  The main benefit is the simplicity of the data model.  You can make 100 different tweaks and have a model as good as if you did it in one.  It’s very freeing, once you get used to it.  And, as 3D print says, SpaceClaim is probably the fastest at doing these edits.

      • Cmon

        Well, maybe after you found out that SpaceClaim fails “trivial” cases, because you initially said “it worked for me”, the development team should put some efforts and make the move tool more  capable.After all, this is “the easy to use” CAD tool.  I’ll check that with your next release. BTW, why Direct editing is so dependent on the modeling workflow? i thought its just the final geometry that matters. the edges and faces. but it turned out to be false.

        • d3print

          Should we call all these direct editing movements  “Easy Edit Tools”. If you have EET in your MCad, you might survive with your problems, if not, do it as you can ;). 
          Next big question is how we can modifye the coming AMF format or can`t we.

          Ps. Anyone checked this out with Kubotek or Ironcad stuff?

          Thanks,
          d3print  

  • Tas_georg

    I really think that you guys have not really replicated what is Cmon showed us about his problem in SC. Even thougn Solid Edge is able to solve the situation easily, it is all a matter of the initial selection set.

    In my video you see three possible ways of sychronous edit  using Solid Edge ST3. You will notice that based on the intial selection set prior our edit (move of the cylinder) we can face the same kind of problem our not.

    This is happening because the boundary conditions of our possible edits are based on the topology of the selection set and the rest of the geometry.

    Is it only me that thinks there is some kind of pre-planning enen in the synchronous (direct) modeling?

    • d3print

      As I asked earlier from Roger does it works when you move cylinder first to corner and try then move it again to middle. It failed inST1.
      Question is do I have to know how I`m going to move the object?
      Does it matter if the cylinder is done by trad mode and block done with sync?

      Thanks,
      d3print

      • Tas_georg

        No, if you first move the cylinder to the corner nothing more can be done. As I understand it, this is happening because “no proper geometry set can be computed because geometry is missing from two sides and as so the combinations of the missing geometry are numerous”. I tried this is Solid Edge ST3.

        I demonstrate something like that in my previous post. All is based on the initial selection set. I cannot really know how the modeler solves the moving geometry but these are all I have experienced using Solid Edge.In ST3 you can model both trad and sync features. If you model the block in sync and the cylinder in trad, then you must move the cylinder in the sync environment in order to manipulate it directly.I could upload  a video if you like.

      • Roger

        d3print,
        Every modelling method has areas of strength and weakness, the real question is can it take you where you want to go without too much fuss.  Have a look at the video and decide for yourself:

        • d3print

          Roger, I agree with strenght and weakness, and that`s why I personally like SpaceClaim more than SE in 
          most cases, it gives you more flexibility and speed.

          Thanks,
          d3print 

          • Roger

            Yes, Spaceclaim is a great product.  I did a trial a while back but never got as far as the slice and dice techniques.

            Would you like to provide a video to show the different options to achieve this task in SC?

          • d3print

            Yes, I try to return to this later, at least I hope so. At this moment I have no opportunity to record screen, operation and system changing going on.

          • d3print

            Roger, here`s my practise with that cylinder movement in imported part (step). Done with few tricks, split and compine.
            http://d3print.blogspot.com/

    • Lee

      In my opinion such a behavior of Solid Edge is just a bug. If surfaces can be moved and the result of the move is supposed to be meaningful geometry then you should be able to get it.  Period.
       
      What about Creo, does it work for all your cases?

  • Paul Hamilton

    Looks great Roger. I like the interaction and response. But I do have to pick on you a little. In direct modeling should there ever be a dependency on “workflow”?  I know that is a bit of topic, so we don’t need to start another discussion. At least I think that should be one of our goals for direct modeling.

    • Roger

      Paul, in an ideal world I guess not, but in reality you will never match step for step from one CAD package to another.  In terms of “direct modelling” I wasn’t trying to show Solid Edge’s “direct” credentials but merely its modelling capability.  Actually, the example video I did was done using a hybrid approach which you may see as a compromise.  Personlly I don’t because SE is not a pure direct modeller – it is what it is and for me this is a strength not a weakness.  I have a fairly pragmatic view on the direct argument  and don’t really care how the software does it, I just want a modelling tool that helps me design quicker.  PTC seem to be of a simila mind. 

      The only “pure” direct modeller I have trialled is SC and I really like the implementation of some of the tools – very clever.  But tying down the geometry is clunky and feels like an afterthought.  I think SE has done a better job of combining the two. 

  • Dave Ault

    WOW, the thread that has gotten so long that one is lost if you have not stayed here.  It surprises me that this is a problem. When I create a cylinder like Roger did there are problems for sure. But since we are discussing ease of modeling here I am going to make a few comments.

       What we are looking for here is quick and easy part editing right? so far we have moved things around and all that stuff. We have shown some geometry that can’t be moved in the same fashion by all cad aps. But insofar as this goes is it the only answer or the best answer?  Maybe I can’t move the cylinder off or to the corner but I can click on the cylinder on the side and delete,  and then click on the bottom face,circle,extrude and have my cylinder in the corner. My point here is that this was done in the part mode without ever leaving and is done literally in seconds. There is more than one way to skin the cat and lets not forget that how quickly you can get to the desired result counts.  Does fascination with a known tricky problem  over rule speed and ease with which things can be done? In this case I think it is so and looking at the clicks and commands needed to do this and can it do this become irrelevant when there is a different way that is quicker and does so in fewer clicks and tricks. Just a thought here about the validity of what we are doing and discussing here and how it relates to efficiency in cad creation.

       Also, did I miss it or did the editing of imported parts get lost in the shuffle here?

  • Cmon

    Dave,  I’ve taken a video for editing imported geom in creo. if you search for it here’ you’ll find it. it works just as good as it works on native geometry.

    I had a chance to experiment more with creo parametric. if the resulting geometry is not what you’re looking for, you can ask it for the next solution, or you can manually guide it to produce the result you want.  I liked the alot more than SpaceClaim that only offers a single result, which was incorrect for this case, of course.
    here’s the video:
    http://bit.ly/j83Xpu

  • Roger

    Cmon, I couldn’t read all of the options on the local menu you were using in the video, but it seemed pretty comprehensive. It would seem that Creo is the only one can make this edit without a work around. Very impressive!
    Roger

    • Roger

      OK, I’ve had a closer look at Cmon’s video and realize I have been too kind to Creo.  It seems that the Flexmove operation is simply appended to the end of the parametric history tree.  Now that I understand how it works, IMO the Solid Edge solution is much more elegant!

  • Pingback: Creo Explained – Part 4 | Deelip.com()

  • Pingback: PTC Creo - Deutsch - Konzeptentwicklung: 3D oder nicht 3D?()

  • Pingback: PTC Creo - Français - Pourquoi choisir la 3D lors de l’élaboration du concept()

  • Pingback: PTC Creo - 日本語 - 構想設計: 3D で行うべきかどうか()

  • Pingback: Anonymous()

  • Pingback: PTC Creo - Italiano - Conceptual design: 3D o non 3D?()

  • Pingback: PTC Creo - Deutsch - CAD-Tools müssen Flexibilität beim Modellieren bieten()

  • Pingback: Anonymous()