<< Part 4
I have been receiving quite a few comments on this “What Exactly Is Creo?” series. Here is one that I found interesting. Jburril wrote:
OK, so PTC’s vision is to have a modular line-up with a common file format. This is the thing that’s going to change MCAD and drive it for the next twenty years. Give me a break. Wake me up when deflection under load is a design parameter and not an analysis result.
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.
Bottom line, the problem with history based parametric modeling is not the feature tree. It’s the history based nature of the feature tree. If Creo is going to “solve” the problem by simply automating the existing unacceptable solution, then I’m really not interested in it from the technology point of view. And I don’t think that is what the industry wants to do for the next 20 years. The industry needs a game changer, not a time saver. Again, I need to use the software before I can comment on it with some level of authority. It’s all up in the air now.
Part 6 >>