PTC offers Creo, the company's line of computer-aided design (CAD) products that support the product lifecycle management (PLM) process with 2D and 3D design kits (Creo Elements and Creo Direct), an augmented reality module, Creo Illustrate for technical illustrations, Creo Sketch, Creo Schematics and Creo View for diagramming and sharing information, Creo simulate for running simulations, and other modules.
$2,480
SIMULIA
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
SIMULIA from Dassault Systemes is a simulation application for 3d objects.
Learning curve of SolidWorks is higher compared to Creo, however, stability and more design control is provided by Creo. Creo also have more robust and stable interfaces. For larger assemblies, Creo works better than SolidWorks. New upgrades of Creo has given liberty to open …
It is very easy for a person to learn the software if the person just started to create 3d product. It create a fluid product design. Design of product can be complex but this doesn't concern when I use creo.
PTC Creo is much better than other software at allowing collaboration across multiple users, even multiple plants/locations. We went from an older non-parametric industry standard software to PTC Creo because we could save massive amounts of time by using the parametric …
If a client uses PTC Creo as their primary product development tool, we know we have an edge in productivity in our engagement. All clients desire productivity gains, and with PTC Creo, we know we can deliver.
We were required by DoD to use this software, but we also like it because it is professional. Many people in the field use it and want kids to be familiar with professional software vs. things like TinkerCAD even though it is a good resource. We also had PC computers and worked …
CATIA is another design software we had used before PTC Creo. The user interface of both PTC Crea and CATIA are very different. Part modeling is very user-friendly in PTC Creo, whereas drafting and sheet metal operations are easy in CATIA. PTC Creo has seamless flows while on …
As a service provider, we provide our services on many platforms. My client is using this software for manufacturing their products and this software helps them a lot.
PTC Creo has two main advantages. First, large assemblies with lots of different parts files, and its file structure that can handle these large assemblies without bogging the software done. Second, its ability to do advanced simulations without having to export the files to do …
In my career, I’ve used a few different CAD packages. I started using Pro Engineer Wildfire 4, a predecessor to Creo which had all of the same problems as Creo, plus more. Creo has changed some things since then, but it seems to be built on the same base, so some things that …
MARC can do the job from an FEA point of view. It even appears better at a couple of things such as 2D remeshing and surviving with highly distorted meshes. So I regard it as a very competitive alternative. I prefer SIMULIA because the GUI is so much better, especially the …
I wouldn't suggest it to my worst enemy. My colleagues worked with other CADs and, in my experience, complain every day about this CAD, about how much things it doesn't have or do, etc. One of them keeps telling me, in their opinion, how even CREO Direct is far superior, easy to use, faster and better. In my opinion, it's a CAD that requires constant attention at what you do, how you do, when you do because it doesn't do it for you.
It appears to be evolving more towards large users with the 3D EXPERIENCE, while becoming less focused on small users like me, becoming more expensive and limiting the number of cores while most PC's now can easily run 8 cores. Of course it is great for non-linear and highly non-linear scenarios, and especially good at combing a huge variety of element types. I guess it is not best suited for linear analysis due to its high price, but even in this case you have to put in the balance the ability to make the best choice of finite elements and being so straightforward about actually using them.
Create and modify designs from within the CAE environment. Although it has very basic capabilities, it is quite capable of generating 2D and 3D parametric designs. I have even generated some "fancy" designs which ended up being a challenge for draftsmen in specialized solid modeling CAD. I also like the fact that being somewhat limited, it forces you to stick to simple and effective design.
Addressing structural instabilities such as snap-through or buckling. This was such a challenge when I started using Abaqus, I had to take a course on "achieving convergence". Coming from there, I can see how SIMULIA has become increasingly able to give you the numerical tools or tricks you need to achieve convergence consistently. In the past I often feared running into different convergence issues as I moved across different produce sizes, leading to changes in the analysis approach, which would make it more difficult to compare them. I just went through a 12-size family in 5 dimensional scenarios each, without a single issue after ensuring convergence with the first couple of sizes.
Beautiful pictures. The post-processing of results enables me to generate highly illustrative, fairly easy to understand and elegant presentations, by controlling transparency and results shown independently on different groups, which I can select by material, location, etc.
Providing guidance through using tools is lacking in Creo. There is a small area where the text is displayed at the bottom that is supposed to help guide you, but many times the guidance doesn't make sense.
Layers are a hassle in Creo. Unless you know how to set up your config file to do it automatically, you have to add each item to the appropriate layer.
There is a lack of automation in Creo. In some other CAD packages, you can add holes or the like on a pattern of features. Not so in Creo.
Exporting sketches. For example, you can import dxf for sketches, but you can't export dxf. This is a major drawback for me, because I often communicate with customers through dwg or dxf sketches. If I can't export dxf, my sketches in CAE are "dead". I have to redo them in the dwg sketch. It is so inconvenient, I often end up making the sketches in DraftSight, so I can export them to CAE but I still have the originals in dwg format.
CAE doesn't remember element type assignment by sets. Sometimes when I reconfigure or modify a design, I regenerate sets and surfaces, and this in turn updates material assignments, interactions and loads almost automatically. This doesn't happen with element types, so I often end up submitting a job with the wrong element types.
Mesh regeneration and re-mapping in 2D within the job. I need this a lot to model axisymmetric assemblies with sharp indentation the destroys the original mesh. I had it in MSC/MARC and it worked great. Abaqus has it only for 3D. I have tried alternatives like lagrangian/eulerian and eulerian domains but it's still more complicated.
Extremely well organized and friendly, reflecting the latest approaches in solid modeling and adding the FEA part so seamlessly for the user. It's a joy to use. I'm aware some people would complain about the meshing capabilities and thus prefer using HYPERMESH. Fortunately not my case. I did wish I had HYPERMESH a couple of times, but for most of my projects CAE meshing is fine.
I liked the training manuals I used to learn some, as I didn’t have CAD background in college or before this job. My coworkers were able to share with me what they learned in PTC training and I was able to get support online and through reading.
I keep getting the feeling that it is drifting away from small users. I don't feel so comfortable with the SWYM community approach. I felt much better when you could just email or call HKS and you would feel like you were talking to a real expert who understood your situation. When I was reassigned to reseller in Argentina, which is like the other side of the world for me, I appreciated the cultural closeness, but I had to say goodbye to the level of support I had from HKS and learned to "support myself."
PTC Creo is much better than other software at allowing collaboration across multiple users, even multiple plants/locations. We went from an older non-parametric industry standard software to PTC Creo because we could save massive amounts of time by using the parametric assembly features of PTC Creo along with the the Windchill drawing organization functions.
MARC can do the job from an FEA point of view. It even appears better at a couple of things such as 2D remeshing and surviving with highly distorted meshes. So I regard it as a very competitive alternative. I prefer SIMULIA because the GUI is so much better, especially the ability to create actual parametric designs in CAE. ANSYS doesn't cut it for me. I tried it for 1 month and I would see how much I would struggle with convergence in large deformation and large displacement situations with hyperelastic materials with which I have to deal all the time. Also the GUI is not as well built an integrated as in SIMULIA.
Having PTC Creo as our primary tool positions us as forward thinking and creative in the eyes of our clients.
PTC Creo constantly evolves in the ability to increase our productivity; new capabilities and features are added, which reduce our level of effort for some tasks.
I don't even bother doing an ROI. Without SIMULIA I would be pretty much out of business. Except for the fact that I could still have an alternative with MSC/MARC.
Price is becoming a more difficult hurdle for small users. It appears I have survived because there was a 50% discount on my small 6-token package. Without this special price I would have to close my business. I'm currently exploring alternatives.
A more flexible scheme enabling to add tokens over short periods of time or paying per use could be an interesting possibility.
