-
Website
http://www.solidsmack.com/ -
Original page
http://www.solidsmack.com/ptc-goes-history-free-buys-cocreate/2007-10-31/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Friday Smackdown: Mechtronic Melee
- Ask The Reader: Are You Upgrading to Windows 7? {Poll}
- The Rockin’est LED PocketWatch Mod EVER, Designed With a lil’ SolidWorks
- FreshFiber’s 3D Printed iPhone Case Puts the Fancy in Your Pants
- Get Into SolidWorks World 2010 for Free. No Beet Throwing Required. #SWW10
I've been using CoCreate for many years and am very happy with it. It took them a few years to transition from the old Unix interface to a modern Windows interface, but I find it fast and intuitive, and the 2D is fully linked to the models and has been for a long time. It's not really fair to compare current tools with much older versions of CoCreate.
Undoubtedly a person's initial impression will be tinted by past tools they've used. Myself and other CoCreate users I know have been far less than satisfied when moving to Solid Edge or SolidWorks.
I worry about CoCreate being picked apart by PTC, but find it somewhat unlikely considering the history that many big accounts have with CoCreate. I am very excited by the concept of a Pro/Create hybrid that gives the best the dynamic modeling and the history-based modeling, as I value various aspects of both styles.
The big advantage to a non-history based modeler is that you never see "trees of blood" when you make a seemingly simple change early in your feature tree. No feature tree, no cherries!
If you do families of similar designs, if you like to plan ahead when you start a design, then stick with a history based modeler. If you do one offs, if you like to jump quickly into designs and modify them radically, then you might find non-history based modelers are more to your liking.
Jerry Steiger
I haven't used it since late 2005, but back then it was a real piece of work. It was totally ass backwards from SolidWorks. What I remember is the huge headache I got everyday during training, the huge amount of mouse clicks it took to do anything, and most amazingly, the fact that BY DEFAULT, Drawings ARE NOT LINKED to their models! It took a half a dozen clicks to link the Drawing to the Model. The User Interface looked like AutoCAD 13.
The last of day of class, the Trainer took me aside. He wasn't all that happy working for Co-Create and he told me SolidWorks was "killing them". He asked if I could teach him SolidWorks. I said "sure" but I never heard from him.
Cheers,
Devon
I remember one guy telling me he had never crashed or lost any data since his machine was new, 3 years ago. He claimed to have never re-booted and to have never turned it off during the past 3 years.
Now, about that secret SolidWorks Apple project.... Let's see, eDrawings for the iPhone, what's next? I bet the Woz has an idea!
Devon
What's going to be interesting is to see if that type of modeling can make it into the nut and bolt mechanical engineering environment that is use to a history-based approach. SpaceClaim has come the closest to addressing legacy data which is important, but it's going to be more than just being able to import stuff. There's library, processes, and modeling methodology that has been developed over the years. Solve that problem or provide a way to ease into it and you could have a winner.
When I think non-history based modeler, I think AutoCAD. In my last job where we used AutoCAD and SolidWorks, AutoCAD had the upper hand when you wanted to "slap things together" and modify geometry. Also, it was nice that each file was independent and didn't have files that you had to manage like you do with SolidWorks (references to part/drawing/assembly files). However, SolidWorks had the upper hand for 3D, obviously, but also for the parametrics. Also, once you set up a library of parts w/ configurations, creating variations of product lines was pretty efficient and fast. And, it's easier to go back and tweak items w/out having to re-create the geometry like you do with a non-history based modeler. I remember that one of the biggest complaints that people had with SolidWorks not having inta-version compatibility is that you had to work with "dumb" solids if using an older version. Obviously, there was some perceived value in having an "intelligent" model to work with, with history-based features.
One other thing. What about configurations? Do SpaceClaim, MOI, SketchUp, etc have configurations? I think that was another big advantage and powerful tool that SolidWorks had/has over the competition. HUGE benefit when working with any product "line" that has many variations to it. Which seems to be almost every product out there.
Is there some "silver bullet" that I'm missing that non-history based modeling offers?
Long story short, SW buys SC.
Kutch
The surroundings seem somewhat familiar.
The commands again, somewhat intuitive.
The results from some commands are surprising.
The lack of history at the left side of screen -a bit disconcerting...
I guess I'm not a free thinker...yet.
Kutch
I guess I should have qualified my statement by saying that yes, I think non-history based modeling would be good for concepting.
The more I think about it though, a lot of components (at least at the places I've been) don't every really graduate from concept to set-in-stone production parts; they're ALWAYS being revised and modified. And the "collaboration" aspect of it, where different departments can provide feedback and make changes, seems to be another area that non-history based would come in handy, but it still seem SOMEWHERE along the lines you will still need the advantages of history based.
Yes, the history free tools are interesting - but they, as most do, work within very specific geometric and topological limitations - download the OneSpace modelling free edition and read the help files - its all documented and plain to see. and for many users, that's ideal - because of the types of components they're developing/editing. If I'm wrong - I'd be happy to hear it.
CoCreate has been hawking itself for sale for years. I had a chat with a pretty high-up exec at PTC last year and asked about someone acquiring CoCreate - his reply? "someone's got to take one for the team."
Some of those tools will appear in Pro/E undoubtedly, but they didn't need to acquire the company solely to get that technology - Siemens/UGS/whatever, did a solid job of matching much of the fundamental in NX 5..
my tuppence..
Al
I think with the emerging markets there’s going to be a lot of potential in turning concept into engineering quickly. If think some of the best competition will materialize as a system that allows an open environment of conceptualization that can quickly make the conversion to engineering and manufacturing data. The tools out there aren’t there yet in my opinion, but if you have the largest user base, you can introduce and build it quickly.
Thanks again Al, great insight.
http://www.ugs.com/en_us/about_us/newsroom/pres...
Turns out one of CoCreate's flagship users jumped ship to NX - and I'm told primarily down to the direct modelling tools that UGS/Siemens put into the NX 5 release which pretty much mimics (and in many cases, improves upon) many of the basics of the CoCreate technology.
Different strokes for different folks, or horses for courses as the British say. I liked CoCreate well enough and hated Pro/E. I much prefer SW to either. I have friends and colleagues who would much rather use CoCreate. I have others who wouldn't be caught dead with anything other than Pro/E. It all comes down to what you are trying to do and how your mind works. The latter is strongly influenced by what you've done before.
Jerry
The one shop I've done work with loves it. They've been through Inventor, SolidWorks and settled on SolidEdge. "The less expensive version"... (They do allot of work for GE Power systems- that may have persuaded them to go that direction). Yah think? ~$100 million a year for maintenance on all those seats of UG NX. They ain't changing anytime soon...
All I know is that PTC had better do something new and different. I've been using SW since '97 and with the starting of a new job 4 months ago, I've had to take up learning Pro|e. Went to the (1) week introduction class and have been using it for about (3) Months now. As I said...PTC better do something or they will continue to drop like a rock. IMHO...
*The GUI.
*The endless pull downs.
*The applying of constraints in assemblies.
*The drafting package.
OUTDATED. Or maybe a better word...Cumbersome.
Don't get me wrong, its not that Pro|e doesn't get you were you need to go, its just so laborious to use. Stale, cold & so "yesterday"...Sorry,-had to plop that word in..
If I was a shareholder in PTC, other than selling my stock, I'd be pushing them to update the offerings. i.g. CoCreate.
Wildfire may look cool on the outside. But its not much better than its previous versions. (from what a few long time users have said - in faint muffled voices and arms twisted behind their backs...)
Even looking back on the PTC training ...
-Of course, the Pro|e instructor had to dog all other 3D packages out there throughout the week of training. I was determined to try and have an open mind and keep my mouth shut. Most of the time this worked. But on a few occasions the outright lies (or ignorance of the competitions capabilities) made my speak up in class. At the end of it all the only way he could explain the difference between Pro|e and SW was like some see computers....
"Some like Macs and some like PCs.
What would you rather have, he asked...
A flashy new graphical Mac, or the time tested "geek" PC crunching numbers for you when doing mechanical design?"
It was at that point I decided to keep the instructors score card for filling out at a later date to send to PTC directly rather than being filtered through this guys boss...
This video http://vimeo.com/2612213
of Jon Hirschtick and the History of CAD has helped me to also get the direction CAD has come from as well as were its going - a bit clearer in my head as well bettering my ability to explain it to others.
Personally, what would keep me loyal is not so much of whats "next" but rather, keep what we have working well (reliability) & Listen to the users. They'll have plenty of fresh ideas to introduce future modifications to the software.
And another thing -if I may keep on rolling.
One thing that makes or breaks a deal. The local representation. The person that comes to put on the show - the company whos going to bail you out when stuck - your first line of contact for help...They had better know what the heck they are talking about. Many of the smarter companies I've listened to have shot one or another packages down due to poor representation with the potential customer.
Maybe I've been fortunate thur my years with SW. In the 11 years I've been with one VAR thats taken the time to truly explain things and be there to go the extra mile. I'm going to miss doing business with them. All we have now is the ability to call PTC in (I believe) India. Great support...
\ Long rant off \