Mechanical design is too broad.
Generally speaking, mechanical engineers use Creo and UG, and mechanical personnel use SOLIDWORKS.
Here is a comprehensive comparison of the three software:
Creo, UG prices are very expensive. SolidWork is much cheaper.
Note: CREO, catia, etc. are ACIS kernels, and this kernel is designed for deflected surfaces.
UG, solidworks, etc. are Parasolid, which is a partial entity design.
So surface curve is the strength of Creo and Catia.
Creo, UG, and CATIA are products of the same grade. Do not compare it with some low-end popular products such as SOLIDWORKS.
If you want to draw only 3D, you can use any one. If you want to design and logical products use Creo. Creo is the most powerful in the field of industrial design. UG is the most powerful in the field of processing.
SOLIDWORKS. How should I put it, I don't know if this metaphor is right or not, just like LINUX and WINDOWS. If you want to run large programs and require stability and performance, use Linux. If you want to do something and the requirements are not high, use WINDOWS. The speed at which Creo runs is literally a few blocks away from Solidworks. Large-scale machinery companies such as XCMG, Weichai and other Creo, UG is the protagonist, and Solidworks is the supporting role. Key technologies and products will not be handed over to Solidworks as files.
Unigraphics NX is powerful in technology, and it is a rare rival. Unigraphics originated from the products of McDonnell Douglas in the United States. In the early years, it ran under the Unix system of the workstation, and was suppressed by Pro/Engineer. In November 1991, it was merged into the EDS division of General Motors Corporation of the United States. Unigraphics was developed by its independent subsidiary UGS, and later integrated with the I-deas software of the SDRC company that was also acquired, and launched UnigraphicsNX, which is a high-end CAD mechanical engineering auxiliary system, suitable for aviation, aerospace, automobiles, general machinery and molds, etc. design, analysis and manufacturing engineering.
UG is a German product and Creo is an American product. German machining and molds are strong points. American product design and software are strong, which is why Creo's performance can beat UG by a few streets. Why do we need to use Creo while using UG? But Creo is a little weaker than UG in terms of machining and molds. Because the mechanical design of the United States is not much worse than that of Germany. If the mold design is CREO+EMX+PDX, it is much stronger than UG. Machining Cimatron has a trend of super UG. It's just a question of the market. Just like Mazdas and Volkswagens. Is there a big difference between the two? Each has its own merits.
Didn't you find that the latest version of UG is updated so-called fast? One small patch in January, one big patch in half a year, now it is 1867. What does it mean? Software development is its weak point, and there is no strict software quality management plan. It reflects that Germany is not a software power.
For many beginners in Creo, the relevant parameters give you a headache. But when you are a mature designer you will love Creo. Just like many people do things, they are very organized and logical. It's not about making up for mistakes. UG can be repaired (non-parametric), repair will always take care of one thing and lose another, right? So Creo is for those who do things perfectly or logically. UG is for those who make a product or get a job done. Let me give you an example. There is a groove function in UG, which is to open a circle of grooves on the surface of the cylinder. Such a simple feature really needs to be listed as a separate function. In Creo, isn’t the method of scanning around the surface of a cylinder to cut off material in a certain shape? You can make this shape whatever you want, or you can cut an invisible sink in it. Operation steps: Sketch》Scan》Sketch Section》Select Cut Material》OK. You see how many dialog boxes will pop up in UG. This is the performance of careful thinking.
Some people say that the main application field of catia is automobile and aircraft manufacturing, the main application field of CREO is product manufacturing, and the main application field of NX is mold manufacturing. This is a wrong understanding. Some large companies use CREO, CATIA, and UG at the same time, in different departments use. You can't say that the front-line processing department uses Catia (why do women make things difficult for women). Otherwise, you will not be able to integrate into that circle. You are engaged in Creo, Catia, you want to use SOLIDWORKS, Autodesk Inventor, Solidedge (UG simplified version) and so on. You will definitely be ostracized. Just like you are a cultural person, you must go with drug abuse. . Ha ha.
Talk about SOLIDWORKS. First of all, I declare that it is not black. I am realistic. . . . Its performance is very poor, I wonder if it is helping the hardware factory to buy hardware. Bug is also quite a lot. The founder left Creo and wanted to compete with Creo --- he was overwhelmed. Just like the technicians of a software company in China now come out and make a product that is the same as the company where they work--which one is successful? Besides, Solidworks uses the core of Solidedge! Every year, I honestly have to pay others! If people don't sell it, your software will go bankrupt! In the end, it was the fate of being acquired.
Products are ever-changing. From the software level, except for the parting surface related to the product glue position, which can only be adapted to the product and cannot be automated, the rest should be automated and intelligent to maximize design efficiency and reduce duplication of labor. ! The parameterization of CREO strategically provides this condition. UG, on the other hand, can only be adapted tactically. No matter how proficient you are in software, if you leave parameterization, you will still be in manual mode when you get old. It's a pity that to really appreciate parameterization, it takes a huge amount of work in the early stage to achieve it, which is the so-called thick accumulation!
But it is also a manual mode. Without strategic support, CREO is not as flexible as UG in tactics. This is why 99% of people can't do UG!
In general, using UG to do mold design is to remove the parameters and not keep the parameters. Without the parameters, it will not be as convenient as CREO. Don’t say that UG has no parameters and can be modified. This is just for a single As far as parts are concerned, when there are many relationships between many parts, it will be troublesome if there are no parameters. Therefore, the reason why UG is not used much for product design, and another factor is that UG is more convenient to get started, and it will not exist like CREO. Following the concept of parameterization, if you don’t understand its concept, it is easy to make mistakes when you draw, and because the references you selected before are confusing, you often don’t know where the mistakes are and drive you crazy. The reason for reference, so many people think it is not easy to use, it is just that those people do not understand the concept and principle of this software, so they say that it is not as good as which software, etc. Irresponsible remarks appear, it is not like UG, UG can be Kill the parameters at any time, there will be no regeneration errors, and UG is indeed more convenient to operate than CREO, and the replacement function is better than CREO, and UG can exist in multiple entities, while CREO can only have multiple entities in the assembly module However, now CREO 4.0 seems to be able to use the flexible modeling function in the parting module, and the surface of the closed surface can also be replaced. You must know that if the previous version is not a solid, you cannot replace the surface with a surface. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, depending on the level of the person using it.
Many large furniture factories are using UG, such as Quanyou, IKEA, Pearl of the Palm and so on. But I personally think that the software UG, solidedge, ThinkDesign, TopSolidWood, Rhino that are really suitable for making furniture can completely explode Solidworks!
CREO has more than 20 modules for users to choose, so it can integrate the entire design and production process together. In recent years, CREO has become the most attractive software in the field of 3D mechanical design, and has been widely used in mold factories in Taiwan. This is why the quality of products in Taiwan is better than those in mainland China. The mold design EMX FOR CREO is the product of BUW, a partner of PTC. Absolutely PK out the UG mold design. But many people don't know that there is a low-key EMX and PDX. It works so well with Creo
The scope of mechanical design is too wide. Generally speaking, CREO is used for complex structures, such as engines, mobile phones, and air conditioners. As far as I know, Cummins, AVL, and Mitsubishi all use CREO to design engines. Several aeronautical institutes use PCREO designs. Trane air conditioners, Midea, Haier, sharp, siemens (yes, Siemens is the owner of UG), WHIRLPOOL, PHILIPS, panasonic, OTIS, lenovo, kohler, Huawei, GE, Emerson, ericsson, Dongfeng, danfoss, CATERPILLAR, alstom are all CREO users --- heavy industry, Sany, Liugong, Xiagong, Hyundai are all.
As far as the parting surface is separated from the upper and lower molds, UG is not necessarily better than creo. It can only be said that each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Take UG’s mold-specific module for mold splitting and creo’s mold manufacturing module for example. From the automatic creation of parting surfaces to fill holes, CREO is much faster than UG. Every hole filled in UG is generated step by step according to the formal method of surface making. You can open the feature tree and take a look. Yes, several features are needed to fill a very simple hole. Putting several features in one group is a feature for filling holes. If there are not many holes, the speed may not be much slower than Creo. If it is filling a lot of holes ? Heh, if you use the automatic hole filling function of UG, you may just sit there and wait for it to finish the calculation. This process is a very long wait for the mold design process that races against time. Unlike creo, a skirt can fill up all the non-irregular holes in the graphics in a few seconds. Of course, if it is not irregular, it cannot be filled out, but the effect of automatic filling is not good, and it cannot be used at all. Of course, it does not mean that creo’s automatic hole filling function is not strong enough, so irregular and complicated holes will not work. Those irregular and complicated holes cannot be filled by creo or the effect is not good. The result is the same in UG. There is not much difference. The same is to delete those bad patch holes and create them manually.
There are not many ways to automatically create fractal surfaces in CREO, and they are also shadows and skirts. Shadows may be rarely used by people. After all, it is not very useful, but if you are doing some simple outermost points The parting surface is flat and it is a mold with many holes in one mold, so it can come in handy. A shadow can quickly make the parting surface, and the success rate of segmentation is the highest. Of course, it can be used in CREO. Most of them are the skirt command to automatically create the parting surface. Many people who use CREO parting may still rarely use this command, but I have to deny that the skirt command is very useful. Some people may They are used to creating the parting surface manually. They don’t have a deep understanding of it or they don’t know how to use this command and say it’s not good. In fact, it’s very efficient to create the outermost parting surface and fill holes with it. I am You often use this command to split the mold. A skirt command can fill up all the holes in the product. Of course, some holes cannot be filled. The reason for the failure is that the silhouette curve you created is not closed, or The holes are extremely irregular, such as filling those screw holes. A product graphic may have many holes for such screws. If you use Yanxiu’s to make everything by stretching a closed quilt, you will be blamed if you don’t feel tired. If It is convenient to have the same height, and all of them can be made in the same feature, but many times the holes are also of different heights. If you follow the Yanxiu parting method, you can only stretch one feature per hole. If it’s not a plane, you need to make a curved surface to merge with the stretching to make it up. There are multiple holes in a graphic. I don’t know how many features you need to make and how long it takes to make it up? When you only fill up these holes, I have already separated the upper and lower molds with my comprehensive mold splitting method. I can only say that the most suitable method should be used in any situation, and don't let yourself go into a dead end. Software is invariable, with the same command and the same result. The key is that people are flexible and changeable. Think about what method is the most suitable, fastest and easiest to make. This is where you have an advantage over others. It should not be mentioned here that another advantage of the skirt is that the success rate of the parting surface segmentation made by the skirt is very high, and there are very few problems in the parting surface created by the skirt. If you The silhouette curve is well done, and the generated faces are not self-intersecting, disconnected or overlapping, basically no problem, and I won’t talk about its usage skills here.
UG does have higher requirements for computer hardware than CREO. I have used UG to divide some graphics that are not very large and complex. When multiple features are created, the computer runs slower, and sometimes it takes to open a command. Waiting for more than ten or tens of seconds, such a response speed is really irritating for designers. They can only blame the company or their own computer configuration. Of course, my company’s computer configuration is no longer It is considered low, I5 CPU, 4G memory, and above-average display card are all like this.
Obviously, many people now use UG parting methods not in that special mold module, and manual parting is the majority, especially when encountering complex graphics, this should be said to be the parting method of the modeling method. The commands for creating parting surfaces that are provided in the mold module are often used. UG parting is more flexible than CREO, and it is much more convenient to operate than CREO. It should be said that CREO is the most cumbersome, inhumane and troublesome software among the mainstream 3D mechanical software. Now the latest version of CREO is better than all the previous ones. The CREO version is more convenient and user-friendly to operate, but there is not much difference in essence, except that the interface changes a lot and is more icon-based. The advantage of CREO is that it is more parameterized and easier to modify. In terms of model splitting alone, I think CREO is more convenient than UG in some cases, but UG can operate multiple entities, and Boolean operations are very convenient. This can only be realized in component mode, but the efficiency and operation It's even more troublesome to get up. The worst part of CREO, or it should be said that the part that delays parting time the most, is that it often encounters parting failures. Experienced people will have their own solutions when encountering parting failures. Of course, it is difficult to define the speed of solving problems. Yes, sometimes it may take a short time to create the parting surface, but it cannot be separated in the division. At this time, you can only find out what is the reason for the inseparability. Maybe you have searched for a long time and tried N methods without knowing the problem. Where, for those who don't have enough experience in PREO, they will complain and worry, colleagues and bosses are urging why it took so long to get it done? uncomfortable! butThere will still be a solution to the problem. There is no inseparable mold when using CREO. The key lies in how humane it is. This is also one of the reasons why many people say that CREO is not as good as UG. Of course, there is no time when UG is inseparable. UG will often encounter inseparability. The reason is actually the same as CREO.
If you want to use the UG mold module to split the mold, you will generate many files as soon as you save it. This is more troublesome than CREO, but the generated files are all useful files, unlike CREO, which will save many files once saved. Version, if you don’t delete the previous old version, it will keep accumulating. At that time, a file may have a capacity of hundreds of KB, and it may accumulate to hundreds of MB in the end, depending on the number of times you save it. . UG automatic mold parting must first define the color surface of the core and cavity, which is more inconvenient than CREO. Although UG can select the surface by color, it is also necessary to do mold parting, which is also very troublesome. , in many cases, some faces that cannot be defined on the front model or on the back model must be manually split and classified to define them, which is indeed very tiring. Of course, UG can also be divided without selecting all the faces of the product. It is enough to mend the holes with manual parting. First, use the product graphics and the solid and mold blanks to fill the holes to find the difference, and finally use the surface or solid to divide. The upper and lower molds can be separated at the connected place.
As far as parting mold is concerned, CREO is not worse than UG, even faster and more convenient than UG. CREO is faster than UG mainly because of the full 3D mold design. UG has many plug-ins that can be installed and used. On the contrary, CREO There are few easy-to-use plug-ins. It seems that not many people are willing to develop software for CREO. This has to be said to be the advantage of UG. If it is to do the 3D design of a complete set of molds, of course it is more convenient and efficient to use UG than CREO.
The above mentioned are just some of my humble opinions. I don’t use the software very deeply, but I understand their principles. Everyone should talk more about technical topics and less about the comparison of which software is better. This in itself It is a very boring question, the key is whether we have mastered the professional knowledge of this industry is the most important, if you only know how to use UG or CREO, but you do not understand the mold structure and professional knowledge of the mold industry, Then UG or CREO is a tool for you, but you are just a drawing tool for professionals
