2/18/2023 0 Comments Ptc creo student licence![]() ![]() Our user experience has been nothing but positive once we were used to the changes and the interface. That takes several iterations down from weeks to days. In simulate we have been able to take solution times for dynamic analyses from 30+ hours down to 2-4 hrs with more confidence in the results. Creo 2.0 has its bugs but not like Creo 1.0 did and has definitely increased our productivity by orders of magnitude. RE: Creo 2 simulate licensing jvian (Aerospace) 18 Jun 13 10:25 Comparisons for contact analyses between Wildfire 5 and Creo 2.0 are, in my opinion, particularly "useful and improved".Īnd the new, useful and improved will continue in Creo 3 with a couple of significant nonlinear enhancements, a revamped results environment, easier to use/smarter bolt preloading, and so on. Oh and revamped fasteners.Ĭreo 2.0's development focus was on robustness and performance, specifically in contact performance and for dynamic analyses. ![]() Not to mention the ability to created mapped (hex) meshes, automatically mesh prismatic parts with hex/wedge, better thin solid recognition. Not sure I get the FUBAR reference, but just FYI the Creo release of Simulate was a big one, with the following major improvements: Large deformation contact, coupled nonlinearities, load history controls, 2D Axisymmetric nonlinear, nonlinear springs, solid bolt preloading, temperature dependent conductivity, grey body radiation, moving thermal loads.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |