Autodesk MeshMixer vs. PTC Creo

Autodesk MeshMixer is best for repairing STL files and basic modifications toward 3D printing. It is excellent for hollowing out models and adding escape holes for SLA printing or lost-wax casting. Its CSG (Boolean) functions to combine different meshes are good too and seldom cause the program to crash. There is even an integrated algorithm to optimize the layout of multiple files on a print bed in case of small-batch production. Autodesk MeshMixer's sculpting tools are there yet limited and there are a few better alternatives. Best of all, it is completely free.

PTC Creo is great for assemblies that multiple users are collaborating on. Models can reference other models that someone in another department has released and when those models are changed, the referenced parts and assemblies are changed. These changes are very helpful when working on collaborative machine designs and comparing forging dies with the final parts.

Incentivized

• Auto-repair function works fast, and if it does not completely cover all problem areas, manual fixes will work 99.5% of the time.
• Remeshing algorithm is fairly slow but does a wonderful job in creating meshes with homogeneous or adaptive triangulation.
• It contains a comprehensive set of tools to optimize and prepare STL files for 3D printing, such as hollowing and support generation.

• PTC Creo contains many advanced tools with better optimization for creating part models and other production related drawings.
• The initial concept designs can be done more adequately.
• The parameters of 2D drawings can be changed easily by editing the 3D model.
• The productivity can be increased by customized tools for modeling.

Incentivized

• The remeshing tool needs to be faster, as in some cases it takes up to a day of waiting time.
• The sculpting tools need the addition of a proper brush for creating sharp creases and ridges.
• The standard shape library is rather limited. It would be nice to have this connected to online repositories such as Thingiverse, MyMiniFactory, or Cults3D.

• PTC Creo could grow a help-line staff of highly experienced individuals to aid the existing knowledge base article searchers. It would include experts with deep knowledge of certain Creo modules (SMEs) and provide help staff a go to for deeper levels of help when it is needed.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

Using Blender for STL file preparation is like swatting a mosquito with a wrecking ball, plus its boolean functionalities can be glitchy. ZBrushCoreMini proved too limiting as a sculpting tool, but so did Autodesk MeshMixer, so I am sticking to Sculptris. Materialise Magics and Netfabb are somewhat better at STL file repair and offer more advanced functionalities. But Magics does not remesh as well and Autodesk MeshMixer is far more compact and faster than Netfabb, so remains my weapon of choice.

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 different file data of different software without any file conversion. Creo costs comparable to SOLIDWORKS cost, with more capabilities.

Incentivized

• It speeds up projects by streamlining the CAD-to-3D-printing workflow
• As an advanced user, I have written a few tutorials about it as well

• Creo is our standard design package and as such we have had a negative impact on time spent designing because it is less user-friendly.
• In difficult design situations, we have had a positive impact because Creo is better suited for complex designs.

Incentivized