ETAP PS vs. PTC Creo

ETAP is highly recommended for evaluating static conditions in electrical power systems, whether in high or medium complexity networks. For example, study of load flow, analysis of frequency harmonics.

On the other hand, I would not recommend ETAP for the simulation of highly complex control systems that require a dynamic analysis of the variables.

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

• Excellent facility for the design of electrical systems, since it has multiple options and configuration.
• Truly intuitive, it is easy to adapt to the user interface, so the learning curve is very fast.
• It offers a wide variety of electrical studies that can be carried out, therefore it is very versatile for multiple applications.

• 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

• Perhaps the interface is somewhat confusing the first time you use the program.
• It offers a wide configuration, which can be overwhelming.
• Sometimes the program can freeze depending on the size of the electrical grid that is being simulated. This also depends on the software requirements.

• 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

ETAP PS is really easy to use. When recreating the power system to be simulated, it is easy to obtain a result close to reality due to the multiple components offered in the interface. As for the electrical studies available, they are simple to execute and require really little configuration to make them work, always offering a wide variety of options to adjust the program to the simulation of the desired condition.

Sometimes when the program crashes for a random reason, it is difficult to find a direct solution to the problem. I think better documentation is needed for this type of case. Still, more and more people are sharing their work on the web, making it easier to orient yourself when these issues occur.

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

Simulink allows to analyze and simulate different variables with respect to time in an electric power system, but it is more focused on visual programming On the other hand, ETAP is better designed for static simulation of power systems, offering options and studies in a very more direct and easier to execute.

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

• Improves the reliability of the electrical system.
• Study of the system operations, allowing a better adjustment of the facilities that are in production.
• Provides results that allow you to select solutions for energy saving.

• 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