A Review of PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP

June, 2002

Prepared by
TechniCom, Inc.

Raymond Kurland

TechniCom, Inc.
66 Mt. Prospect Avenue
Clifton, NJ 07013 USA
(973) 470 9110
http://www.technicom.com
staff@technicom.com
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review

Pro/DESKTOP, a surprisingly strong

solid modeler!
With minor exceptions, Pro/DESKTOP completed TechniCom’s mid
range benchmark easily. Pro/ENGINEER, Pro/COLLABORATE, and
Granite interoperability add more value.

In mid May we traveled to PTC Headquarters in Needham,

Some of the models we created during
the review
Massachusetts to perform a review of Pro/DESKTOP. The
result of that visit and additional follow up, is this white paper
describing the results and our conclusions about the product
and where and how it fits in PTC’s product lines. We also had
the opportunity to speak with a user of the product.
How we did the review
Rather than taking an arbitrary path through the product, we
chose to use the TechniCom benchmark, developed to
analyze the solid modeling capabilities of mid-range MCAD
solid modeling systems. During the course of these analyses,
performed during the period of 1996 through 1999, we ran
more than 15 of these benchmarks on mid range systems.
Pro/DESKTOP was not among those tested. This approach
would provide us a firm basis for evaluating the primary
functionality of Pro/DESKTOP, which could be enhanced by
reviewing additional capabilities beyond that of basic solid
modeling.
When we last ran the tests in 1998, two systems stood out.
Since then, several new systems have been introduced or
experienced major upgrades. Yet their developers refused to
cooperate with us, claiming that they were concerned that
their software might not compare well. It is my pleasure to
report that PTC agreed to have us run the benchmark tests on
Pro/DESKTOP.
Our technique uses a prepared benchmark which was distrib-
uted in advance to PTC. We retain an element of surprise by
introducing unseen changes during the tests. To eliminate
operator skills (or lack of it) we asked PTC to provide us with
an operator who was skilled in the usage of Pro/DESKTOP.
They assigned Chris Lewis, of their technical support group,
to that task.
This review was somewhat less rigorous than a full bench-
mark test because we are not presenting, nor did we record

PTC Page 2 TechniCom, Inc.

 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review

numeric results for the 64 test steps. Instead we present you

our analysis of the system capability, our assessment of how it
performed, and its ability to complete the tests. Also, we
thought that readers of this review might not want to read a
60+ page document.
Summary conclusions
Where it fits
Fundamentally, our tests proved that Pro/DESKTOP is an
incredible bargain. Not only is the product a robust stand
The Express version provides a complete,
alone solid modeler, but the Pro/DESKTOP Express version is
robust solid modeler capable of successfully
free! Evidently many other people agree, since at last count,
completing virtually all of our tests.
potential users had downloaded more than 50,000 copies.
The free copy (Pro/DESKTOP Express) not only provides
robust modeling, but can also join a Pro/COLLABORATE
session to share and collaborate with other Pro/DESKTOP
Interoperability with other PTC products users or with Pro/ENGINEER users. For only $995 USD,
users can upgrade to Pro/DESKTOP and also initiate Pro/
Both Pro/ENGINEER and Pro/DESKTOP are COLLABORATE sessions plus add additional advanced
built on PTC’s Granite kernel and both functionality to the product, such as advanced rendering.
applications can now read native CAD files
generated by the other system. In addition, How it compares
PTC’s Associative Topology Bus (ATB) The Express version provides a complete, robust solid
supports associative update of the imported modeler capable of completing virtually all of our tests.
geometry. For example, a Pro/ENGINEER Sketching, solid modeling, assembly design, and drafting
user can directly open a Pro/DESKTOP are outstanding. PTC has invested heavily in the help
model and then build additional geometry that system, which appears outstanding both for novices and
references the imported geometry. If the experts.
reference Pro/DESKTOP model is changed
by the Pro/DESKTOP user, the Pro/ENGI- While we did not perform detailed grading for this short
NEER user can associatively update the review, we estimate that the final score would have been in
imported geometry in his Pro/ENGINEER the low 90’s, within five percent of the scores that Solid
model to incorporate these changes. Although Edge and SolidWorks last achieved in the our tests.
both CAD systems use the same geometry We found the user interface, modeling robustness, sketch
kernel, Pro/ENGINEER and Pro/DESKTOP connection to the solid model, drag and drop, model pre-
files are not interchangeable. While each viewing, assembly positioning, assembly modeling, model
system can read the information stored in the cross referencing, and drafting to all be excellent. The
other’s files, the format of the other system’s system could use improvements in advanced shelling and
files is not native to that system. assembly explosions, but these are minor points for most
users, and may have workarounds.
Test Overview
Rather than bore you with the exhaustive details of the
TechniCom mid range benchmark tests, you can review the
models and the test outline at http://www.technicom.com/
ProD-tests. The seven tests focus heavily on parametric,
feature based solid modeling (alternatively known as variable
driven design). We test sketching, creating solids from
sketches, adding features, all sorts of parametric changes,

PTC Page 3 TechniCom, Inc.

 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review

drafting from a solid, filleting, draft angles, assembly model-

ing, and solid surfacing.
The sections below summarize the results and our reactions.
Test 1 - Profiling and building the Tee block
To familiarize ourselves, we looked at the menu structure of
Pro/DESKTOP. We are operating in a single workstation
mode. We looked at the various portions of the menus. They
look pretty standard. We have a number of screen images
that include the menu structure. The palette contains six
folders initially, but can be customized. The Feature Tree is
divided into three parts: components, features and
workplanes. The feature portion of the history tree is history
based; the others are alphabetically organized.
To begin, we started with a sketch. When starting a new
sketch the system starts up with three orthogonal work planes
displayed. We built the desired sketch easily. The system
automatically adds constraints. After we built the rough sketch
we added the dimensions. The system automatically recog-
nizes over-constrained models. You can choose to change
the dimension into a driven dimension. Over-constrained
sketchj dimensions have parentheses around them. We
extruded the completed sketch into the third dimension. The
sketch stays connected with the model; changing the sketch
later alters the model. Before extruding the sketch, we set up
the equations that we require in this test using the menu
tools: design rules. One of the images that we saved shows
design rules. (Ray_1_9 on the web site). We can easily select
feature dimensions or sketch dimensions directly on the
model and use these to set up equations with relations that
produce the rib position we needed to calculate in this test.
The shelling was easily performed. We were also able to
produce the required inward draft angle along the interior
walls and apply all of the required fillets.
In one instance, we wanted to test the ability to remove a
complete face. Step 1.6 aked the system to remove the top
edge of the tee block, using a fillet value of 0.375 inches. The
system stated that it couldn’t solve with this value (an accept-
able response), and asked us to make a change in the model.
We changed the fillet size to a smaller value, which executed
correctly.
Mass properties are easily computed. We recorded the data.
The system does not have a rib feature. However, using a
sketch we were easily able to build a rib. We were able to
project the solid geometry onto the sketch so that we could
constrain the length of the ribs to the respective associative
3D geometry. A change to the solid geometry automatically
updated the ribs. We were able to project this profile onto the

PTC Page 4 TechniCom, Inc.

 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
SUMMARY of Test 1: Pro/DESKTOP easily
completed Test 1. The sketching was excellent
and included automatic constraints. Extruding
into a solid, filleting, and shelling were all
accomplished without a hitch. We liked the
menus, they were excellently organized. The
help system was impressive. Evidently PTC
made quite an investment here.
Custom drag and drop parts are easily defined
and powerful to use.
PTC
part and we were able to, from a
menu panel, select the width of
the rib and the depth of the part.
The option we picked was .25
symmetric to the centerline and
to the part. Chris was easily able
to set up the top faces, the
neutral plane and then alter the
part’s draft angles to meet the
requirements. He was also able
to build a pattern from the ribs by
using a feature pattern, a power-
ful tool. We were able to change
that sketch pattern later to add
multiple ribs with new distance
requirements by changing the
equational relationships.
Test 2 - Drafting views
and changes to the Tee
block
We completed all of the steps.
We followed the standard para-
digm that Pro/DESKTOP uses to build the drill holes and the
bearing. That is, we built a sketch using a work plane on the
top of the model, representing the holes. Oddly enough, you
need to place the holes on the sketch including their center-
points and the circle representing the hole. The 3D-hole
feature relies on the circles in such a sketch. As we were
placing the hole, a dialog window allowed us to select the type
hole. We chose a standard, through hole, but we could have
used counter-bored, or other hole types, as alternatives.
We defined a custom drag and drop part by selecting a hole in
the model and dragging it into a new folder. Then we were
able to drag the hole onto the part. As this hole is dragged
onto the part, the mouse position caused faces to highlight.
When released, the hole is placed onto the highlighted face.
We bring in the characteristics of the hole as well, in our case,
a through hole. Once the hole is dragged on to the part we
can change the characteristics of the hole. For instance,
changing it into a blind hole.
Pro/DESKTOP built the top bearing and its counterbored
center hole as easily as any system we have observed. To do
this Chris built a workplane that was at the same angle as the
desired bearing hole. He placed the center outline of the outer
bearing, then used a project profile to add the material to the
top of the block. He used a similar technique to project the
profile for the center hole. He was easily able to make a
sketch so that the center hole was concurrent with the center
Page 5 TechniCom, Inc.
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
We were easily able to add a drawing by
selecting one of the standard templates.
SUMMARY of Test 2: Pro/DESKTOP ac-
complished this test as easily or better
than any other system we’ve observed.
PTC
point of the outer bearing hole, which he then
subtracted from the outer bearing to produce
the center hole. The system automatically
removed the excess material where it extended
past the intersecting face (depicted as Face B in
the test descrition) and its corresponding face
on the other side.
We were easily able to add a drawing by
selecting one of the standard templates. In our
case we chose a template with three views plus
an isometric view. We were able to add dimen-
sions onto the drawing, which were driving
dimensions and then update the entire model,
either from the drawing or the original sketch
model. An excellent capability.
We noticed you could not place annotations of
either text or dimensions on the 3D model.
However, they can easily be accessed by either
the drawing or model related sketches. PTC indicated they
were thinking of introducing this in a future version.
We easily created an auxiliary view. Rather
interesting, was the fact that in a non-auxiliary
view, which was aligned with the center line of the
outer bearing casing, we were still able to read the
radius and the diameter of the bearings even
though they appeared elliptical in that view. Chris
explained that the system used feature based
drafting rather than view based drawing. We
successfully altered the extrusion depth and the
width of the part by changing parameters.
Test 3 - Altering the Tee block
In this test we want to move the angle of the
bearing block casing, perform shelling on the
complex block, and generate a series of drawings
depicting the changes. We were able to complete
all of these tests with the exception of the multi-
thickness shelling feature. However, Chris was
able to demonstrate a work around using Pro/DESKTOP’s
offset face capability, which could be modified by activating a
design rule so that we could offset the face to a certain
variable. He demonstrated this and it worked successfully for
a smaller than desired shell thickness of 0.1 instead of 0.25.
We added a dimension to track where the outer bearing
intersected with a fillet between itself and the base. We were
easily able to alter the position of the bearing casing by simply
using the original sketch. To do so we removed some of the
constraints, then changed the location of the sketch for the
bearing center hole so that again they were concentric. The
Page 6 TechniCom, Inc.
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
SUMMARY of Test 3: Again, another impressive
capability to interface with both the sketching and
the solid modeling, resulting in the ability to create
quite complex geometry.
We expected the system to not be able to
calculate a fillet of 0.75 inches, where we
began to eliminate faces. Yet, it was able to
do so.
SUMMARY of Test 4: The primary purpose of this
test is to examine complex filleting and to build a
part for use in later tests. Pro/DESKTOP excelled
in the filleting, the ability to control the connection
of the rectangular rib to the circular bearing, and to
develop a smooth transiton where the rib meets
the base fillets.
PTC
requested changes to the bearing produced the proper
dimensions. We read exactly the values that we were
requesting. The fillets stayed exactly as we expected
and we were easily able to shell the model to a thick-
ness of 0.25. The shell was exactly as we expected.
Test 4 - Generating the bearing bracket
We did not go into this test in great detail because it
really didn’t add anything to what we already knew. The
model had been pre-built at our request. We examined
a few fillet changes in this model and we were able to
complete the ones of interest. We changed the rib back
fillet to .25 and it took a little longer than we anticipated
(10 or 15 seconds), but it correctly calculated. We also
changed the fillet around the base. Chris had designed
this using continuous fillet tangent edges and it cor-
rectly calculated at .5. We expected it not to be able to
calculate at .75 where we began to eliminate faces. We
edited the model to isolate certain fillets of interest.
When we disconnected the rib extension down to the
bottom face, we were able to successfully place these
.75 fillets where the front faces of the base of the
bearing block disappeared. The operator then reat-
tached the sketch line of the rib, back onto the model to
develop a smooth transition. He projected an edge onto
the sketch plane which was the curve that he wanted
the rib to extend tangentially to meet. This curve he
projected came from a front fillet face, as shown in the
image on the left.
The bracket design was created by breaking the design
down into three major areas. First, the back flange was
the overall governing sketch and was given a depth of
.75. Then, based off the back flange sketch, we ex-
truded the base a depth of 2.75. We extended the
bearing hole as boss. Then we filleted the various
important areas. We then applied or created a rib
sketch on the center plane and attached that sketch to
the front fillet face and to the front of the bearing boss.
We tied the inner diameter and the outer diameter of
the bearing boss together using a design equation to
drive the outer diameter based on the inner diameter of
the reamed hole.
Test 5 - Assembling the pulley brackets,
base, and shaft
In this test we did the more interesting aspects and
skipped some of the repetitive stuff. First Chris rebuilt
the plate. We have a couple of shots of this. It was
interesting because the pockets and holes in the plate
were referenced back to the original bearing brackets.
Page 7 TechniCom, Inc.
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
He did this using a series of sketches and projections.
We built a number of sketches. In one case we took
the reference for the projection from the bottom of the
bearing bracket, placed that properly in its locations
and extruded that down to a cut depth of 3/8” as
required. Next, we actually pulled a reference back to
the holes in the original bearing bracket and built an
auxiliary sketch so that we could automatically build
the through holes. Thus the location of the bearing
protrusion and the bolt holes are both referenced back
to the bearing brackets. The placement was as
indicated in the drawing. Additionally Chris was able to
use mirroring for the second placement and then
change the mirror distance to match the desired 1 3/
16.
Next, we copied the two bearing brackets into the model. Note
that Pro/DESKTOP does not have independent assembly and
parts models; it’s basically a single model. We referenced
back to the two bearing brackets and we used traditional
mating constraints to align the brackets to the base. We mated
using faces and the center axes. As we eliminated the de-
grees of freedom by using these mating constraints, we could
move the part along its still unresolved axes of freedom. When
the three degrees of freedom were resolved, the part was
locked into place.
Next, we wanted to place the cylindrical shaft through the
bearing center holes. We projected the length of the shaft to a
work plane, which was set on the opposite corresponding
bearing protrusion. Simultaneously the holes of the shaft
were set in relation to the bearing hole, to have a clear-
ance of .005. Interestingly enough, Chris did this directly
with a clearance dimension rather than a relationship or
design variable that modifies the diameter of the hole. We
liked this ability. Pro/DESKTOP has an excellent measure
function. The angle between the flange and the base was
19.322 degrees, as expected.
We then created an assembly drawing. I really liked the
fact that it was basically the same techniques we were
using for creating a drawing of a part. Except that we now
had an assembly in our model that automatically was
placed in the drawing, by selecting the desired template
for the drawing layout. We were also able to shade one
or more views, as desired. We were able to bring in a bill
of materials table automatically. We also had some options to
change the table headings to different column names. The
ballooning was easily created using semi-automatic balloon-
ing. Picking on the part using the balloon icon automatically
inserts a part reference number into the balloon.
The system has no exploded view capability. The system

PTC Page 8 TechniCom, Inc.

 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
Photo Realistic Rendering is only included in
full Pro/DESKTOP not Pro/DESKTOP EX-
PRESS.
SUMMARY of Test 5: With the sole exception
of automatic exploded assemblies, Pro/
DESKTOP exceeded expectations. The shaft
assembly feature was easily and correctly
added, and most importantly, the matching
pockets on the base were referenced back to
the parts.
Pro/DESKTOP does not have a specific
sheetmetal module. Pro/ENGINEER Founda-
tion does, and sheetmetal modeling, if required
could be performed there and associatively
transferred back into Pro/DESKTOP.
We extensively used the conceptualization
capabilities of Pro/DESKTOP’s sketches.
PTC
allows for the creation and storage of different configuration of
the model using an awkward sequence of events. Chris was
able to build a view, which only exploded along its mating
directions. Offset explosions are not available, as well as
explosion witness lines.
We created a shaded picture of the assembly quite fast. Pro/
DESKTOP has five pre-defined lighting setups,
default, room lighting, daylight, flood lights, and
spotlights. The image shown on the lift uses the
default single light source. Users can also set material
properties for each of the individual parts, as well as
adding background or foreground images. This
system works like a photo album. You can set up
many representations of the same model. Changing
the model automatically updates the images accord-
ing to the preset rendering parameters. This means
you could make large numbers of changes to a photo
album and have them rendered automatically. Photo
Realistic Rendering is only included in the full version
of Pro/DESKTOP, not Pro/DESKTOP EXPRESS.
Users can build animations, a fascinating function
built into Pro/DESKTOP, by setting up two or more
configurations (or states) of the model at particular
moments in time. The system allows a number of
configurations to be defined. Then the user would set
up the parameters of the animation, such as the
number of frames between each animation and the
time the animation is to run. The system then outputs
the individual frames, which could each be photo realistically
rendered. The result could be converted into AVI or movie file.
Test 6 - Advanced assembly test
We completed the entire test with the exception of evaluating
the sheetmetal capability of the system. Pro/DESKTOP does
not have a specific sheetmetal module. Of course we could
build this required part as we have done in the past without
using a sheetmetal module.
To assemble the components, we created a new design. To
add the desired assembly we selected the menu items:
assembly, add component; and select the assembly designed
in Test 5. We added a second one, again by using the menus:
assembly, add component. We dragged the second assembly
into a different position and fixed the first assembly position,
then selected faces from each of the models in the subassem-
bly with which to align, mate, and offset.
We than created a plane for the belt that was centered about
the pulley faces. To do this, we selected the two faces. Then
from those two face selections we were able to select a new
work plane and from the dialog box creating the work plane
Page 9 TechniCom, Inc.
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
SUMMARY of Test 6: In general, we were able to
do pretty much do everything wanted to. The
system showed a lot of flexibility by easily
building sketches and relating them to other
parts in the assembly. The difficult part of build-
ing the belt and having it properly match the
roller configuration as we moved it, was success-
fully and easily accomplished. We were not able
to automatically place a parametric hole pattern
and use Sheetmetal functions directly, but could
workaround these easily. These are minor
annoyances. Sketch based hole patterns can be
produced using an impressive generalized
pattern capability. They can vary in two direc-
tions, as well as varying the distance and the
spacing between them.
PTC
we could center a work plane right in the center of the belt
associatively. No equations, just driving directly off the
geometry. On this work plane we created a sketch
which we call the belt outline. The belt outline refer-
enced the pulley outer diameters and was tangent to
the pulleys. We needed to sketch the centerline of the
belt, so we offset our circles, forming the end of the
belt, a distance of .05 inches - half the thickness of the
intended belt. We then used that sketch to create the
geometry for the belt; in this case it was a thin extru-
sion, equal to the pulley depth.
We then were able to perform an interference check by
selecting, from the tools menu: measurement, interfer-
ence; to check whether the belt interfered with other
parts in the assembly. At this point Chris demonstrated
how Pro/DESKTOP could solve a common, but often
difficult to solve engineering problem. Provide the
reverse solution, where the length of the belt might be
a standard length, and instead alter certain variables
so that this standard belt might fit. To do so, he used a
solver tool to iteratively solve for the correct belt
length, based on a number of specified variables. We
allowed the X and Y positions of the subassembly
locations to vary. We examined a number of standard
belt lengths, specifically 32 and 43 inches, and the
system calculated the positions of the brackets to
match that length. Quite impressive!
We moved one subassembly so that the belt would
interfere with two parts. Oddly enough, only one
interference was detected automatically. We built a
roller to offset the belt and remove the interference. We
easily created the sketch to build the roller, and then
simply changed the original underlying belt sketch to
reference the new roller. Very nice! We made a number
of changes off the belts offset from 0.375 inches, then to 2.0
inches, then finally to 4 inches with no problems in the up-
dates.
Finally, we wanted to place a circular hole pattern on the large
pulley. The holes would then be filled with corresponding bolts.
To do so we created a pattern in the sketch environment,
which we were able to extrude easily to place holes in the
large pulley. We did not have the ability to enter a variable to
replicate the circular hole pattern; we needed to use angle
values. Then we built a bolt and replicated it into this pattern
manually.
Test 7 - Spline based solidic modeling
We completed an abbreviated version of Test 7. Pro/DESK-
TOP now includes the ability to interact with Excel by including
a Microsoft Excel Template, which contains macros, which add
Page 10 TechniCom, Inc.
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review
We ran into a number of problems in shelling;
where shelling would cause overlapping sur-
faces - they fail.
SUMMARY of Test 7: Pro/DESKTOP did very
well on this admittedly unusual test. It cer-
tainly is a robust solid modeling system on it’s
own. In this test, the only show stopper was
the shelling. PTC’s development manager,
who was present during the testing, plans to
now look at how Pro/ENGINEER handles the
shelling, the idea being to perhaps use its
more robust shelling technology within Pro/
DESKTOP. This illustrates the benefits that
might be gained by using the same geometry
kernel for both systems.
PTC
five buttons to Excel. Using the COM automation
layer, this enables a two-way transfer between Excel
and Pro/DESKTOP. The new buttons added in the
toolbar in Excel allow: getting parameters from Pro/
DESKTOP, updating Pro/DESKTOP, adjusting cell
values, creating lines from points, and creating spline
from points. This latter function is the technique we
used to establish the points for the spline to start this
test.
In summary: the operator was able to connect the
spline points to the pivot line, add the dimensions, to
drive and un-drive, and to put start and stop tangent
points on the spline. He was able to complete a solid
by revolving the spline profiles around the axis. He
successfully added a cylinder using some sketch
techniques and then was able to create a center hole,
as he showed in a previous test. We measured a distance
correctly to verify the model accuracy.
We added a fillet of 3/16ths radius by selecting
the edge where the cylinder met the surface of the
solid. We manipulated the spline to create a bump
in the model; the cylinder, the centerbored hole,
and the fillet stayed properly connected. We ran
into a number of problems in shelling because it
seems that anywhere shells overlap - they fail. We
were unable to perform shelling at the wall
thicknesses we desired. But, we were able to
make them work at different values. For instance,
in test 7.9, shelling worked at a shell value of .05
but not 0.1 inches.
To inspect the associativity between the spline
drive curve and the solid, we removed the asso-
ciation between D5 and line 3, which created a
bump on the solid. The exterior of the solid was correct; we
were not able to shell this solid.
When we manipulated the point on the Y-axis, driving the
center of the solid to a sharp point, the exterior solid correctly
calculated and the cylinder and the centerbored hole stayed
connected. We were able to successfully compute a shell with
a value of 0.11 inch wall thickness. For the exothermic cone, a
shell value of .07” computed successfully.
About the author
Raymond Kurland is president of TechniCom and the editor of
the TechniCom eWeekly. His firm specializes in analyzing
MCAD systems and has been involved in reviewing and
comparing such software since 1987.
Page 11 TechniCom, Inc.
 PTC’s Pro/DESKTOP: A Review

PTC
140 Kendrick Street.
Needham, MA 02494 USA
Tel: 1 (781) 370 5000

http://www.PTC.com

Pro/DESKTOP and Pro/ENGINEER are registered trademarks of PTC

TechniCom, Inc., 66 Mt. Prospect Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07013 USA

Tel: (973) 470 9110 Web: www.technicom.com Email: staff@technicom.com

PTC Page 12 TechniCom, Inc.