Unigraphics: CAD program of choice or force?

Bullman,

It ain't for everyone, that's for sure, but it has it's place. The CAM side is why allot of smaller companies use it, like aerospace machine shops and mold shops. It has allot of tools aimed straight at the manufacturing side of things. SW doesn't have anywhere near the depth of U.G., but most companies can get by very well with it.

I remember back in the early 90's we had to buy a seat of Catia in order to do business with Chrysler. This was definitely driven by Dassault and IBM. This policy drove quite a few mom and pop OEM outfits out of business. I don't remember EDS using these gangster tactics at all.

Regards

Mark

you should see someone about that (obsessive) repetitiveness problem. worse than Al Gore

Ok-- so it's a requirement. On the other hand, it's $195, which puts it in the land of "big deal".

In the auto business, they spend orders of magnitude more $$$ than that taking the buyers to strip bars....

It will do him no good unless: A) They have UG. B) They are a GM supplier or in the chain. C) They have at least one UGOPEN license. D) They are following the GM C4 standards. E) .....

Some of my stuff is probably on that CD .

As he's in Australia, I'd guess his customer is Holden's Engine in Port Melbourne, Victoria or perhaps Holden's Auto. Have I even mentioned here that I liked Melbourne? LOL ....

You have NEVER used or purchased UG. Your comments thus have no merit as you HAVE no "experience" at all.

We do, however, always enjoy the implied packs of lies.

How long did you stand in line at their booth at the trade show?

HTH

YOU really need to learn what a kernel is & does and a great many other things, such as solids.

Halt the endless BS.

Proof:

A) Parasolids of all sorts from UG are workable in other Parasolid modelers.

B) This includes "surfaces" of solids created in UG.

C) See how full of BS you are?

QED

Mark, I must disagree here. Much of the C4 standards were developed to ease interoperability between databases from UG, CGS and Catia. You must remember that there's always a *lot* of legacy data out there too. It also makes a lot of sense to have standardization in drafting standards, design standards, modeling standards and database structures.

Also note the huge task that product data management is. If you are involved with only a small bit of one part you may not notice it but upstream it's a monster lurking.

Also note that it is, in fact, impossible to use such things as, say, Rhino parts directly in an assembly of a full auto, aircraft, engine, etc. ..... the database formats are just incompatible with all the other software and applications.

NONE of this is a result of an "infrastructure is so convoluted and inefficient that dealing with multiple data types was close to impossible." Do YOU want to try to use 2D CADEM parts your SW assembly? CADDS III?

SOMETHING had to be done to try to make things work .... for GM. And, IMHO, the standards, last I saw them, could have been *far* more extensive. They are not the sole standards needed either, BTW. See the GM drafting standards, as an example .

Surprise!!

At the time GM *owned* EDS which bought UG .....

One advantage of using Solid Edge is that the files are read directly by UG and no translation, with the accompanying pitfalls,. Large companies run a number of seats of UG for its superior surfacing and machining capabilities and the rest of the operators are on mid priced Solid Edge. With SolidWorks where do you go? Buy an add-in and if file format changes how long for add-in to catch up. Ideally, and this will probably happen, Catia 5 will read SW files directly.

I expect there's a bit of a problem supporting many entity types/classes, drawings and such ..... and it IS an internal or external translation process I think (but do not know) ....

I doubt a great many firms find this really a good method for larger projects ... I also expect all associativity is lost .....

I don't have first-hand knowledge of this but I believe the import of SE into UG gives you a dumb solid, much the way SW imports SE files. No translation per say because it is all Parasolid. If the base is modified in the SE and reimported into UG then the changes are evident and features in UG will also be applied. Again this is not much different than what many CAD systems do with non-native data.

There is not a 3D CAD system that I am aware of that truly treats imported data as native which, in my definition, includes having a modifiable history identical to the parent (i.e., not using FeatureWorks). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,

JJ

capabilities

I agree. Bureaucratic, bloated, convoluted, inefficient. That sums up the fat cat automotive industry.

You know I have always had this imagery of th automotive companies being like a big fat man (like Mr Cresote from "The Meaning of Life") who just rolls on crushing anything that gets in it's way. It sees problems ahead of it but just does not have the manueverability to change it's course to avoid them. It just fattens itself up so that it can smother the problem and wear the implications, and just steamrolls headlong into them. "If I am fat enough, nothing can hurt me".

Lots of little parasites nip at the edges but the company just doesn't have the speed, reaction and flexibility to reach and deal with them. As far as it's attitude towards CAD, it is not surprising that they ask for a CAD system with the lot for all who deal with it. A bit like ordering an oily familiy-sized pizza with the lot for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Who cares what it does to you and if you don't like some of the ingredients, if it has the lot (can do it all), then you can be sure that there will be at least some ingredients in there somewhere that everyone will like. And the guys who are feeding them the fatty "CAD pizza" are like the waiter serving Mr Cresote. They won't tell him he is too fat and over eating, or tell him "You really don't need to eat all this food", "There is a whole new range of healthy foods out there you should look at if you want to get fitter and healthier". They, like the parasites, exploit the company's inability to deal with inefficiency and nestle comfortably in there own little space between the warm layers of fat, know they have complete control over the CAD diet of it's host. They (eg EDS) have a complete monoploy over the CAD software and would never consider any alternatives which are not their own, regardless of how efficient the alternatives are.

LOL! Halleluja brother!

Not as much as what many of the higher end CAD package users (namely automotive) would be if they REALLY knew just how over complicated and inefficient they force themselves and others to be, and how they are actively being blinded from considering alternatives.

Declining UG revenues have forced EDS PLM Solutions to start giving SolidEdge (V14) some very serious surfacing power which is a lot better thought out than what is currently in SolidWorks. EDS PLM Solutions also maybe preparing to give SolidEdge very serious CAM if the rumors are true and a Parasolid version of SmartCAM is being developed.

EDS PLM Solutions recently fired their CEO and it may very well be possible that they are going to try and address some of the issues you mention. Obviously integrating SDRC Ideas into UG has been a massive undertaking. Only time will tell if EDS PLM Solutions is prepared to give smaller companies the tools they need. It probably would not be a bad idea to give SolidEdge a name change and make if fully compatible with UG.

jon

Really? You think that of all the CAD work out there, the majority of it requires surface modelling for it to be done efficiently? I think you are forgetting about the industries nuts n' bolts CAD requirements.

I see design work being either a job for solid modelling (the majority, under the bonnet nut's n bolts engineering) or for surface modelling (the minority, fancy shapes and packaging).

Finally! At the end of the day, if the part needs to be solid modelled and can imported back into the master assembly as a parasolid file, then even SW/SE will do. As this seems to be he case for most automotive car component's, why must tehy make the suppliers us e UG?

This is encouraging news!

The problem I see with UG in today's CAD world is that it carries it's legacy of complexity and inefficiency. SE/SW represent the standard in efficient solid modelling. UG definitely is not. SE would never have existed without SW giving the industry (particularly fat cat UG) a good kick up the ass. Although SE is a "I was created because we needed to compete with SW"/"Johnny come lately" kind of package, it has become a very good alternative to SW. Why do they bother with UG when SE at least represents a proportion of UG functionality but packaged into a superiorly efficient software. If would mean a lot if SE could kill and replace the old ugly hag that is UG.

This is certainly true on the CAM end where UG Manufacturing is much harder to use than say DelCAM PowerMill. DelCAM PowerMill is able to be used by casual users on the shop floor. I define a casual user as a machinist who does not sit on his ass all day and program behind a computer. A casual user uses the tool (DelCAM PowerMill) as a means to an end to machine the part the way he or she wants to machine that part.

UG Manufacturing is not designed for the casual user.

Further, when it comes to powerful 3 axis toolpath surfacing I have yet to hear or see with my own eyes how UG Manufacturing is more powerful than DelCAM PowerMill. If it is, than from what I can tell at least 95 percent of shops doing 3 axis toolpath surfacing don't seem to need what UG Manufacturing may or may not have. IMO, it's a myth that more powerful features must be harder to use. IOW, I do buy your argument that other CAD systems are easier to use than UG.

You ever try IronCAD and if so how do you feel about it's approach with the Tri-Ball and shielding the user from the history going on underneath for the most part. I'm not that familiar with IronCAD but the little I have seen of it I like some of their approaches. I don't feel IronCAD is getting enough development, though. Especially in regards to surfacing.

Money. It's a market that EDS PLM Solutions is very, very comfortable with... big business.

Your comments are a breath of fresh air in a very stale newsgroup. Glad you decided to post and hope you keep posting. I wish we had someone posting about the new surfacing aspects of SolidEdge V14.

jon

Cliff,

Yea... I remember that now. About 93-94 timeframe.

We never did get the GM thing, we already had large contracts with Ford. They wanted us to dump em. Wouldn't do business with us if we were in bed with the enemy.

Stupid thing was, they, GM, still used our switches (Alps). They just had someone else do the plastic, and assembly. They ended up paying more for the switches too.

Regards

Mark

Missed the demo, eh?

Like full 5 axes contouring with 6+ parameter tools?

Tell us what YOU actually use .