Unigraphics: CAD program of choice or force?

AFAIK Nobody in Australia makes even a reasonable Pizza .

Also of note .... UG is a full CAD/CAM system with a full API, not just a simple build-a-hokey-model system. Generally, other vendors are trying to play catch up.

Note exactly where ParaSolid comes from . AND the auto firms are firmly aware of which side is buttered, thank you. They are *one* of the key drivers for enhancements.

BTW, With some of the minor systems if you need a feature it just ain't there. So don't judge the needs of the market by any one limited need of today for any one minor task. Some folks have to buy 5 or more assorted systems to do their tasks .. I think they often ended up paying a lot more.

Cites or more endless BS? In case nobody noticed the US economy under the shrub has lost at least 2,000,000 jobs in manufacturing alone .....

"Forced"? I don't think so. Everythin always gets enhanced with each new release or the product must, in the end, be discontinued.

If, if, if, if ....

Cites? LOL ....

REMOVING capabilities? In your dreams, oh clueless one.

You EVER going to learn any?

Another crock.

Bullman, have you met the Clueless Buzzword King yet? The self-proclained diety of the CAD/CAM world? For whom all the vendors jump?

You just did . You two may get along quite well.

BTW, He's never used UG BUT has seen a few ads and perhaps a 5 minute demo from the back of the crowd at a trade show years ago.

Last trade show he went to a CAD/CAM vendor knocked him even sillier for just cause. Wish we had pictures of him on the floor ....

But try this ..

Feel free (as so many SW and other posters have) to leave your comments on the visitor's page ...

You have go to be joking? You are doubting that UG revenue hasn't declined? Ever spoken to your local UG/SE agent (or would this mean you would have to talk to yourself?)

LOL! In the same way EDS wasn't "forced" to create SE to compete with SW? What are you going to try and deny next guru? While we are on the subject of "force", it is a rather key term in this discussion appearing in the topic title. Seems like EDS have no shame in refering to it when describing the position their customers are in. I bet the EDS marketing people had a real snicker at the cheecky exec who slipped that in! Life can be fun as a fat cat I suppose.

LOL? You are not the one who should be laughing. Yet another denial.

(also read the bit about drop in revenue)

You seem to mock and flatly deny everyones knowledge on the subject but it is YOU who is actually speaking the BS! You can only do that so much until you are exposed. Who is snickering now?

Yeah, why remove capabilities that hardly anyone uses, makes things more complicated and is justification for marking up the software price?

What? Learn that it is good for fat cats to screw small companies out of the market becasue they don't want to buy a crappy UG workstation?

I don't think so. I think SE is responsible for saving UG's ass. SE is closer to what UG wants to be than what UG currently is.

self-proclained

Unless your job involves strapping yourself to a UG workstation 9-5 as part of your job, don't even bother going anywhere near UG. Your time is better spent on CAD packages that do the same thing but are orders of magnitude more affordable, easier to learn, accessible, practical, efficient and productive.

You are wasting peoples time. You are in denial.

Just like your posts, if you like to top your pizza's up with BS, then yes, you will be disappointed.

The creation of the parasolid file format was a good thing. Perhaps after seeing what SW did with it, the guys who made the kernal available to SW may be regretting it. It is the common denominator that is transferable between most (all?) solid modelling packages like SW, SE, ProE, UG etc. Does it matter that it is a dumb solid? If I recall PDF files were specifically created so that written documents can be read but not edited. Good for securing your own work. Parasolid files are surprisingly efficient files. Small in size, easy to load, manageable.

Still doesn't justify stuffing a package to the brim with features that no one will use, charging and exorbitant price for it. Even SE has a modularity to it. Last I looked, you could pick and choose which components/modules you wanted to be included.

Yup.

UG Manufacturing can't compete in most small job shops because it's written for a full time user. Many small job shops don't have full time users, they have casual users who do other things.... like machine parts.

Cliffy also shows his incredible ignorance by failing to acknowledge that Parasolid does not include the surfacing that is in UG when Parasolid is sold to third parties such as SolidWorks. This is why so many companies stuck with ACIS even when ACIS sucked. Autodesk, Applicon, Cadkey, Ashlar-Vellum etc. These companies knew that Parasolid, even though it was more robust for solids, did not have the surfacing that ACIS had with it's Advance Surfacing Husk.

No doubt in my mind that this is true. SolidWorks Corp. will be forced to stop bungling surfacing and will have to get it right. think3 and hopefully an emerging SolidEdge will make sure of this. PTC Wildfire with ISDX can also force the issue on Solidworks Corp to somehow get surfacing right. Perhaps the CATIA people can be tasked to redo surfacing in SolidWorks.

jon

To Bullman,

Ug is doing there best to catch up!

Check out the newest NX versions.

We use SW and NX together to get the job done.

Every CAD package has its downside and alot of advantages. Use them wisely and you'll see that your standpoint is not a birds eye view.

Greetings,

Ron van Dijk

van Dijk 3D Engineering bv Midden Engweg 2a

3882 TT Putten

tel. +31 (0)341 416594 fax. +31 (0)341 416764 mob. +31 (0)6 54652256 e-mail snipped-for-privacy@3de.nl web

Cliff,

SW also has a full API. How do you think all the all of the "fully integrated" and "100% associative" programs like Cosmos did it.

And I mean fully integrated. Acessable from native menu picks, shares the same database and history tree functions. How much "fuller" can it get.

Regards

Mark

CAMWorks 2003 finally opened it's API. Don't know if it's a fully open API. Tend to doubt that it is but it's a move in the right direction. Someone with CAMWorks 2003 want to comment on this ?

Since Cliffy has *never* used SolidWorks and since Cliffy has stated in alt.machines.cnc that mid-priced CAD/CAM is a joke and that shops should use UG instead, how the hell would Cliffy know how much "fuller" SolidWorks can get ???

jon

I'm saying that many companies are very likely to run up against a part that needs to be modeled with hybrid tools or that can be modeled more efficiently with hybrid tools. While it is not the majority, the hybrid tools are necessary in a very high percentage of modeling situations. I believe the hybrid tools should be at ones disposal in case they are needed. Further, I believe that based on consumer desire for more and more aesthetics in the products they buy that more and more modeling situations will need hybrid tools... even from companies that never used hybrid tools before or only need hybrid tools once in a blue moon.

I do not see things this way. See above.

Big companies dictate all sorts of bullshit to their suppliers. We deal with Honeywell / Allied Signal / Garrett Airesearch / whatever they are calling themselves this week. Any idea the kind of hoops Honeywell makes small job shops jump through ??? If Honeywell can shift *any burden* to the small shop they do. From stocking parts, to continually modifying contracts, to asking for a 30 percent roll back in price and suggesting Arizona small job shops move to Mexico and take on a Mexican partner. Many shops here are very angry with how Honeywell does business.

jon

AND

I wholeheartedly agree on all of this!! Especially the bit about "it was real expensive, so it's gotta work real good". THIS is exactly why UG is where it is today. Brilliant stuff!

More good stuff Mark! ditto

The clueless buzzword king yet again. No idea what a kernel is or what it does or why.

This BS has been going on for years & he's learned nothing.

Subject: Re: CLUELESS STRIKES AGA (From "Re: Unigraphics: CAD program of choice or force?" in comp.cad.solidworks)

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

Have thy lowered prices? Perhaps. Have they sold fewer seats than last year? Who has not?

Have existing users been migrating to something else? I doubt it.

Have businesses that could use such things in the first place been closing their doors? Probably some.

You have problems ....

A new market to expand into? Like SW competes with AutoCad LT?

What YOU chose as a subject line to troll with means little. Did you think otherwise?

What are you talking about here?

How severe are your reading comprehension disabilities? Or are you just a disgruntled IDEAS user, unwilling to learn?

More reading comprehension issues?

What part of "Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Solutions units will continue to operate as separate businesses." was unclear to you?

AGAIN ????

UG IS NOT CORPORATE EDS. It's an owned division.

You really should learn something about UG & EDS ...

Looke like for very good cause .....

Why, I believe I am .

Like you said in an earlier post, you don't know much of anything about UG.

But, OTOH, I'm certain that you & jb will get along well .

You could instead use Etch-A-Sketch or MagnaDoodle. Get fancy & use AutoCad LT.

*I* don't care which ... one less problem for someone to support.

What might a "crappy UG workstation" consist of? They do have a sizable list of hardware that they have tested though that works well. Get any of it or try something untested. It will *probably* work too. List is updated something like monthly with new/added tested hardware from various vendors.

Did you know that they are the only ISO-9000 CAD/CAM vendor (AFAIK)?

UG is a full 5 axes capable CAD/CAM system. SE is entry-level CAD and so priced.

So jb would say ... forgetting (as usual) that the more you *can* do the more complex the instructions & options.

But they only do a smallish subset. You designing another brick today?

Like there are many things you cannot do at all?

You started it; I'm just trying to make you happy .

About what, exactly?

Does the term "entry level" mean anything to you? Ask yourself how many end up moving on to UG that would not have otherwise.

It all has to work.

I've not seen it unles it's a meeting just to keep people informed. There are better & more cost-effective things to do than just go to meetings for the sake of having meetings (in many cases).

Or lead in much of the development others copy & use .

They cannot do that?? (I'm trolling jb .)

No, I'm using a very simple example. IIRC When AutoCad 10 came out it could not model an ashtray. There's a vast range of capabilities. Sometimes people that only need or use a few of them forget all the other folks that need the others. A bit myopic?

Seen UG lately? BTW, How's SW for blades & vanes? 5+ axes associative programming? CFD?

I've never said otherwise and have never even hinted at otherwise . BUT sometimes there's more to things.

In this case jb & "Bullman" seem to want to use Solid Edge or 3dinkies or some hodge-podge ....

What form does your data go back to the customer for their use in? AutoCad LT ?

Lots of folks do lots of odd things, that's true .

IIRC SW only runs on MS Windows ..... not a really good client-server networked process from what I've heard. That's another long-term issue though. Single vendor ...

Depends on what you are doing and how well you need to do it I suspect. IF you are a down-stream vendor making a block with two holes from a print someone else made it may not matter.

OTOH If you are part of a concurrent design & build process it can matter a great deal.

As far as costs go I think it may, in many cases, be competitive. You have to lookat the value added you can ofer your customer, the total costs over a period (over 5 years many other CAD-only systems seem more expensive perhaps), your long range business plans, the capabilities you need now AND tomorrow.

I think that there are many that aquired one small CAM-only system for one class of work,had to buy another and another, then a CAD system, .... when one would have done. Some folks are penny wise & pound foolish. Your business (effective, profit making business) can be limited by the tools you have bet the business on. And by the skill and willingness to learn of your employees too.

But what does the customer *need*?

Do you want to migrate untold tetrabytes of data from and to dozens of unknown oddball systems on a possible vendor's whim and assure both it's accuracy AND 100% content? Much data just cannot be migrated at all.

Then, when the parts come back wrong whose fault was it?

They have to. That process is their business. Foul it up and it all stops. It's a bit like a production line. Organized.

Various degrees, true, but it's just plain silly for some idiot to say GM, GE or P&W (short list) can switch to Solid Edge because one little vendor's employee thinks it can be used by any idiot off the street on any old PC.

I expect you had a problem .

Only the engineer can know that.

Too many variables in the tale .

It's not the CAD/CAM systems they use. Unrelated issues ....

Your data is one-way and throw-away. And limited to the specific needs of your own business. You may get that soapdish, fine. But someone else had and has design constraints and hunderds of uses for the same design data. They don't care much if you drilled or interpolated the hole.

And how much memory do these new "easy to use" modelers need ?

They may have been lucky to get the 10K.

Not true.

Rarely true. I've worked with some very astute folks.

Things get improved every year or fail by the road. Good old clueless jb will

take all the credit either way.

They keep getting improved as well. And will still be there in 5 -15 years with full data migration upwards.

IF they used SW I doubt, from my reading of this NG, that they would be very happy. Looks like many uncontrolled killer bugs crop up. Showstoppers need to be avoided at almost any cost.

"Bullman", I note you had no comments to make on all my corrections of your post ......

So SW cannot do things like these, right?

Tell us what a kernel and a husk are dear boy, tell us ... you have been asked so many times before ...

Dear clueless, Even you could probably learn to use it for the simple 2 1/2 axes MDI work you claim to do. I'd guess most folks with actual basic skills could easily do that in a few days (most of which would be core UG modeling). Have you considered a 2 month class at UG? Same class, over & over again .....