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 .....
Ug is doing there best to catch up!
Check out the newest NX versions.
We use SW and NX together to get the job
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.
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
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 <G>.
They cannot do that??
(I'm trolling jb <hint>.)
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
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 <G>.
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 <G>?
Lots of folks do lots of odd things, that's true <G>.
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 ...
Agreed..., but in big companies you have big egos. Allot of people just like
to hear themselves talk. Most upper level management types achieve their
position out of cleverness, not competence.
If SW is guilty of copying anyone, it was Pro-E, not UG. UG has had far less
parametric capability than Pro-e at any given time in their history. That
may have changed in the last few years, don't know
Perhaps.. but if thats the only analogy you could come up with, your
waaaaaay out of date. ACAD 10 wasn't a 3d modeler at all, even by the
standards of "that" time
No problemo on the vanes. Seen lots of supercargers. No jet engines, but
there's no reason why not.
There are several general purpose CFD codes that run seamlessly inside SW
(all associative by the way). If you had special codes you could write a
custom, fully associative plug in using the API.
The 5axis CAM will come in time. The CAM programs that are available are
What exactly ? What part of concept, design, documentation, process control,
manufacturing, etc. etc. Small to meduim sized companies just don't need all
that high priced, high maintenance, HPUX, IRIX, ULTRIX, Solairus, systems to
function effeciently anymore./\\
But, what do "you" actually know about these systems. Never mind that, in
your opinnion, they don't.
Granted, some people don't understand that you don't select a corporate CAD
system based solely on cool features. We passed on several just because we
didn't have a single client, or vendor, that used them
Yea... MS windows sucks for networking, but it works. UNIX is much better.
We're moving our servers to Linux
But what about all the propriatary flavors of UNIX. You gotta know, that
just about the only companies still buying those pricy RISC boxes are the
GM's, Chrysler's, Boeing's etc. Now that's a depressed market, and the
prices have gone up. The only advantage the fastest PA-RISC, or MIPS based
system has, over Intel or AMD, is floating point. And not by very much
either. The cheap stuff way out performs these RISCosaurs in CAD.
You only have to set up the problem once, and it becomes part of the native
data base. Any changes to the model, or the domain, only require that you
reprocess. The results become part of the native file, and can be accessed
by a page tab in the feature tree window.
Not defending MS. In fact, I don't like the direction their taking at all.
They don't care about technical computing at all, much too small a market
segment to get their attention. They've melded their home and professional
offerings into the lowest common denominator in my opinion. NT4 was the most
solid OS they ever did for technical stuff.
By the way, I've played around with UG 17 under MS. Large assembly
performance was quite a bit better than SW. I had just about the whole wing
of a 757 up, and was able to navigate the assembly real fast. These weren't
dumb imported solids either. They were reconstructed from some very
incomplete Catia IGES data.
Things like CAM, FEA, and PCB routing, use FP the most, CAD to a lesser
extent. But like I said, their ain't much of a difference (except in price)
We have about 70 computers downstairs. We rent the upstairs out (business
suites). Our system provides internet access to the entire building. We have
a college kid that comes in for a couple hours a week to maintain it.
Don't have much downtime, haven't lost any data
Which is why we're switching to Linux and Apache/Samba. A big Sun server is
out of our reach right now, but who knows.
Does not seem like that time will be too much longer:
"Upcoming SolidCAM2004 R9 highlights: Automatic hole-feature
recognition and Simultaneous 5-axes machining
The upcoming SolidCAM2004 R9 release will include two major
additional modules: Automatic hole-feature recognition and
machining and Simultaneous 5-axes machining.
The automatic hole-feature recognition and machining module
will provide the capability to handle holes on all faces of
the solid. Each hole can be a multi-step hole, with no limit
on the number of steps. The technology data-base for
machining the recognized holes can be easily customized by
The simultaneous 5-axes module is based on a powerful and
industry-proven simultaneous 5-axes machining technology
that was licensed by SolidCAM. This technology is now being
integrated in the SolidCAM system. This module will provide
simultaneous 5-axes finish toolpaths based on multiple
surfaces. The cut pattern style can be: Parallel, parallel
to a curve, blend between 2 curves and orthogonal cuts along
leading curve. A 5-axis post-procesor capability is also
If SolidCAM licensed it I can't see why Teksoft can't license
it if they wanted to for CAMWorks.
Oooohh! Automatic Hole-Feature recognition??? Could I have a show of
hands of other CAM users who didn't have this "feature"? for several
years now?? They have to sell this as an extra ($) module???
Here's a question for you: If I create a hole non-normal to the
surface it's going into/through then export it as an IGES to another
system, will that system still know it's a hole?
Another module? Looks like your "mid-priced" system just got priced
Yup another module...just like say UG NX Advanced Machining
is a module.
Looks like your high priced system just got even more outrageous.
"Parametric" modelers have limitations, sometimes severe ones,
depending on what you need to do.
Their advantage is that you don't really have to know what your design
will be to get started (IMHO). Just soooo asy to change later that what used
to be considered good engineering & design skills may fall by the wayside
WHEN the design is finished does it matter how you got there? It's locked.
Examples are where you find them <G>.
Bullman (and jb) should be even happier with AutoCad LT or AutoCad 4
(or whatever) IF their arguments were valid at all.
I think you neglected the compound curves of blades & vanes <G>.
Which is part of what 5 axes is used for ... those compound cuved surfaces,
not just positioning.
Have to disagree here. The "best" engineer doesn't know "exactly" what every
part of a complex assembly will end up being, too many variables. What a
parametric system allows you to do is incorporate these variables into the
actual model or assembly. Knowing what these variables are, and applying
relationships and constraints so that the models or assemblies behave in
such a way that allows you to explore these variables, is design intent.
It's not just a buzzword. It's a very powerfull tool. Being "able", and
knowing "how" to define complex parts and assemblies so that they reflect
this intent, takes as much engineering savvy as just about anything in the
business. It's only "soooo easy", if the engineer does a whole hell of alot
thinkin in the process
For instance, an assembly where the center of mass is critical. This may be
(and usually is) affected by every part in the assembly. Parts may have to
be shifted, lenghtend, shortend, thickend etc.. to achieve this. At the same
time, other criteria, strength, function, weight, etc.. can't be
compromised. In a fully parametric system, (like SW and Pro-E), this would
be "one" of the considerations when applying intent.
The benifits are many, but the most important is the ability to adjust
things easily, and have all the relevant data (that is the result) available
in real time. The results are cleaner more accurate designs that work as
expected the first time. And you get cleaner models too, especially for CNC.
In my experience, allot of the data I've worked with, from Catia, and UG,
isn't clean. There allways seem to be little anomolies and artifacts like
sliver surfaces, tiny little notches, etc. The UG stuff is allways cleaner
than the Catia (no big surprise there), but the stuff I do see speaks
volumes about the construction methods that were employed.
No big mystery here. They would be constucted in a similar way to any system
(including UG) that was capable. I would probably use surfaces constructed
of lofted cross sections. Maybe throw in some projected guide curves. If I
had to define the curvature with formulae, I would use Excel, or get
I note that the troll load here has increased quite a bit hereabouts of late.
I don't think they need to begin with.
Many things were well designed long before CAD systems or parametric
modelers. Even using drafting boards. And people even built the pyramids &
I think much of this used to be done upfront, layouts & such, stepwise
refinement. Have we lost a skillset?
(I think we have lost much/most everyday simple math from education as
the result of the calculator .... "If tires are 50% off this week and are
$100 each how much is a set? I don''t have a calculator." )
I never said it was <G>.
Nor did I question that.
Can either do this 100% automatically?
There was a recent thread in AMC "Shortest Path that includes all points"
and perhaps similar methods could be used to iterate designs towards
an optimum outcome. Assign costs & values (instead of distance) .. or, as
you have a number of independent variables and equations involving them,
perhaps linear algebra .....
Once all constraints have variable parameters how to maximize the
end value/minimum costs?
Different subject .....
You can probably get quite sloppy UG models by using a wide-open tolerance
on what the system considers a knit solid.
Assuming equal computing precision I suspect you just have had CATIA
models with more quickie changes by poor/rushed designers that view their
product as "paper equivalents."
Bad design practices are bad design practices. I'd wager you see
a variety of bad databases from various folks & know by now who
among them not to trust much <G>.
Do you have a materials database with properties & costs for stock
as well as machining/molding costs?
Automatic calculation of deflections for structural shapes & suchlike
(or the reverse -- input max deflection under load X)? (I once started
such a program for our in-house ComputerVision system in some spare
time but never finished when it seemed it would take more time than was
justified for *our* small use of such shapes.)
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
(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
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.
bit like a production line. Organized.
Various degrees, true, but it's just plain silly for some idiot to say GM, GE
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 <g>.
Only the engineer can know that.
Too many variables in the tale <shrug>.
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 <G>?
They may have been lucky to get the 10K.
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
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.
Or you could turn such jobs down, which we do. We did the math, it wasn't
worth the trouble. We have an average of 30 major projects going at any one
time. We turn down dozens every year because they aren't a good fit.
Big company thinkin again, and probably correct within that narrow context
Again, perfectly justifiable in the case of GM
It's only effective when there is a balance. We deal with process too,
probably to as great or greater degree than any automotive or aerospace
company. When your designing critical care medical devices, you better have
your ducks in a row, people can die. What we don't do is allow process
development (or fixation) interfere with other aspects. This is what I've
seen time and again at big companies. You can't have a process until you
have answers to a whole bunch of questions
Agreed, they can't (and probably shouldn't) change. As far as the idiot
thing, your out of line, and don't know what your taking about. SW is very
sophisticated, and can do some amazing things. The difference between SW,
and legacy systems like UG, is that SW made the "simple" things simple. The
complex things are still complex, it's the nature of the problem. The
program can't think for you. These types of problems take as much skill and
knowledge as they would in any system. The execution is just more straight
What most legacy systems do is make everything, simple or complex, tedious
Nope, none at all. I did whatever I had to do to get the job done. This
involved doing end runs around the "system" many many times. I pissed some
people off, but they were the ones clogging the whole mess up. Because I got
results, their complaints to the director of engineering were ignored. In
fact, I was offered the management of our advanced automation group. I
declined (don't like wearing ties)
We had "ALL" of the engineering data on this project. This was the last
change before they handed it over to us. There was no functional reason,
change the fricken hole!! A no brainer.
Now just "how" do you know that ? In point of fact, It's not. Most of our
customers use SW, and this includes some pretty big names. Have you heard of
Beckman Instruments. We've been doing concurrent design and "real time"
collaboration with our customers for years. And we've been doing it without
the massively expensive infrastructure you need to do the same thing with UG
About the same as UG for NT/2000, about a gig. Memory's cheap today
In my experience it is
At least you qualified it with a "rarley", but honest man, you gotta get out
There will undoubtably be casualties in this relatively new market. But SW
will be there. They may not have a GM, but the total is pretty impressive.
It fills a hole in the market that won't go away, and most of the companies
that use it don't have the luxury of lumbering along. They have to get stuff
Yea.. like UG doesn't have any bugs. The difference here is that SW problems
are posted in a public NG for all to see. EDS has chosen to keep both UG and
SE hidden safely inside a private, moderated group
Which was the specific point of discussion here I think.
True. So somebody has to find them <G>.
That's what I'm saying about "Bullman" & jb <G>.
I fail to see how they made inserting a point simple.
Define "simple". It usually means you have fewer options on what can be done
and how those (reduced) things can be done.
So how does a simple (restricted option) system help?
So much for jb's options ....
I don't see it. Both need the same information and number of choices
Hardly legacy with new releases all the time.
It's far more likely that you don't use many of the capabilities that they
but which must still be excluded from the user's decision tree as they are
for others that do need them to use.
You don't need any more infrastructure with UG.
Think of it this way: YOU have vendors that insist on using AutoCad LT
as it's less expensive .... and they want to send you back prints &
I thought SW had their own private system too. Anyone could start a UG NG.
Perhaps the UG one is good <G>.
IIRC almost all issues are resolved within 24 hours tops by UG support staff.
EXCEPT enhancement requests.
And they don't have to deal with jb <G>.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.