Unigraphics: CAD program of choice or force?

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 forward.

What most legacy systems do is make everything, simple or complex, tedious and convoluted.

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

Huh.....

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 more

No comment

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 done.

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

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark Mossberg
Loading thread data ...

Mossberg"

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

No comment

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 fully associative.

on..................

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.

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark Mossberg

Which was the specific point of discussion here I think.

True. So somebody has to find them .

That's what I'm saying about "Bullman" & jb .

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 made .

Hardly legacy with new releases all the time. It's far more likely that you don't use many of the capabilities that they have but which must still be excluded from the user's decision tree as they are there 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 & sketches .....

I thought SW had their own private system too. Anyone could start a UG NG. Perhaps the UG one is good . 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 .

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

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.

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark Mossberg

Applicon Bravo??? Hey Jon, the 90's just called: they want their software back!

Having used Bravo NCG and straight Compact II, I can say you don't know what your talking about...again. All of the cam "features" of Bravo NCG can be easily replicated in UG.

-- Bill

Reply to
Bill

I am looking at CFD packages to use with SolidWorks. Which one are you referring to here?

Reply to
Gary Reichlinger

"All of the cam "features" of Bravo NCG can be easily replicated in UG."

Replicated ??? Why would anyone want to settle for replication of what a source code language like Compact II has to offer ???

If a company wants to stay with writing Compact II and does not want to "replicate it with UG Manufacturing" can you tell me specifically how UG Manufacturing can do this without replication. ??? What if someone does not like the idea of replication, how does UG Manufacturing allow the same process of writing Compact II source that Applicon Bravo NCG does. Please be specific.

Have you considered that replication leaves a lot to be desired ala something like software emulation.

If a companies policy was to edit Compact II source code on the shop floor instead of editing G code and then repost the edited Compact II source code can you specifically tell me how you can do this with UG Manufacturing ???

Looking forward your specific answers on this.

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

Gary,

CosmosFloWorks.

formatting link
for in depth go here

formatting link

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark Mossberg

Does not seem like that time will be too much longer:

formatting link

"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 user.

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 included"

If SolidCAM licensed it I can't see why Teksoft can't license it if they wanted to for CAMWorks.

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

Because: A. Very few Compact II programmers left out there. B. You want to move to an integrated design/manufacutering system because the origional Compact II product was dying long before it was Bravo and long before EDS bought them.

First show me the piece of Compact II code that UG will not easily do. Mater of fact show me your CPII source code.

Replication meaning "accomplishing the same task with the new software". Ex: redoing CPII engraving source code or probing functions into either a GRIP or UG/Open funtion.

The the company I worked for DID NOT ALLOW SHOP FLOOR EDITS except for minor feed and speed adjustments. The source never gets to the floor.

Looking forward to some of your CompactII examples with descriptions.

-- Bill

Reply to
Bill

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 up.

-- Bill

Reply to
Bill

"Very few Compact II programmers left out there."

One of the oldest machine shops in Phoenix still uses Compact II. They prefer it in many cases over UG Manufacturing which they also have.

"The the company I worked for DID NOT ALLOW SHOP FLOOR EDITS except for minor feed and speed adjustments. The source never gets to the floor."

Is this one of the companies you work for that went / is going broke that you are always posting about in alt.machines.cnc ???

You also just posted your having trouble getting your check to clear and must rush to the bank every Friday. You just posted this a few weeks ago, right ??? Yes or no answer, please.

So..are your saying no one else should ??? Have you told this to all the machine shops that purchase shop floor CAD/CAM systems that would rather have their machinists creating toolpath than some programmer sitting on his ass in the office who is out of touch with the whole process and probably has not machined anything in years. Would you like me to list the programs that many machine shops choose to use instead of UG Manufacturing because UG Manufacturing is not a shop floor programming systems designed for casual users. I define casual users as machinists who don't have time to sit on their ass all day behind a computer as their machining skill set gets rustier and rustier.

Thanks for proving what I already knew.... UG Manufacturing can not duplicate the same process that Applicon NCG used. It's can only clumsily try to "replicate" it.

Once again, when your measured you have come up short on the the FACTS..... much like when UG is compared to many shop floor CAD/CAM systems it also comes up short.

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

Yup another module...just like say UG NX Advanced Machining is a module.

formatting link
Looks like your high priced system just got even more outrageous.

LOL

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

Hey, Bill were in the year 2003 and new software for Compact II is still being created.

Surprise !!!

formatting link
"Nicam - NC Programming - Updated Ver 7.0 - High performance

32-bit Compact II® NC/CNC Part Programming System. "Parametric Programming" at very low cost! If you are into Turning Shafts or other repetitive "family of parts" programming - take a look! We have customers who switched after paying 10x or 20x as much for Parametric Technologies ® stuff that "never worked".

ROTFLMFAO.

Pick up those new Jeff Beck CD's yet Bill or are you still living in the Blow by Blow days ?

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

"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 (again, IMHO).

WHEN the design is finished does it matter how you got there? It's locked.

Examples are where you find them . 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 .

Which is part of what 5 axes is used for ... those compound cuved surfaces, not just positioning.

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

Cliff,

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 Mathworks.

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark Mossberg

Mark,

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 & suchlike.

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 normally $100 each how much is a set? I don''t have a calculator." )

I never said it was .

Nor did I question that.

Yep.

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 .

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.)

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

So once again you cut/paste some advertisment for us and call it even. I can see how you got through school. Why don't you do some "real" research on CPTII such as learn how to use it. I'm still waiting for you source code examples to show me how clumsey UG would be to create the same solution...

All by yourself I'd imagine.

Lately been listening to my "old" Steve Lukather, Gary Hoey, and Joe Satriani cd's while driving up to the river lately for some whitewater kayaking. Much more interesting than anything new in cad modeling these days.

-- Bill

Reply to
Bill

"So once again you cut/paste some advertisment for us and call it even. I can see how you got through school."

They keyword in my response to your nonsense will be... FUN !!!

Not much opportunity to cut and paste in trade school, Bill. You learn to use a mill, a lathe, a grinder, CAD/CAM and have... FUN !!!

"I'm still waiting for you source code examples to show me how clumsey UG would be to create the same solution..."

Come on out to Phoenix and I take you into a shop that will enjoy telling you were you can stick UG. *I will* have... FUN !!!

"Lately been listening to my "old" Steve Lukather, Gary Hoey, and Joe Satriani cd's"

Sounds like... FUN !!!

"while driving up to the river lately for some whitewater kayaking."

Sounds like... FUN !!!

these days.

Download the 90 day version of IronCAD and learn to use it's tri-ball, intellishapes, etc. and tell me why UG isn't this easy or.... FUN !!!

Get your hands on a copy of thinkdesign / thinkshape and experience Global Shape Modeling then tell me why UG surfacing isn't this easy or... FUN !!!

Are we having FUN yet ???

LOL

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.