Unigraphics: CAD program of choice or force?



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 .....
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 www.3de.nl

of
Given
CAD
lucky
slow
use
run
l
curtain
wealthy
the
began
to
spritely
features
have
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
More good stuff Mark! ditto

not
companies.
does
limited
heavy,
us
pockets,
You
web
just
utility
the
native
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bullman", I note you had no comments to make on all my corrections of your post ......
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 <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 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 <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 ...
--
Cliff Huprich


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

not
companies.
does
limited
heavy,
us
person
There are

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.

pockets,
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

I'm
just
heads
formulas
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./\\

or
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

utility is

extracted
.....
for
the
capable
less
native
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

control,
all
to
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.

based
issues,
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 16:41:38 GMT, "Mark Mossberg"

I am looking at CFD packages to use with SolidWorks. Which one are you referring to here?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary,
CosmosFloWorks.
http://www.solidworks.com/pages/products/cosmos/cosmosfloworks.html
for in depth go here
http://www.nika.biz/index2.htm
Regards
Mark
wrote:

native
accessed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does not seem like that time will be too much longer:
http://www.solidcam.com/about/news.asp
"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
writes:

do
the
for
the
like
to
it,
head
less
systems.
more
or
stroke,
control,
all
to
CAD
corrupt
of
be
than
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup another module...just like say UG NX Advanced Machining is a module.
http://www.eds.com/products/plm/unigraphics_nx/dm/adv_mach.shtml
Looks like your high priced system just got even more outrageous.
LOL
jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"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 <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.
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cliff,

less
used
locked.
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 <G>.

Nor did I question that.

Yep.

same
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.)
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rhino
the
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.

inefficient
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 <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.

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.
--
Cliff Huprich


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

tried,
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.

have
a
tomorrow.
one
tools
your
Big company thinkin again, and probably correct within that narrow context

at
Again, perfectly justifiable in the case of GM

very
companies
stops.
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

GM, GE

employee
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.

at
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)

us
and
get
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.....
simple
of
About the same as UG for NT/2000, about a gig. Memory's cheap today

They
implemented
In my experience it is

so
At least you qualified it with a "rarley", but honest man, you gotta get out more

it's
will
No comment

years
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.

GM.
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Which was the specific point of discussion here I think.

True. So somebody has to find them <G>.

GE
employee
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 made <shrug>.

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 <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>.
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.