Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations IDS on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

2007 CIP Results NX Design, Drafting, CAM

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xwheelguy

Automotive
Mar 17, 2004
2,048
Here are the PLM World 2007 Customer Involvement Process Top 10 ERs. Please remember, don't shoot the messenger:

Design:

1.) Hole Wizard: Solidworks has what they call a "Hole Wizard". The Hole Wizard, contains ANSI, ISO, DIN, JIS, Helicoil, DME, etc standard fasteners in inch and metric. It gives you complete control over what type of holes you are creating, after you define the type of hole you want, you can then simply pick points on your part where you want the holes to be placed (easiest thing to do is just create a few reference points). It would be great if we could get a nice GUI and drop down menus to define holes, with the capability of creating the threads at the same time. It would basically be the same functionality as Specialty Engineered Automations Hole Process Expert. If usability is a main concern for NX moving forward, I highly suggest looking into working with SEA to bring their wizard into NX. It is hard to justify spending this much money to migrate to NX when Solidworks has tools like this to ease assembly fixture design/tooling design for a fraction of the cost (included in their basic package).

2.) Tangent to 3 Surface Blend; 3 Faced Blend; Tri-tangent Blend

3.) Improve Hole Creation & Editing: It should be easy and intuitive to create a pattern of holes dimensioned relative to each other in one operation with the hole tool. Both the hole position dimensions and diameter, depth etc. should display when a hole is selected for editing. The current hole position editing procedure is cumbersome. Why do I have to "select tool edge" when I add a dimension? Haven't we already determined which hole I'm editing?

4.) Multiple Hole Placement: Consider the reduction in time and tedium placing multiple holes with common attributes on a common base. Adding a multiple toggle box to the hole creation window would eliminate having to cycle thru the placement face steps that are common for every hole. Simply pick the points previously placed in the base file which correspond to the center of component mounting holes.

5.) Pattern Creation in Sketcher: Create patterns in Sketcher in a similar manner to modeling.

6.) Assembly Constraints: Assembly constraints should be maintained after components move between assembly levels.

7.) Drag Sketch dimensions arrowheads to change Sketch dimension value.

8.) Drag & Drop components with WAVE geometry to maintain links: WAVE links should be maintained after components are moved between assembly levels.

9.) Chamfer Sets: Ability to create Chamfer sets like Edge Blend sets.

10.) Component Arrays: Component arrays should be listed in the assembly navigator as an editable group.

Drafting:

1.) Hole Charts: Provide the ability to generate tabular dimensions for patterns of holes (known as hole charts). This would automatically label holes in an orthographic view and create a table of associative hole information.

2.) Auxilliary View Arrows: Automatically create auxilliary view arrow in parent view with label(s).

3.) Edit Existing Centerline: Provide the ability to manually edit the length of existing centerlines.

4.) Add ID Symbol via Annotation Editor.

5.) Create dims to Freeform Surfaces: In Drafting, we have the need to create dimensions to silhouettes of bodies created using free form surfaces (through curve mesh, swept, NxN, etc.). Our product shapes are really organic in nature; creating vertical, horizontal, etc. dimensions to the over-all extents of the surfaces are difficult. Would like the ability to use silhouette tangencies for the association of dimension lines. If the body changes, the dimension changes. I would like this functionality to exists regardless of the dimension type selected (i.e.: vertical, horizontal, parallel, perpendicular).

6.) Cylindrical centerlines in revolved sections: Provide ability to create cylindrical centerlines from a cylindrical face in a revolved section view.

7.) True Type fonts in Drafting (dimensions, etc.).

8.) Ability to create a Section View from a Section View.

9.) 3D section cut display: When creating a section view in 3D there is no visual indicator in the model to show where the section was exactly taken. Also, when the section view is added to a drawing there is no way to tell which view is the parent view. Need to provide 3D section cut indicators in compliance with ASME and ISO 3D annotation standards.

10.) Rectangular Detail View Definition: Bring back the old method of creating a rectangular boundary using two corner points. Give users the option of using either the center/corner point method or the 2 corner-point method when creating the detail boundary.

CAM:

1.) Thread Milling: Update thread milling so that the operation is consistent with other CAM operations, to benefit from the standard capabilities that are available to existing core operations, such as inheritance of clearance, geometry, feed rates, and tools. Allow the user to directly thread mill any location without having to match parameters in data files.

2.) Probing: Add a module for on-machine probing, including inspecting the part, validating the tool path results, and measuring the IPW for closed loop adjustments.

3.) Hole Milling: Make the hole milling operation available outside of feature based machining. These spiral and helical cut patterns should be available when cutting a circular boundary, edge, or face without having to use features.

4.) Post Performance: Improve speed of post processing in multi-axis and complex machines.

5.) Variable Axis Roughing: Add a module similar to cavity milling, for roughing out multi-axis parts.

6.) Cut Across Voids: Cut across voids is implemented in Face Milling and works only on inner holes. This would extend that functionality to traverses in air along the exterior, as well as have this functionality available even in processors such as Cavity Milling and Surface Contouring.

7.) Tool Length Analysis: Check whether the tool length and flute lengths are suitable for the total cutting situation.

8.) Subroutines: Provide an option to output multiple parts using fixture offsets, subroutines, and macros. This should also recognize instanced geometry.

9.) Feed Rates: The same feeds and speeds dialog that is within the operation should be available from MB3 in the Operation Navigator

10.) Avoid small areas in Cavity Mill: Provide an option to not cut small areas in Cavity Milling. The area could be defined as a multiple of tool diameter, or a user specified value. This is very useful in high speed machining. Often these areas are better machined using a smaller tool and IPW.

Hope some of you find this info useful and remember, there is NO guarantee any of these will appear in future versions of NX.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
 
Some of those I hope don't appear any time soon. Some of them we already have, you just have to figure them out. Thanks for the update, Tim!
 
UGS has usually committed to doing the #1 item in a near future release. My guess NX7 at the earliest as they have already started major NX6 projects and even some NX7 projects.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that these are targeted for NX7...at least the majority of the projects.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
 
Actually numbers 1, 3 and 4 in the Design set might be coming, at least in terms of getting a solid 'partial credit', much sooner than NX 7.

However in the Drafting section, while I understand that there has been much discussion back and forth over numbers 8 and 10, at this point, 8 does not look like it's supported by any known standard, and as far as 10 goes, IF we DID change it back, what do we tell all of the users who have learned to use it as it now stands, which provides a consistent inteface (on screen gesture) whether you're creating a circular or rectangular detailed view boundary? Trust me, the WRONG answer would be offer optional gesture schemes since this is NOT a critical function in ANYONES book, PERIOD!

As for the CAM issues, I'll leave that to someone who actually understands CAM (remember, I'm a Machine Designer by both education and years of work experience).


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Product Line
UGS Corp
Cypress, CA
 
It would certainly be nice for UGS to work with SEA on a Hole Wizard ;-)

Specialty Engineered Automation
 
First off, I do not believe John and I will never see eye to eye about the change in making a rectangular detail view in drafting....and it's nothing personal between us....we just don't agree on this subject at all...still friends/acquaintances though I hope. I just flat out cannot stand the current method, and judging by the `07 CIP results, I'm not alone.

Now, I'm trying to get this whole reason/logic/excuse for the detail view change straight....

For starters, I cannot leave the ending comment alone....if the method used to define a view boundary is not a critical function in anyone's book, then why was it changed in the first place? PLEASE don't tell me because customers wanted it changed because NOW after using it for about 2 years, they want the old way back since it made it into the Top 10 this year.....OR.....the current method is not really what the users expected back then and they want a change. UGS certainly didn't have a problem jumping in with both feet a couple of years ago and changing it to the current method...so what's the problem in changing it NOW???? The stern opposition to this doesn't make sense to me. Does it to any of the other users here?

Next.....What to tell the users that have been using NX since NX3 came out and this new method was first introduced? Well, UGS didn't seem to be too worried what they would tell all the users that have been around since before NX3...so why is it NOW such a major concern over a SMALLER group of users that have been using NX3 for only a couple of years???

One would think that a similar type of answer I got when I first brought this up on BBS Notes over a year ago would certainly be good enough of an answer to give to the users that have been around for a whopping 2 years or so. Maybe something like, "we have had some users that were experiencing productivity losses using the new method, so we decided to offer a choice between the two methods in order to make everyone a happy little CAD jockey. As an added bonus, to make things a little less confusing to the users, we've added a customer default that allows you to show both methods of rectangular detail view creation or show just one of the two methods. We'd like to thank Tim Flater for hanging in there with this and we hope he now feels like a special little snowflake since he was such a pest over this whole matter."....or something to that effect. :)

Well, I'm pretty much done ranting about this subject and I think I can put it to rest permanently. Again, I'm not trying to take a personal shot at John Baker or anyone else for that matter. I simply disagree...completely and utterly. [thumbsup2]

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
 
I know we've been over this before (as you noted) on the UGS BBS, but for the sake of others here, let me explain what's going on.

To start with, changing this to anything like you suggested is NOT trivial, and in reality wouldn't even be acceptable. In fact, once users realized what it means, NO ONE (and I include you) would probably ever use the old pre-NX 3 approach even if we added it as an option.

You see, back in NX 3 when we 'changed' the method by which we defined a retangular detailed view (note the Circular view has ALWAYS been the default since we first added it, which was before V16.0) this was NOT done just for the heck of it. The REAL change made in NX 3 was to allow the user to create an ANCHOR point for Retangular detailed views as they were defining the view, just like users had been able to do for years with a Circular detailed views. Up until then, you could ONLY define an anchor point (which means that detailed view could be linked to the model so if that when that part of the model being shown in the detail view moved, that the view would move with it) for retangualr views manually, after they were already created as part of an Edit Boundary operation.

The change that was made in NX 3 was to provide the SAME level of support for defining an automatic anchor point as we had provided with Circular view for years. Now since we were always being hit with the complaint that there were too many picks to accomplish an operation and since the people asking for the imporved rectangualr detailed view should expect an efficient operation and since people ALREADY were familar with HOW users defined anchor points with a Circular view, it was decided to use the same interactive gestures and number of picks for BOTH Rectangular views as Circular. That was the REAL reason for the NX 3 changes.

Now lets look at what this might mean IF we offered either 3 methods to define a detailed view, TWO different Rectangle styles and ONE Circular or we have a customer default to let you chose the Rectangular style so that you woudl still only see TWO choices on the dialog. Now if we did either, we would have two choices. The easy way would be to just make the old-style rectangle 'option' work like it did prior to NX 3, that is, you get to define it by it's corners, but there would be no automatic anchor point and so you would still have to manually add one if you needed one by going into Edit Boundary. I really don't think people would be too happy with that, since from the point of view of ANYONE introduced to NX since XN 3, it would look like a regression, even if it was optional. How do we explain to them that one method is equivilent to the other? I suspect that no one would believe us.

So that would lead to the more none-trivial nature of this request. We woudl still have to either offer 3 options, Two retangular and one circular, which would just complicate the dialog and could confuse people, or we could go the Customer Default route and just allow you to pre-choose the style that you like, but then we would have to totally rewrite the rectangular view interaction so that you defined the anchor point when you defined the rectangle, but then it would be a different workflow with different ques and more picks than when creating a circualr view, or when creating an NX 3 style rectangular view.

No matter which way we go, we would be adding complexity to the code itself as well as possibly the UI, and when using the corner pick method we would either have to revert back to the old manual anchor point method or else add additional steps to what at best would be seen as a semi-automatic anchor point scheme.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the value that would be gained for anyone if we went to that effort, not when we have been critized in the past for having interfaces that are too complex with too many little used options or inconsistent workflows that require extra picks to accomplish similar tasks.

Now I can't answer (since I wasn't at the session where these issues were discussed, if they were at all) the question as to WHY it appears that this item made it to #10 on the hit list. I suspect that if we HAD HAD this discussion in a forum where the 'voting' was to take place, that the votes that had gone to this proposed change would have been cast for something that may have offered a more significant improvement, albeit, somewhere else in Drafting.

I'm sorry, but unless this item somehow makes it to the #1 spot, I just don't see us ever making this change.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Product Line
UGS Corp
Cypress, CA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor