Items UG needs to fix!! 6

[HellBent]

I just posted in another thread how I'm always telling myself I need to write down the minor "annoyances" I have to deal with everyday while running UG but I just never seem to do it. For some reason I think having a thread dedicated to just that may help. At some point maybe these items will get the attention they deserve by UG. So I'll start it off with a couple that immediately come to mind:

#1. Fix the darn 2d translators!! Why does making a DXF or a DWG of my drawing have to be so difficult? It has never worked right! Why am I forced to run it through CGM in order to get reliable results?

#2. Let me fix errors during feature creation rather than having to start all over again. I.E. "Through curve mesh" intersection errors force me to fix the intersections and then start all over again. Let me edit the intersections from within the creation menu so I don't have to re-select all of my geometry again! Apply this mentality to all feature creation...give me the ability to fix mistakes on-the-fly.


I think I'll be more likely to add items to a thread on a message board than write them down on a notepad so let's give it a shot!

Take care...

 

[man2007]

Currently by preselecting a Face or Datum plane we get the options for creating new datum plane, sketch etc.
If this MB3 menu includes 'Section' command (View->Operation->Section) also, I think it will be very useful feature. For example while converting unparametric model (like a 'supply unit' which contains several bores drilled on its body) to parametric, we use this command frequently.

ug version : NX4.0.3.3

 

[NXMold]

NX5 hole dialog should include the Unite boolean option. Its useful for making false bodies, pins, and who knows what else. Currently I use the Create method and a separate unite.

 

[JohnRBaker]

The intention was for the function to either create a conventional Hole (a void) or a tool body so that it would then be up to the user as to what to do, but at least there would be an explicit Boolean as a hint to what was. If we added a 'Unite' option to the Hole function, while it may be useful to a few people in some limted cases, it could also be very confusing to others when they went back looking for a 'Hole' that didn't 'exist' in the sense that it even looked like a hole.

But hey, it's still a step ahead of where we were prior to NX 5.0.2.2.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[Xwheelguy]

Wouldn't Delete Face and selecting all the hole faces work for most Holes (living features or not) that needed to be removed?

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

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.

 

[JohnRBaker]

If you're tlaking about the 'Delete Face' function under Direct Modeling, yes that should work.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[NXMold]

Ok, thats fair. However, there is a bug. A hole cannot create the first body in a component, even with the "none" boolean option you must select a body!

 

[JohnRBaker]

I'm not sure I would call it a 'bug'. It's more likely an example of where a programmer did not account for the pathological case where someone was attempting to create a 'Hole' in space ;-) In reality, we should have detected the instant that he opened the Hole function that we would never be able to meet the criteria necessary to even create a hole, one way or the other, and the user should have been shown an 'alert' to that effect immediately.



John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[hudson888]

Well John,

This post is so long and ridiculous at this stage that it almost makes sense to suggest that you go out and hire Stephen Hawking to help you create black holes in NX. They exist you know!

Cheers

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Note that I did open a PR for this suggesting that they either do a better job checking so that the software doesn't give you the impression that it acutally could do something that it should know that it can't or else just skip the Select Target step if you're using the Boolean option of 'None'. If I hear anything, I'll pass it along.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[hudson888]

John,

It was really just an excuse to make a bit of a joke. Why would you want a hole that isn't a hole? There has to be a more logical way to implement whatever it is that some people want to do than by uniting a hole.

Then I saw your answer and got to thinking.

What would interest me more is providing the capacity to define a group of features that have the same hole and/or fastener applied to them. Currently this exists with arrays and carries with it their inherent pattern limitations, circular and rectangular in the main. I'd like to give some thought to defining hole positions using points within sketches or without, and then grouping those points so that irregular hole patterns can be created where applicable, by picking the group. Also make a threaded hole part of the hole class not a separate operation please.

I say this because I recently picked up a job that had been started at another company. All the hole patterns were created by circles in their sketches and none of the threads worked properly. This was in NX-4. The hole pattern for the flange 18 odd fasteners all the same at different pitches and an irregular shape at one end. You just want to be able to say to the system here are 18 places that I want the same hole and the same fastener.

Just a thought for the day.

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Hudson,

Obviously you've not seen NX 5.0.2.2 and the new Advanced Hole function. You can now create a sketch of points and for each point it will create an identical hole and if you add or remove points from this sketch, the number of holes will update as well. Also, all of the holes created in a single operation will only occupy a single entry in the Part Navigator making it much easier to understand the model. Also we have included 3 types of holes, General Holes (including Simple, Countersunk and Counterbored), Screw Clearance Holes (also including Simple, Countersunk and Counterbored style) and Threaded Holes.

In the case of the General Hole, it works pretty much like the exisiting pre-NX 5 holes but with the Sketch interface.

For the Screw Clearance Holes you define them by selecting the desired fastener and the system then creates the correct size and shape of the hole. Also included is the ability to define the class of Fit that determines that actual size of the hole (thus the name 'Fastener Clearance Hole'.

And of course the Threaded Hoke is just that, a single feature that defines both the hole and threads based again on selecting a certain thread standard and size from a library of sizes.

For NX 6, we're adding a Hole Series, which will allow you to, in the context of an Aseembly, define a set or 'Series' of holes through 2 or more components in an assembly including the base hole in the first component, a clearance hole in the intermediate component(s) and finally another clearance or threaded hole in the last component. Now all of these holes are associated to each other and editing one will cause the complete 'Series' to update. Also in NX 6 we've added Tapered Holes.

Anyway, as soon as you upgrade to NX 5 you'll need to take quick look at what you can now do with the new Advanced Hole Feature.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[hudson888]

John,

Finally sorted out the license thing with NX-5 and loaded with 5.0.3 once that became available last week. It all worked simpler that I expected.

I kind of see what you're getting at with the hole function now that you mention it in connection with my last post. I had looked at it wonder what it was all about apart from better supporting hole types. I haven't tried mating a bunch of fasteners into one of multi hole single features yet.

What I really need is a couple of projects that aren't stuck in the older versions to get my teeth into NX-5.

I'll have to go back to whining about why there still aren't any Whitworth threads.


Best Regards

Hudson

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Hudson,

I haven't tried mating a bunch of fasteners into one of multi hole single features yet.

It doesn't quite work like that, yet, but that's one of the things that is being looked at but there will be some work soon in making it easier to add fasteners to an assembly.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[NXMold]

"There has to be a more logical way to implement whatever it is that some people want to do than by uniting a hole."

Defining two diameters, depths, and a tip angles provides a very powerful tool for making geometry. Alternatives are to revolve a sketch (not terribly practical, especially with a non-rectangular array of identical features), extrude a sketch twice and add then unite cone features, or create cylinders and cones. Maybe chamfers could be used. Really the "hole" feature is just a great shortcut for creating cylindrical geometry, especially with a drill point.

With mold wizard I find myself drawing a lot of subtraction bodies, which is the main reason that I found myself wanting to unite holes.

Since you can extrude almost anything to create many different types of geometry, I keep wondering why you can't extrude a point to make a line. Or extrude a point with offsets to make a cylinder, sleeve, or cone. Sets could handle multiple counter bores and threads (what about a screw hole with a jack thread? Or a cap over the screw in the c'bore area? I drew just such a triple threaded hole yesterday).

I like what I'm seeing, and I'm glad I started on NX5 with all these new associative tools, lots of power here.

 

[hudson888]

Sorry if I'm being dense but I still don't get why you would unite the geometry of a hole. What is it that you do? I think I understand what you're trying to describe in terms of mold design wanting to have a double threaded hole, whether both from the same side or through from both sides and counterbored at either end.

Do you make two sets of hole geometry then unite them together, and then subtract that booleaned object from the target body?

Why in that case would you not simply subtract a the first hole or set of them in one feature followed by a second hole feature for the other part of the thread. I would have thought that simpler and just as good if not somewhat easier to create.

BTW out of interest what is your background such that NX-5 makes you happy to start using it. I could only presume that you made that judgment based on your experience of other CAD systems, which is good to know.

For myself I'm a UG user from way back. Sometimes I think the best and most powerful part of NX is under the direct modeling toolbar, because it offers a powerful way to circumvent what somebody else's associativity has left me with. Please don't get me wrong here we all try to do the right thing, but the number of times people model themselves into a corner that I can't begin to analyze is high and counting.

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[NXMold]

I'm just recently coming from ProE, and I've seen a little bit of NX4 and some of the older dialogs that linger in NX5.

With ProE, 50-80% of your design effort (until, or if, you got really good after many years) was spent not "modeling yourself into a corner". With UG the opposite problem seems to exist, with people "severing the umbilical cord" and unparameterizing at the drop of a hat to get out of trouble.

Anyway, in one case I have a locating ring from a component catalog with c'bores for screws. This component includes a false body for the ring, but none for the tapped holes. I added a hole feature and united it with the false body so that when its later subtracted from the plate there will be holes for the screw taps. In other cases, I'm creating similar false bodies.

You can draw a screw using the hole feature, for example. Its quicker than revolving a sketch or extruding two sketched diameters. See the attached picture. Of course your base solid will be called a hole in the feature tree, which is not good...

 

[cowski]

NXMold,
You can mitigate some of the feature tree confusion by giving the feature a meaningful name. Let's say you have HOLE (82), you can attach a name so that it will show up as HOLE "alignment pin" (82).

Not a perfect solution, but you can minimize confusion.

 

[hudson888]

NXMold,

Good to hear from your and that you're coping fairly well coming over from ProE. Not one of my favorite systems I'd have to say, mainly for the reasons you mentioned. I don't like finding models in NX that are constructed similarly for the same reason, they can be a house of cards. Which is not to say that some ProE users don't make a better fist of sketch based modeling that most NX veterans.

But nor do I advocate going around unparameterizing everything, there's nothing more annoying than when others do that to your perfectly good model. So that's why I mentioned direct modeling, which along with several other techniques provides the power and flexibility to put geometry where you need it to be such that you can basically get a result that avoids fixing everything that was wrong with the original. I guess what I mean to convey is that while we think of CAD as something belonging to the virtual, "ideal" world, there are a lot of models that just aren't ideal. Thankfully you need neither destroy them, nor is it necessary to waste time fixing them at the root cause when it serves no productive purpose.

I still don't get why you couldn't subtract the false body and then create the hole as you would normally have done, (in subtraction mode).

I want to acknowledge cowski's idea is a good one. If you must work in an obtuse way then at least give the next guy a hint. You would also be likely to pick up on the construction if you take the model navigator out of timestamp order, but I notice few people doing so. Fair point that few people want to diagnose somebody else's construction method.
There is a concept of commenting the code you write that software developers call "maintainability". Most people wouldn't think how similar modeling and coding have become. It is good when the models are kept maintainable.

I can't get by without wondering how this was a disadvantage in the past when a hole was a hole and could only be subtracted. What did we do then and where have we gone with this change?

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[NXMold]

"I still don't get why you couldn't subtract the false body and then create the hole as you would normally have done"

Because the false body is in one component (the locating ring, for example) and the subtraction happens in another component, the plate. So the hole must be created as a solid, linked, then subtracted. Since only one false body is created for each component (or component group in some cases) I find myself uniting holes to the false body and sometimes making holes in space! Thats the false body hole 'problem', older models I have seen use cylinders and cones to make this same geometry which is not fun or quick.

Your right about the house of cards, I always used the analogy that regenerating your model is like shaking the table that its built on, and removing lower levels from a house of cards is a delicate task to say the least! Direct modeling does allow flexibility here, I used similar modeling technique in ProE but it was much less flexible (mostly surface patches and tweak replace).

 

[realmagicracer]

OK. I think there are a lot of things that UG need to fix. Yeah! NX is a great CAD/CAM/CAE system. It is open for developers and it has a lot of ideas inherited from midd-class systems. And it is really good.
I see that the old-school UG users are confused or offened by the imported ideas by I-deas. But there are some things that are missing in NX(UG). For example:
1) To create a pattern of bodies which don't have intersection. So you can get more volumes (bodies).
2) To use revolve feature for creating of a helix body.
3) There is a boolean operation in I-deas that is called "partition". I can see something like a "partition" in MoldWizard tools. But it would be good to have it as a normal boolean operation.

I used to be an I-deas user, but I like NX more. So don't be offened! These are just few "i-deas" that can make NX more productive.
Thanks in advance!

Regards: Dimo Urumov
Aircraft Engineer
Plovdiv, Bulgaria