Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

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

Items UG needs to fix!! 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
HellBent

HellBent

Automotive
Sep 29, 2002
130
0
0
US
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...
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
1) To create a pattern of bodies which don't have intersection. So you can get more volumes (bodies).

With NX 5 we introduced 'Instance Geometry' which I think will provide you what you're looking for.

2) To use revolve feature for creating of a helix body.

Instead of thinking 'Revolving' a Helix, think of 'Sweeping' a Helix. Give 'Swept' body a try using an Angular Law as your Orientation Method.

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.

We call that 'Split' (in NX 6 it's been renamed 'Split Body'), but up through NX 5, performing a 'Split' operation on a solid body would remove all of the parametrics. However, that changes in NX 6 (part of the reason for the name change so that people notice that this is a very different command).


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NXMold,

Thanks for your post. I think that I see what you're getting at. It is really helpful of you to share a bit of what you do and how.

You are talking about two bodies one for the locating ring and another for a bolt. If the body for the locating ring is linked then my logic would be to subtract it and then create a subtract hole for the bolt. I'm not saying there's a strict right and wrong, but I wonder if the power to do something counter intuitive won't spawn models with some strange logic to how they get built.

When considering how you're linking bodies in all cases I prefer to be economical with how I create wave linked geometry. I would seek to avoid having a body existing in one part for the sole purpose of being wave linked to another part, at least in cases where that body has no purpose to the o-ring design. This because you have problems maintaining what does or doesn't get updated where part of that geometry would not normally be in the displayed reference set, and especially when using partial loading.

My favored technique for what it is worth is to link points at arc centers or holes where possible. With the new hole feature it seems I can use those points to create all the holes I need in one feature which suits me fine. Better still in NX-6 I'm told that we'll be able to mate a set of fasteners to that as an array.

We use tubes on an axis to make holes in styled plastic parts for the automotive industry, where there is seldom any planar reference to set up a hole to.. The axis in space based on a curve is probably as good as anything if you need to create a hole in space as it were. At the end of the day unless you're threading these holes there's probably no real harm in it.

That's my tuppence worth

Best Regards

Hudson
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry guys were posting over the top of each other at cross topics.

Dimo,

Don't take it just from John. I second the vote for what sweep can do. There are some things about it that you would intuitively expect to be different, but others that are so powerful that they'll surprise you, once you figure out how to use them. I think there probably ought to be more and better examples of sweep in the standard documentation.

I finally got around to modeling the twisted rope the other day using sweep and law curves. That is a very neat trick, seldom all that useful but still pretty cool.

John,

Split bodies without losing parameters! Great idea probably about time. I used always extract a body at timestamp and trim either half Had I need of this kind of function. I presume that the new feature should have a timestamp option in it somewhere in that case. [wink]

Best Regards

Hudson
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
By default, this functions 'At Timestamp' like any other feature operation. If you're looking for behavior like what you get with Extract, then I suspect that you will need to use a combination of 'Make current' and 'Reorder' to accomplish something like that, albeit not automatic.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John,

Sounds fine to me maybe even better this way. Speaking from mainly pre-NX-5 experience of extract body, you needed to be sure to check the timestamp option in order to stop your extract marching ahead of any future operations performed on the parent body. In this case the timestamp extraction was not the default to my occasional distaste as I would on the whole have preferred the opposite behavior to be controlled as you describe the same way as any other feature.

Best Regards

Hudson
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
man2007,

I personally feel it would benefit more users to have the ability to customize those MB3 object specific menus rather than have a single command added. That way, everyone can have what they may want available. Whether that's possible or not, I have no idea.

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Whether that's possible or not, I have no idea.

With software, ANYTHINGS possible!

However, while this might be theoretically true, in this case it would be VERY difficult to implement, at least based on how we generate those MB3 pop-ups now.

You see, they don't actually exist as identifiable records which could be edited, either manually or by using some sort of on-the-fly 'Customize' scheme, like can be done with the MB3 View Pop-Up. Rather there is a simple general purpose mechanism which, depending on what type of object is being highlighted, will produce, on the fly, the relevant MB3 options to place in the pop-up menu, and if availble, the Radial Pop-Up icons. The problem is that until you push down on the MB3 button the software doesn't really know what it's going to do, but as soon as you do, a code event is triggered that looks at the object type being highlighted and looks up what relevant operations can you perform and populates the list of items to display all in the blink of an eye. The problem with customizing this is where do I go to add my customized actions and how do I allow for the idea that a future change won't step on my choice of the 8 available icon spots.

That being said, we have for NX 6 decided that while we can't give you access to the object specific pop-ups, that we could just give the user some general purpose ones, simiar to the MB3 View Radial Icon pop-up, that you can do with as you wish. So for NX 6 we have added 3 of these 8 icon mouse-button initiated pop-ups for a total of 24 instantly accessable icons of your choice.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Good Stuff John,

I remember that about half way through this post Tim and I were tossing round a few similar ideas based on a slightly different key combination. Then I thought that it ran into a brick wall with the need to support mouse based rotations. I doubt it was exactly the same proposal, but I'm happy that it will to fruition eventually. [smile]

Pity you can't squeeze it into a later incarnation of NX-5, since GM will probably hold most of us back for a good while, not having even gone over yet. If the current situation repeats it'll be NX-8 before we get to use it much. [sad]

Best regards

Hudson
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hello again. I hope you are not bored with my i-deas ideas.
So I have another one. This time it's about drafting.
1) I think it would be good when I change the sheet size - drawing borders to get changed too.
2) I see that there is an additional category for part list in the part navigator. So is it possible to make additional category for title block?
For examle look Autodesk Inventor. ;)

Regards: Dimo Urumov
Aircraft Engineer
Plovdiv, Bulgaria
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When working in assemblies, the right-click context menu and radial menu do not give the option to make-displayed-part on the work part. If you decide to make the work part the displayed part (without the more lengthy hassle of using the assy navigator), you have to first set a different part to the work part.

I think this is a glaring inconsistency, the radial menu should allow make-displayed-part on the current work part.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Exactly WHICH version of NX are you running?

This has been supported since V17.0 using the MB3 Pop-Up dialog, and since NX 3 using BOTH the MB3 Pop-Up and the radial pop-up.

The issue is that when the Assembly is the Working Part, the selection 'preferences' cause Components to be selected ahead of other objects so if you just perform a single pick the Component is almost always what gets selected. That's why it's easy to just double-click the Component to set it to be the Work Part. However, once a Component has been set to the be the Work Part, the selection 'preferences' are adjusted so that now, if you're cursor is over the 'work part', that you now going to be picking edges, faces, bodies, curves, etc. just as if you were NOT working in the context of an assembly. But we still allow you to select the Work Part 'component' just that you'll need to either change your selection preference to Components or else you'll need to use QuickPick and if you do, the Component will be LAST on the list (now you can help that by once the QuickPick list comes up, you select the Component sub-filter) and if you select that and then press MB3 you'll get either the pop-up dialog or the radial icons, and one of the options will be 'Make Displayed Part'.

See, that wasn't so hard now was it?


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok here's an small but annoying issue:

Say you have the history tab/palette open, there are quite a few parts in there, showing previews for each one. To find the part wanted you scroll with the mouse wheel up or down. Instead of scrolling in visually smooth steps, we get a dissorientating mess!

As I said, not a biggie but just brings down the quality of the user interface.

NX5 btw.

Katt.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John, what about Linux (Unix)?
As far as I know it is more customizable. It's open and programmers can use all OS resources. But the companies avoid it because:
1) There must be additional employee education.
2) NX for Linux is more expensive.

PS: This thread seem to me quite long and hard traceable. Perhaps it's time for "Items UG needs to fix [highlight]2[/highlight]!!" [bigsmile]

Regards: Dimo Urumov
Aircraft Engineer
Plovdiv, Bulgaria
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
...what about Linux (Unix)?

We fully support Linux, and with NX 6, MAC OS (on Intel) as well.

But our policy has ALWAYS been 'Platform of Choice', but it's NOT our choice, it's the customer's CHOICE!

I've been using Unigraphics/NX for over 30 years (31 years this coming July, to be exact) and the software has always been available on multiple platforms. In the early days, on RDOS (Data General) and RX11/M (DEC), and later on AOS-VS (Data General), VMS (DEC), VM/CMS (IBM) and much later on UNIX (lots of people), Ultrix (DEC), AIX (IBM) and then of course, Windows and now Linux, and as mentioned above, the most recent is MAC OS (Apple) and in each case, we were supplying virtually the same functionality with full interoperabilty in that part files could be moved from system to system with no conversion needed.

I once did a demo (when I was still with sales) on 3 different platforms in the course of one afternoon. I started on Data General, then moved to a DEC system and then to an IBM (note that these were all mainframes) and finally ending back up on the Data General system all to prove a point that it didn't matter where you started your project or where is was worked on in between, that if was all the same software and everything was compatiable.

2) NX for Linux is more expensive.

That is totally, 100% FALSE!

We have only one price for software, maintenance and online media (documentation subscriptions, computer-assisted training, etc.) irrespective of the platform that it's being installed on. That has always been our policy and as far as I know, it will always be.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John,

Given your experiences using the software on different platforms, what would you say is the best platform to use with NX? Does it run better on MAC as opposed to Windows?

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Franklin M.
  • Locked
  • Question
How hard is it to move from UG to Catia?
Replies
2
Views
23
CAD2015
CAD2015
nyang
  • Locked
  • Question
Importing Step242 to UG as multiple bodies instead of compound file.
Replies
5
Views
26
nyang
nyang
ppap eroni
  • Locked
  • Question
I have a question about the ug function.
Replies
2
Views
22
ppap eroni
ppap eroni
please_dont_crash
  • Locked
  • Question
Creating an NX assembly directly from TC Visualization Pro, visible/selected items only
Replies
2
Views
19
NX User
NX User
zhonyang
  • Locked
  • Question
NX journal : how to access to the items in specific groups 1
Replies
5
Views
7
cowski
cowski
Back
Top