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...

 

[abeschneider]

nkwheelguy,
that's a great tip for circular arrays! It's pretty cool how your method allows for the array to be fully parametric. I really appreciate that one. (& I agree about the fact it seems puzzling why the array feature in general is so limited).

 

[Xwheelguy]

abe (hope you don't mind me shortening your nick),

Group Feature is one of the most under-utilized functions in UGNX as well as having very little attention brought to it via UGS development. I do not believe I knew about its existence until 3 years into using UG.

However, you need to watch how it behaves. In the past, I would apply it as a circular array & one of the grouped features would fail in only one instance, while working just fine on the rest. But, in UGS' defense, it has been working fine for me since NX2.

Regardless, the entire Instance Array command needs a desperate overhaul and the ability to array any geometry associatively needs to be added. Since UG allows for multiple solids in a single part, the 'Tool Body completely outside Target Body' error needs to be eliminated as well. I see no valid reason for not allowing a user to instance a simple cylinder (without using Group Feature). Too many mouse clicks the way it is now.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

 

[ewh]

Documentation! So often, I find what I'm looking for, but have no idea how to actually get there. I miss the hard copies you used to get long ago.

 

[abeschneider]

ewh - totally agree about the documentation. Not only are things hard to find, the whole documentation seems to lack any uniform standard for style or content. I like CAST a lot; and sometimes the help is useful too, but it's way too random. (I know the excuse is that this has been in development for years and years but for some reason, that just doesn't seem to be acceptable for such a "high-end" software.) I really feel like there is a LOT of functionality in NX that goes completely WASTED because users have no clue that it even exists, not to mention how to use it or troubleshoot it.

nkwheelguy - no prob w/nick I have to re-iterate how useful your tip has been to me. That was great!

 

[wmalan]

Don't fix a thing! <g>

I recently changed jobs and now must use Solidworks. Boy I really miss UG!

--
Bill

 

[J-C]

In the opposite boat Bill, I've now been in a new job using UG for the last year and a half and really miss Solidworks which I used for 5 years before.

Guess it's what you get used to. I mean, there are things I like in UG, but I really miss configurations the most.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP1.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[scotty7]

Abe and Tim:
The grouping works fine, I agree, and can help to instance features that otherwise fail to go, but we have noted that if a series of features are grouped, the regeneration times go through the floor compared to using "apply to all features" function. So the moral is, first off look out for the "apply to all features" option in dialogue boxes before grouping them.
e.g.
Boss with draw and fillet won't array directly. Group the features together and array, and it works fine. However, array the boss and then use "Apply to all instacnes" option on fillet and draw dialogue boxes, and the model updates many times faster.

 

[Xwheelguy]

scotty7,

Just to clarify, I did not offer the Group Feature tip as a suggestion to use instead of an Array. An array is always going to be faster in UG and you should use it when ever possible. It's fairly common knowledge that you cannot directly array some features, like a Through Curve Mesh. You FIRST have to add the TCM to a Feature Group then array the Group which should show up as a Pattern (rectangular or circular) in the Model Navigator. Any Feature Operations (Blends, Chamfers, etc.) that are performed to the Pattern of Grouped Features will not have the option to 'Apply to all Instances'. That option is ONLY available after a true Array is created. Group Feature combined with Array is considered a Pattern, not an Array so the 'Apply to all Instances' option doesn't appear for the Feature Operations.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

 

[HellBent]

How about a confirmation dialog on a drawing sheet delete!!

I often question the necessity of some of the confirmation dialogs but must admit was a bit surprised that there wasn't one on drawing sheet delete a few days ago! Somehow in my haste I had the sheet highlighted in the navigator and accidentally hit delete while my cursor was making it's way to save. Not realizing I hit delete for a split second, I then saved....thus losing my ability to undo the delete. Lost an entire sheet that had about 6hrs into it. My fault...yes. But considering some of the confirmation dialogs we have to deal with I think deleting a sheet should get one too.

Take care...

 

[HellBent]

Hide/show component in view. While being a great feature and a heck of a lot better than view dependent edits or layer settings....how about making it easier for me to show a single component and then not have to repeatedly update it as I add new components to my assembly (3d molds). Let me pick a single component to show in a view and then have it stay that way.

Take care...

 

[abeschneider]

I think I like your suggestion HellBent about "sticky" Hide/show components...

 

[HellBent]

Yeah...it's like they just "slapped" it together real quick for a release. Even the order in which you select the view or components is reversed depending on whether you're hiding or showing....doesn't make sense. And let me select multiple views rather than just one at a time.

"View from part" works great if you're only wanting to show one part or parts from one particular assembly but a tool design assembly structure usually isn't friendly to what you're tryting to show so the Exploded View->Hide/show component is great....just needs some tweaking.

Take care...

 

[ewh]

For once I'm thankful that we have to wait for FiberSim to update their software before we can move on to the latest UG. I think we'll stick with NX3 until they are ready to release NX5, then we may move to NX4.

 

[mjcole]

ASSEMBLIES & MATING CONDITIONS

Given that UG only has part extensions even for assemblies so all types have files have the same extension, I can see why the Assembly functionality is so poor.

Instead of having to Delete and Recreate Mating conditions they should allow users to pick the assembly refs box and change the assembly reference to mate component to something else. People wonder why so many UG users don't use mating conditions is that most of the time they fail or are completely counter intuitive.

Hopefully this is an issue UGS is looking at cause a lot of time could be saved if users could keep the mating conditions and change references if they are missing.

Michael

 

[HellBent]

Batch CGM converter!!
Since the DXF translator is evidently never going to work right...how about giving me a batch CGM converter so after I export my drawings to CGM I don't have to import each and every one in order to export a DXF or DWG.

 

[Xwheelguy]

HellBent,

You might want to look into the UG to 2D translator if you're having issues with the DXF translator. The UG to 2D takes the drawing views & flattens them into true 2D geometry & can also flatten & export to NX .prt, DXF, DWG or IGES in one step.

Personally, I feel ALL the translators should work this way (by flattening), but then again, what do I know? I only use NX every day.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

 

[ewh]

[start rant}
Now that "continual improvement" has become a popular catch phrase in industry, UG is taking advantage of it, but they call it "continual education". Each new version is forcing seasoned UG drivers to relearn the software. If I have to relearn it, why don't I just switch to Catia and learn it instead? I think that they may be destroying themselves by their own sucess.
I realize that they are integrating Solid Edge with NX, and that may result in a superior product, but they are putting the cart before the horse. As they grow, they are diluting the product. PLM world used to be heavily UG, and worth the $expense$ to attend. Now it is more Solid Edge and Teamcenter, with NX topics seeming a mere afterthought. Not much value there for native NX users.
I think it may be about time, for those of us with the opportunity, to learn another system. I'm going to have our IT guy load SW 2006 on my computer. It's not Catia or ProE, but it is an available alternative for me.
[end rant}

 

[looslib]

We have the same problem on the PTC side. The biggest difference between learning a new package and taking on upgrade class is time. On Wildfire, we gave new users 12 days of basic training plus up to an additional 10 days depending on design function. Upgrade training was done in a 4 hour session.
New versions do cause problems for existing users, but the relearn curve with training is still shorter than learning a new package. Besides, what makes you thing that CATIA, SW, Pro/E or any other package will be any different. They all introduce new functionality with new versions.
As far as CATIA goes, V5R7 is way different than V5R16.



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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[J-C]

Well, I think UG differences are it interface changes made in an attempt to bring it in line with the ease of use of Solidworks & Solidedge. Pro/E is going through the same thing and Catia made a big jump from V4 to V5. You have less of that sort of thing in SW & SE since they were written for Windows from the start. Not that they don't have some interface changes, but they are usually less dramatic.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP3.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[ewh]

Ben,
I agree that there probably isn't much difference between the packages regarding the learning curves. Catia, however, is definitely a growing presence in the aerospace industry, and seems to offer many more employment opportunities than UG does today. I am afraid that in ten years time, Catia experience may be worth much more than UG experience.