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...

 

[dlad]

Seems we have lost the thread here (pardon the pun), but I thought this THREAD was started so we can get some of the minor annoyances we have regarding some of the functions we use to be sorted by UG. I think this is a Good Thread and should continue with adding thing to it.

 

[looslib]

Yes, the concept of this thread is good for listing what everyone feels that UGS needs to fix in NX.
The reality is that UGS may not even read this forum and they have official channels for getting enhancements voted on for inclusion in future releases. If you want UGS to make changes to the product, use the bbsnotes conference so UGS can see what you are 'complaining' about and then use GTAC to get an official ER entered into the system. Without the ER, UGS won't do anything. It may also turn out that UGS feels what you are asking for may be a bug/regression in functionality and they may assign it an PR with a high priority.



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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[J-C]

Maybe if we get a job at GM, we'd have a better chance of getting some stuff fixed.

Jason

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

 

[looslib]

Jason,
I disagree with your comment. GM is a large customer, but from my 18 years experience of working with the Unigraphics/NX people, they do listen to the small guys also.
I have had them change a whole distribution release because I argued with their plans for the distribution. At the time I had 35 seats and our corporation only had 150 seats of UG.
If you make a business case for functionality or show them that something is now taking longer, they do listen. John Baker is very good at looking at things from the user's standpoint.
UGS cannot be growing the way they are unless they were doing something right. John had a very good explaination of a portion of the development process in the bbsnotes this past weekend.


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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[Xwheelguy]

I've been unable to array a sheet body without using Group Feature since v11. I've turned in ERs every year since v12 and NX still can't array a single sheet body without going through a plethora of mouse clicks and naming. In fact, in certain cases, arrays don't even work right in NX3 when you try to apply blends to all instances. On top of that, rectangular arrays haven't worked right in years (again, in certain cases). I personally think UGS is changing things that do not need to be changed right this very moment. Or when they make a change, they change it too drastically so that it takes forever to learn how to effectively use the new or revised tool. I could care less what the icons looked like, but the menus are still overwhelmingly inconsistent and they are flat out missing tools that could be considered basic CAD functionality (3 faced blends, associative transforms, array overhaul, etc.). I'd rather see them fix blatantly obvious inconsistencies (like MB2 to dismiss all menus instead of just some of them) than see them making rectangles like circles for detail views and adding a new selection filter. I just don't understand why they are putting so much focus in certain areas that really don't seem to need it as much as others do.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

 

[J-C]

I attribute UG's success mostly due to it's PLM. Once you've sold them on your PLM, the CAD portion that goes with it makes since, right? That's the part they are doing right. Kind of reminds of the days where I used Catia on unix. Buy the IBM R/S 6000 boxes running AIX instead of some other brand, because surely it must work better since it's all coming from the same company.

For smaller companies, I seriously doubt UG would win a head to head against Solidedge or Solidworks unless they are doing some serious freeform where you have to control curvature without much regard for parametrics.

Maybe NX4 will change the game some......but those proces need to come down first.

Also, 150 seats is a fairly moderate size.......and if you pointed out something fairly critical, I'm sure they will listen...most companies will depending on what it is. I'm more speaking from an enhancement standpoint rather than fixing critical issues. I'm eagerly awaiting NX4 so hopefully most of the shortcomings will no longer be so.

Jason

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

 

[HellBent]

Hey Tim...nkwheelguy....you got it bud! And all the long-time UG guys are with you. A lot of users don't use some of the functionality we're complaining about so it's no sweat of their back. UG hasn't addressed any of the "seriously annoying" problems that a "high-end" user faces since I've been running it....v8 or 9...can't remember. Instead they spend time making it look like Solidworks...lol. And ewh's last post is right along the lines of my recent thoughts. I've messed with v5 a little...and although I still prefer UG....the market is leaning heavily towards Catia these days.

Take care....

 

[cowski]

I ran into a little funny business with the circular array today. I want a circular array of 30 identical ribs on my part. I modeled the first rib and united it to the part (using retain tool option), it did not show up in the list of available features to array. Plan B: make an extract body (at timestamp) of the rib and unite this extract (not using retain tool option) - now it allows me to array this unite (same story for subtract features). Also, since they are identical ribs I tried to use the 'identical' option on circular array, neither the 'identical' nor the 'simple' option would work I had to use the 'general' option.

 

[uwam2ie]

I don't want to lose this thread
After our company has moved with GM to NX3 with lot of
problems like measuring in NX3 . I started in drafting for the first time in NX3. I works but I must move and click a lot of more than in previous UG versions. For example the the text/annodation editor.To set up text on a body I must jump to the selection toolbar or to the placement toolbar, this frustrating especially when you have place multiple text annodations because it loses this placing setting every time... Annother annoyance that is that I still can not use asm partattibutes in the ID symboleditor .
... must I start griping ... in a "high-end" System for this small problem...
uwambie

 

[fgbrender]

uwambie,
Can you give an example of what you are trying to do? NX3 is much easier to use for annotation. I think the problem is that it is different than earlier versions. You have to learn it all over again.

 

[uwam2ie]

@fgbrender
try to set up a annotation on a body in drafting there is ever a face pre select even when the layer is not selectable you must switch from any to curve for ex. in the selection toolbar, after you ve put it there where you want the settting in the selection toolbar has toogled to any again, the next annotation have to do the same again ... to the selection toolbar... . For the ID-Symbol: I 'm doing a drawing in master model. Now I want to create a ballon with leader with the information of the part number/name in it. The <w .. @$name> doesn't work because the partname is to long. ...
maybe you can give me advice
uwamie

 

[Dawson70]

I've been a user of UG since V15, and here's the things I'd like to see addressed.

Modeling:

1. Multiple holes in a face. Either drag a box over all points, or at the least single clicking them all. I'm not the designer of the parts, the customer sends me points and vectors for hole placement. If I have 100 points to select it will involve clicking the face, clicking point on point, and then apply 100 times over. Mouse middle button was changed between V18 and NX2. It used to be apply, but now it's OK. This means the dialigue box will disappear if you don't click the apply button. Currently, you can pick as many holes for threading as you want which creates seperate features so it's not impossible.

2. Holes on non-planar surfaces. Why is that I can analize/create a minumum line then subtract a cylinder from it for face normals, but the software can't do this mundane task?

3. When hitting cancel during a trim curve operation I'll get an error message and lose all trims since the dialgue was selected.

4. Through Curve Mesh will reset to the beginning if your primary or secondary strings self-intersect or have gaps instead of going back to the last complete string. This gets irritating after picking a large amount of small curves.

5. Certain operations like trim body now will change the state of your worktop if the operation is not canceled first. Let's say you've selected trim, moved your WCS into position, unblanked an object to use as a reference. If you chose another operation without trimming it will go back to before you made the changes. This involves moving the WCS back, unblanking etc all over again. This is a difference from V18.

Manufacturing:

1. The ever moving ONT. I especially like it when I'm in the middle of editing a few paths in a pile of 300, and every time I exit the operation it moves me back to the top of the screen. I then have to scroll back down to path 104, and once again for 105. After finishing 105 I start back at the top and have to scroll back to 106...

2. From point needs to be set for all template cutter paths individually. In the geometry creation they added the useful global clearance plane, but neglected the from point. It takes a lot of clicking for not much benefit.

3. Trying to delete clearance plane 1 from a template cutter path will result in an internal memory violation. It's supposedly fixed in versions beyond NX2, but why can't they apply the fix accross the board?

4. Start points are tricky on closed boundaries. The dialogue that brings up selection works great, but it's rare to have the processed path use them. I've found that applying tan/on conditions with boundary stock will cause it to be ignored. I've taken up the habit of extracting curves, projecting them flat and offsetting them as needed to use one type with workable results.

5. Cavity Mill has been improved since V18 allowing the option of having the smaller tool know the material left by the bigger one. This is a major time saver vs building geometry to avoid over-cuts which leads to tool failure. Though I like the change, it still needs more tools to change the way it calculates it's movements. There's nothing worse than watching a machine race over to cut a .0001 piece of something while on overtime on a Sunday. It's hard to make an effective roughing program.

6. Planar clearance planes. Why can't I pick offset from surface with holes and cavity mill?

7. In the machine dialogue box why doesn't it remember that I streched the box? All I get is pile of /operator message= which I have to expand to even read the message. If I close the box it resets it's size and I have to start over yet again.

8. Feeds and Speeds calculator doesn't update RPM's based on tool size when applying a new tool. It's required to change the number slightly, then change it back to get the RPM's to update. This is an easy step to forget which can result in costly errors.

Drafting:

1. UG's unique rounding system. I have never heard of the way they do it, and I learned that it's better to use 4 place for +/-.030 stuff to avoid the error. The standard for rounding that I know of is if the last digit is 5 or higher round up. If it's 4 or lower round down. They could not be bothered with conventional practices, but rather opted to make a new rounding rule from scratch. In this system the preceding number from the last digit decides everything based on even or odd. For .024 dimensions it will show as .020 but for .034 dimensions it will show as .040 . I've had fit up problems because of this. They offered a grip function to make it calculate correctly or just use more decimal places.

That's all I have for now, and thanks for reading.

 

[cowski]

Dawson,
You bring up many good points, many of which I agree with. However, there is a good answer to "UG's unique rounding system" - it follows an established ANSI standard. Reference this thread for the standard number: Thread561-83135.

 

[looslib]

Dawson70,

UG's drafting standard for rounding is based on ANSI/IEEE 268 as referenced from Y14.5m-1994, 1.6.4. I found that ASTM E29 explains the rule in 6.4.4.
Dimensions on a drawing are always rounded to the nearest even number at the specified decimal place for rounding if the last digit is a 5.

13.344 to 2 places is 13.34
13.345 to 2 places is 13.34
13.346 to 2 places is 13.35
13.354 to 2 places is 13.35
13.355 to 2 places is 13.36

If you are seeing .034 round up, then you need to check the actual dimension in your model. UG uses double precision numbers, about 13 decimal places on small numbers.

This has been discussed many times on the UGS BBS as far back as V6 or so. I started using UG at v3.2.


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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[Dawson70]

I guess I'm used to the 1982 standard of rounding. That and I meant to make the numbers .025 and .035 respectively. The point being the gap changes from .010 between the points to .020 because of the rounding induced error. I guess that the logic is if .030 is permissable it falls within it, but in the world of manufacturing actual parts it can cost money. I have worked around this issue, but would like an option to choose the standard I would like to use. I had some designers down from St. Louis that were not aware of this condition, and they were surprised as well as grateful when I showed it to them. I guess that's why so many +/-.0300 dimensions are 4 place nowadays.

 

[looslib]

The reason that it always rounds to an even number is for stackup at the assembly level. The rational is that some dimensions will go up and some will go down, but overall, they will average out.

When it comes to manufacturing, if you use the model, then you will get the part you designed, within tolerance, even with the rounding of the drawing. If you use Y14.41, then you get the model as designed.

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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[Dawson70]

Drafting aside I have another issue.

Exporting objects to an existing part, new part, iges, step etc. moves it's absolute position if the session has been open for about 15 minutes. I haven't done the investigative work yet to see if it's tied to the first save or some other function. That's what they are paid to do once notified of the problem.

This is a major problem when all users aren't using UG and inner-office translations are required. Our check tools and all other sellable items have to be verified back to the native Catia data set by the inspection dept. When they try to import the tooling it ends up off in space somewhere. I've figured out how to work around this issue, but it's been an issue for over a year now. I'm current on the Maint packs and releases, but can't move from NX2 because of customer requirements. When will this be fixed?

 

[Dawson70]

I thought of another one.

With the release of V16 UG changed it's integration of verification software with Vericut because they made a half done one of their own. At this point it required a UFUNC license for around $3,500 to get the Vericut interface within UG that cost nothing prior. Nifty eh?

Since then we've only been able to access Vericut when using the mfg bundle. We have a number of floating licenses, but only 1 bundle. The UFUNC license is part of the bundle package. It won't work without it, but we paid for 2 extra seats of the UFUNC license and have never been able to use them. I didn't know about it until last year when the eng manager wanted me to check the maint agreement to see what we're getting charged for.

I've talked, about 4 times, to my local UG rep and with UG directly. It still doesn't work, and with 3 programmers we have to save/log out a couple times a day to hand off the bundle.

 

[looslib]

UG/NX has always done an export in relation to the absolute coordinate system.


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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[Dawson70]

That is true, but when I moved to NX2 from V18 it started moving the position. I can replicate the problem easily, and have it happen daily. Sometimes when it happens it's easier to 3 point reposition vs save-all/exit. Either way it's not where it was oriented to begin with.