NX5 - Untrim VS Enlarge 1

[ewh]

What are the benefits of Insert->Trim->Untrim compared to Enlarge surface?
It seems to me to actually give you less control over the resulting surface, and I am curious as to when Untrim be preferred.
Thanks!

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[hudson888]

John,

I'm starting to like what I see. It took me a few days until I had time to check this out and respond. It is evident that you can convert some be not all mating conditions to assembly constraints. This it does but not quite flawlessly, perhaps some of the kinds of mating conditions I was using in the past are not supported in assembly constraints as a direct conversion, but may need to be reapplied using a different method. I managed to get a small example piston and crank engine to convert and it appeared to work first time. The larger more complex Stirling engine failed, perhaps all the universal and ball joints were always going to stretch the automatic conversion.

I'll find out eventually whether each works but for now I just wanted to take the time to acknowledge and thank you for your post. Perhaps there are further improvements also in NX-6 that will demand our attention. As of NX-5 the change doesn't appear to have been widely adopted or taken notice of among my colleagues. I hope for that reason that the converter will remain in place for a couple of versions to come at least. I'm sure that you'll eventually want to de-support the older code.

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Don't worry about the converter going away, we'll always support that. And in fact, we will always honor the old Mating Conditions as well. What may go away in the near future is the ability to create any NEW 'old' style Mating Conditions.

If you wish for an example of what this may end up being like, if you go back this far you many recall that we continue to properly update any model which contains what we call 'pre-V13 sketches', and we even allow you to go into one of these obsolete sketches and make edits (but you will need to find and turn on a special Icon for just that purpose), but there is NO way in which you can CREATE a NEW 'old' style sketch. But if you edit an expression used by that obsolete sketch it updates just fine.

To see what I mean, attached is a part file that I still use today in my main-stream demo but which was created back in Unigraphics V10.1. It was build around a sketch which was then extruded into the final model. Now if you open the Part Navigator, while you see the Extrude features there is no sketch apparent. Granted, if you were to 'Reverse Blank/Hide' all of the model you'd see the sketch curves and even the datums used (which are also of a style no longer 'supported' yet still honored) by it, but you would also discover that you can't actually edit the sketch, at least not by selecting it and pressing MB3. I'll leave you the exercise of finding the special icon that will provide access to the sketch itself ;-)

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand what our policy is toward old and eventually obsolete features and functions.

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,

Yes I go back a way before V13, and I know about the icon for the pre-V13 sketches. Rarely used these days I must say, but good to know it is there when needed.

What I was happiest with is the presence of the converter. As I said there seemed to be some mating conditions that I couldn't convert and I did wonder how I am supposed to find them to analyze what I need to do to remedy that situation. It says that is was unable to convert some mating conditions and so it left them in place. But since mating is replaced by constraints everywhere in the icons and dialogs I no longer seem to be able to get into the mating conditions to check what is missing. Also I'm still a bit unsure about the presentation of the constraints since they don't appear to be collected in the same way as mating conditions how do I find out what constraints are applied to each object and manage to quickly analyze whether each component has degrees for freedom or not. Lastly the hide show needs to list constraints as one of its entity types to quickly blank and unblank. I think in NX-5 that hasn't been done yet.

I really want to work through that Stirling Engine and get it converted to constraints as an exercise for myself in coming to terms with the new functionality.

We often cover ourselves by asking the sorts of questions that I put earlier about backward compatibility, our worst fears are usually unfounded and that is laudable in itself. But the other side of that coin is that having the tools to make a transition from one method to another is often a big ask yet because in this case the two are notionally similar I think it is not only most appropriate but also very well done to take on that task and make it work. There are times when I have pondered the value that is being added from one version to the next for current users as opposed to changes which may make NX more marketable to users coming from other systems. This particular feature probably straddles both but I do think the new one will be better and I think, if the converter meets with pretty much universal approval as I think it might, that the existing users are being looked after as well.

BTW nothing was attached?

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Sorry about missing the attachment (it's there now).

As for getting access to the Mating Conditions, you can switch back and forth by going to Preferences -> Assemblies... and at the bottom of the dialog there is a section titled 'Assembly Positioning' and there is an option item there where you can switch from 'Positioning Constraints' to 'Mating Conditions'. Note that this will only be in effect for this session and will revert back to what you have set in Customer Defaults. While this option is set the system will display the appropriate Icons and Menu Items as well as honor the particular assembly scheme, Mating versus Positioning.

When you say Hide/Show constraints I assume you mean as seen in the graphics window superimposed on the model. If you go to the Assembly Navigator and select the top item titled 'Constraints' and press MB3 you'll find an option to Hide or Show all constraints.

As for seeing which constraints have been applied to what components, open the Dependencies panel of the Assembly Navigator and with the 'Detailed View' open toggled on (the little magnifying glass in the upper right of the Dependencies Panel) when you select a Constraint it will show you the Components that it's applied to, and if you select a Component it will show which Constraints are applied to it.

As for discovering the degrees of freedom, that's the only thing that we haven't worked out a new mechanism to show that yet.

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]

Thanks John,

I had thought that the only way was to use the customer defaults and re-start NX. Now I'll be able to check out which constraints didn't work.

With the hide show thing. Yes I knew but I thought it would be a good idea to mention it for inclusion later under the other icon which is a great convenience which I really warmed to in NX-5.

The arm looks familiar. And yes the pre-v13 sketch tool does work which is a good thing in itself. What always interested me with that and the reason that I wanted to applaud your approach in changing the mating to constraints was in fact that this time there is a conversion utility. Whereas for the pre-V13 sketches there was not even though they are also notionally similar entities. I think I prefer the converter simply because you're not left with legacy features when things change.

This may seem like a moot point about the pre-V13 sketches at this late date, but I didn't want you to miss my point about why I liked the idea at least of having converters supplied when things change as an enabler for people with existing data to bring it up to date quickly and easily. I think that existing users are better served when this is the case and the scope of what it is possible to revise in the the software without compromising the so called "legacy data" may be increased in that case.

Best regards

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Hudson,

Yes, I agree about the conversion issue, and it's possible that if we were doing this over, we might have been able to write a sketch converter, but back then, with the resources that we had and the other priorities on our plate, it was not possible so we had to go the way we did. However, we are much more skilled as updating and converting data types since our effort to convert the Ideas data models into NX data models. When you have no choice (and in that situation, WE HAD NOT CHOICE), it's amazing what you can do with the resources that you have. Of course, we had at our disposal the combined talent of the the Unigraphics and the Ideas teams and they came together with one thing in mind and we accomplished what we set out to do. And as I said, it gave us better insight into the procedures needed when converting one complex data type to another. Now this does not mean that we will have as much success with all future situations like this, but at least we know more now than we have ever known and it should help.

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,

Agreed 100% no beef with ancient history, just acknowledging that it is a good thing and noting the idea of having the ability to convert may be an enabler for changes that do involve redefining legacy data in order to take on new methods.

Best Regards

Hudson