Pro/E user attempting switch to UGNX 6

[fighterpilot]

After over 10 years as a designer and CAD admin for Pro/Engineer I need to learn UGNX 4. This is proving to be quite difficult. I'm sure I'll have more questions but I'll start with this one. I have a cylinder 10" in diameter, 8" long and want to create a turned down section 4" in diameter and 5" down the axis.

I want to revolve a rectangular section about the axis of the cylinder to create in Pro/E terms, a revolved cut. I can seem to get the rectangular section created in UG sketcher but now I'd like to apply a diameter dimension in my sketch (4") to what would be the OD of the revolved cut. In Pro/E sketcher I would just drop a centerline down the center of the part, align it to the existing cylinder axis then dimension the revolved cut by selecting the sketch line, centerline, and then the sketch line again. Viola, I have a diameter dimension. How do I accomplish a similar scheme in UG?

Next I would like to constrain the other section line to the projected edge of the main cylinder OD and then constrain the bottom edge of the sketch to the lower edge of the large cylinder. In the end I want two dimensions driving this cut, the 4" diameter and the 5" cut length.

How do I go about doing this in UG?

Thanks...

--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer

 

[rrrocket]

This topic is interesting in that it opens up the sketcher versus feature-based modelling debate. In the days of yore, when I first started using UG (V9? – it’s so long ago…), the recommended technique was to create a single primitive and everything below it was a feature (bosses, holes, grooves etc.). At the time, the sketcher was tricky to use, and was often used as a last resort when I couldn’t find any other way to model the part.

Over the years, the sketcher has improved beyond all recognition, so that now it is a super tool to use, especially when sketches are linked within and across components.

There are several companies I have worked for that use sketches to the exclusion of everything else, so if you want a boss – create a sketch, fully constrain it , add dimensions, extrude, do the Boolean, and add blends, tapers separately - very time consuming.

With the example attached to the original post, using a cylinder, boss and hole, or a cylinder, groove and hole, I can create the model in a tenth of the time by this method rather than the sketch route. And all of these features use diameters and not radii in their definition.

Don’t get me wrong, the sketcher is the tool of choice on many occasions, but not always. Most of the time getting up to speed on UG is finding the right technique or method most suitable for the task in hand, and developing the foresight to predict downstream problems in choosing a particular method to model the component.

What are the thoughts of others in this forum?

 

[JohnRBaker]

All I've got to say is that it's going to be interesting to see what some of you are going to say when you see NX 6 for the first time in it's full range of modeling capabilities as we are about to add another 'dimension' to the whole sketch versus feature versus ???? arguments. I suggest that you watch carefully our website announcements of events associated with the launch of NX 6 starting in late April (

http://www.siemens.com/plm

).

Also any of you who can, should consider attending the UGS Connection Americas 2008 Users Conference in Orlando in June (

http://event.plmworld.org/index_2008.php

) as you'll get a chance to see more NX 6 than you ever imagined could be there


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/

 

[fighterpilot]

Thanks to all for the comments. Seems like a good discussion. For me to get back to the knowledge level I had when I ran Pro/E it appears some different ways of thinking about things is required.

--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer

 

[JohnRBaker]

Here's the link to that upcoming product announcement I alluded to earlier:

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/campaigns/breakthrough/index.shtml

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/

 

[rrrocket]

John,
Looks interesting.....
Any clues?

 

[Crocostimpy]

Being a long time ProE user (12 years or so) I had a tough time when I started to use NX. And still do. I never used IDEAS, so was not used to some of the things that carried over into NX. I started from scratch. This being a UG forum though, I don't intend to bash NX.

But you have to understand people's frustration with change. While change may be good, it's also very difficult when you're forced to do it after so long. Not being able to make a diameter dimension is still one of my biggest peeves (along with not being able to reference existing edges or surfaces in a sketch).

To appreciate my frustration though, I think it depends alot on what you are designing. I've designed plastic bottles for the last 15 years or so. Picture a Downy bottle, or any of Bath & Body Works' funky shapes. I used the diameter dimension all the time for the width and thickness of the bottles. I also used those dimensions on the drawings. In fact, most dimensions on the drawing came from part sketches. To me, creating the dimensions over again was missing the point.

I should also say that I received virtually no training when I started working in NX. The company I worked for then had to save the money. Besides, how hard could it be? I already knew a 3d package? [heavy sarcasm] So I don't know the difference between direct modeling and interpart modeling. Because I creating everything in Pro as a wireframe first, then surfaced it and made it a solid (unless it was a round bottle), I sketched just about everything. So naturally, because I'm now doing the same work in NX, I'm still sketching all the time. It's the only way I know. I was shocked when I found some of the things that I couldn't do anymore now that I was working in NX. I'm sure someone just transitioning to ProE would think the same thing.

Like I said, I'm not trying to bash UG. I'd never get my questions answered if I did. [insert rimshot here] People like John, or someone who's been using UG for a long time and are very deep into it, probably don't take too well to criticism. I know I don't. Even constructive criticism. But before you denegrate someone who's used to using another system for so long and is stuck in a particular mindset, just accept that some people take well to change and some people don't. It should be obvious that I don't.

I hope I didn't offend anyone. That wasn't my intent. Someone asked for opinions. This is mine.

Mike

 

[JohnRBaker]

Any clues?

Join the Webcast on the 22nd and see for yourself ;-)


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/

 

[cowski]

In response to Crocostimpy's post I have to admit that I don't understand the 'fanboy' attitude some users have regarding a CAD program (or spreadsheet, FEA, etc etc). You can bash UG all you want, I don't feel like you have slapped me with a glove and challenged me to a duel. Now if I were on the development team, I might take the criticisms a little more personally but I have no such investment. What does bother me (and this is written with no one in particular in mind, so please no one take offense) is the "this program doesn't work exactly like what I used to use, I don't know where my F1 key is, so I'll go find a forum full of experts but won't ask for advice/workarounds - I'd rather just spout ignorance and/or try to convert everyone to program X" attitude. I respect the members of this forum because there really hasn't been much of these antics, but they do annoy when they pop up from time to time.

To Crocostimpy: I'm not a heavy sketch user myself, but I'm pretty sure there is a setting so that your sketch dimensions show up on the drawing (and I think you can even change dims on the drawing and have them propagate back to the model - but I'm out of my element here).

While change may be good, it's also very difficult when you're forced to do it after so long.

...technological breakthrough that will fundamentally change the way manufacturers design products and bring them to market.

(emphasis mine)
Sounds like even the long time UG users will be in the 'relearn' mode in the near future. But any product that claims to speed up design by 100x (excuse me, up to 100x) and I am a bit skeptical. How do you even measure a speed increase in the design cycle? Does a team do the same project twice and you see how much faster it is the second time? I would hope they speed up, since they have already worked out the end result. Do 2 different teams work on the same project? Different teams will come up with different designs in different amounts of time. Does the same team do 2 different projects? I think there are problems there as well. But I digress, the company I work for has a marketing department too. Wild, unverifiable claims either work wonders or backfire horribly. At least they have themselves covered with the "up to" in the fine print.

 

[hudson888]

Cowski,

Chill! I think you're right on to be skeptical and yes I agree that some posters' tone is more accusative that appreciative of what we're doing here. A forum isn't a place where I find it appropriate to be too personal in your dealings with people who you disagree with. Otherwise the occasional "expletive deleted" ending with off might come up in my vernacular. Yet it doesn't, with good reason. The first thing is that because it is an anonymous forum I'm here to help if I can and learn if I can't and so I'm not too personally vested in what people make of things I comment about. The second thing is that forum itself is largely information based, so it deals with the facts that I can talk about with a degree of accuracy, meaning if I'm right then it isn't usually a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact!

I too see and feel the frustration of and with other users who think along the lines of their first CAD system. I've expressed that in the past and will like you probably continue to stand for fighting the good fight over the lowest common denominator that is ignorance. In the meantime I'll tell you about an interesting experience that I had last week.

I have recently had to learn another CAD system for work that I had slight knowledge of in the past and in doing so have come to realize how others view NX coming from the opposite experience. Not only do I now know what it is that they fail to appreciate, but I can also see how NX has in part mirrored other systems perhaps in order to better compete.
When I did this training I went in with my eyes open and expected to be called upon to rethink my ways of doing things. The truth is that NX is such a broad ranging and flexible tool that it was easy for me to grasp what has been presented to me, though occasionally difficult to deal with the limitations of both the system and my knowledge of it. Some of the functions are good. Some things that NX may have adopted they were right to do so. There are even a few things that NX is lacking and could improve upon.
However there is no direct modeling and no feature based modeling so the whole hybrid modeling word of flexibility is closed off to most other CAD systems.
I have been privileged to look into an alternative parallel universe that is this other system, (which I don't wish to name because this isn't about bragging rights or alienating other systems' users). I can even see how in a different reality it is possible to get by in a layer-less world, (if and only if you have the tools to manage it).
But hey NX is a hybrid system; Uni-graphics they used to call it. I always took that to have connotations alluding to the grand unified theory of CAD, all things to all men. More than just one way to do things, hence the hybrid modeler, hence a fuller toolkit not limited just to sketches and ordinary features.

Let's hope that NX-6 holds some extraordinary new features to confound the skeptics and the nay sayers alike. That I could look forward to. From what we've sneaked a peek at thus far it's all good, so I'd just like to say that life is all about change, so to fear change is ultimately to fear life itself.

As for the marketers,... really!
S'cuse me if I'm being too cynical, but anything that can speed up anything by anywhere approaching 100 times (or was it 100% you know the very slight difference between twice actually and whatever it was "up to"); I mean to say I can't think 100 times as fast so what is the point. Take word processing for example; just because computers are 100 times faster than they might have been when Word was first released doesn't change the fact that I can only type about 30 words per minute. The old saying goes that "There are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks!"

Best Regards and keep Smiling

Hudson

 

[JohnRBaker]

Uni-graphics they used to call it. I always took that to have connotations alluding to the grand unified theory of CAD, all things to all men.

That's a great thought and one that any marketeer worth his superlatives would be proud of, but the reality is that the term 'Uni-' came from the fact that the company that originally developed 'Uni-graphics' (which BTW WAS the original name of the product including the hyphen) was named 'United Computing Corporation' out of Carson, CA (later acquired by McDonnell Douglas in 1976).

http://www.plmworld.net/museum/images/United_Computing.jpg

(where I took my first CAD class in July 1977)


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/

 

[acciardi]

I would describe NX as the Swiss Army Knife of CAD. It incorporates every modeling technology ever devised. In this regard it may not do every single thing as well as products that focus on one methodology (ie; fully parametric).

I have been using the tool in more or less the same way that we used Pro/E. This is because the parts we design lend themselves best to a fully parametric sketch-based approach. We make hundreds of little tweaks to parts - no major changes in topology. (Aside - we had a CAD war in the early 90s when when the DEC disk business was acquired by Quantum Corp, an outfit that was using HP SolidDesigner, which was 100% freeform modeling. In benchmark after benchmark, Pro/E beat the whee out of the direct-face modeler. The irony is that PTC just acquired SolidDesigner, so they seem to be interested in the technology, perhaps just to keep pace with NXs efforts).

I'm definitely getting used to NX, but what frustrates me is the attitude that common complaints (sketcher not recognizing off-plane curves) is not a problem. Dammit, I am the customer, and I say that it *is* a problem. Anything that forces me into workarounds that take extra hours of sketch time is a problem. Every other mid to high end modeler can do this with ease. I wish Siemens would be more responsive to enhancement requests. We've asked for some sketcher limitations to be improved two years ago! We've been asking for a Cloning enhancement that walks down the product structure and finds *all* the related drawings and WAVE links. Today, we have to sit down with a BOM and painstakingly find every object manually. This can take hours to accomplish what was 2 mouse clicks in our previous tool.

OK, rant over - John and others here are a great resource and I am grateful to all who have responded to my help requests.

Ed

 

[JohnRBaker]

Ed,

In NX 6 we are introducing something called the 'Relations Browser' that shows you the links of related parts in an assembly (beyond what can be seen in the Assembly Navigator) since it can also show you relationships parts are not part of the existing assembly yet which are linked thru some sharing of objects and/or expressions. And it can be generated by selecting a SINGLE button ;-)

Attached below is an image of what one of these diagrams would look like. Note that the areas at the bottom and to the right provide additional ways to see information about individual components or certain relationships. The browser allows different ways of viewing the relationships and for large assemblies you can apply filters or limit the content to certain types of relationships and so on.


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,

Kind of reminiscent of the ANT circa V10 or 11.

P.S. Yes I had seen the site and had known a bit of the History being first aware of United Computing via UNIAPT back in the day when paper punch tape ruled, (it was just after the dinosaurs died out and we started to walk upright for those who don't remember). But then again the idea behind the name United and the word Universal are linked by a common Latin root, meaning "One", so I think the central idea is something you can refer back to if you care to subscribe to something that I think does describe what users and developers alike ought to aspire to. Mind you I'd be the first to unapologetically concede that if those ideals are tinged by self interest then by all means inspiration should not lack motivation should it?


Ed,

I guess you missed the point of a swiss army knife. They always have that little thing for getting the stones out of horses' hooves don't they! Something you and I may never use but which the Swiss Army are evidently fully committed to.

"Now if I have told you once I've told you a Million times; Don't exaggerate!", When you rant others reading with cooler heads pick up immediately that it doesn't really take hours of time to fix off plane sketch curves. I could make a long list of enhancements as easily as you probably could. If we did we'd not only want different things, but to do the same things in different ways. The one thing that we can't have, because there wouldn't be any point, is to create this CAD system the same as another one. Nor can tomorrows' CAD systems hope to stand against the tide of progress if they stay the same as yesterday's.

Please rant away by all means. An honestly held opinion passionately expressed is understood for what it is by this reader at least, appreciated, valued, and responded to hopefully without offending anyone. I do however harbor some concern that I may offend without intending any harm, simply because it is in the nature of the most strongly held opinions that they tend to extremes and are usually wrong because the extreme view being premised on the existence of an opposite extreme fails to take the other into account. Paraphrasing Socrates "I know nothing except that I Know absolutely nothing!"

Insofar as the army knife ties into anything of relevance to CAD then it must be that to quote you....
"...it may not do every single thing as well as products that focus on one methodology (ie; fully parametric)."

Parameters are a good tool indeed. A means to an end, but certainly not and end in themselves. Not a few posters seem to forget that.

My perspective is that a high end CAD system serves its highest purpose when it is used to its fullest on the most difficult of tasks. Among these I would count surface modeling somewhere near the top. In that discipline we often work with and/or without parameters to create the kind of A-Class automotive and industrial design shapes using different tools some parametric but as often not. My wish list of enhancements would certainly draw heavily on surfacing tools as your might on Sketcher enhancements. At the end of the day the beauty of the pocket knife is that you can use it for a range of things whether they were intended by the designer or not. It is that flexibility that for me adds to the justification for making NX the kind of high end CAD system that it evidently is. I find the non-parametric tools, for surfacing, the direct modeling, and feature based modeling are as often a joy to use equally as I find curve creation occasionally lacking.

Cheers

Hudson

 

[acciardi]

John -

Thanks for the preview; that looks nice, especially with the thumbnail views.

What I don't understand is why TcEng can't walk the structure for data duplication. All the relationships are stored in there anyway, so it would seem logical to mine the data there. I know you're on the CAD end and not the TcEng end of the business, so this may not be your area of expertise. FWIW, we are working with the TcEng guys to show them how our previous PLM tool could duplicate an entire product structure, including drawings and all links, with a few clicks.

Hudson -

I'm aware that NX (and UG before that) are absolutely best-in-class for industrial design and complex surfacing. In our business, however, we really don't create anything that consumers see - disk drives just end up being stuffed into a box like everything else in a PC. Our models tend to be castings and funky little plastic parts with lots and lots of features. And I won't debate you on the utility of having the sketcher be able to project off-plane curves - it is a serious issue for us and let's leave it at that.

Our designs get reused over and over again and passed around to different engineers, so it is very important to imbed as much design intent as possible into the model. Parametrics and history have proven to be a good way to capture this intent.

I won't comment much on direct modeling because I am not very familiar with it. I believe HP/CoCreate did some very interesting things with it, and who knows, maybe the industry is ready for a new paradigm.

When we were comparing SolidDesigner with Pro/E, we were able to create some common parts that just could not be modified with a direct modeling approach. For example, we would cut a helical groove (cam slot) into a cylinder with a certain path. The path was developed in the flat state and then 'wrapped' onto the cylinder. SolidDesigner could build the feature, but had no way to change it, because it had no knowledge or memory of how it was created. Pro/E would just 'unwrap' the path for editing, and then re-wrap it.

I look forward to learning more in NX6. This old horse is always ready to learn new tricks.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Hudson,

For what it's worth, products that carry the 'Victorinox' brand name, including the ubiquitous 'Swiss Army Knife', are designed and manufactured using a popular CAD package from Siemens PLM Software ;-)

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/

 

[bfleck]

Gents,
I myself have been an efficient user of ProE (Wildfire 2) and have now switched to NX5 with a change of jobs. Another note is that back when I was at University I did use UG v18 for a bit, so I did have some experience of the UGS way of thinking. My first quote is that the sketcher feature has improved drastically since v18, where the sketch had to be fully constrained before exiting the feature. Very annoying. Secondly, I believe ProE dimensioning was much better in that the design intent was created in the modeling environment and reproduced 'automatically' in the drawing, thus ensuring design intent. In the world where there are designers and draughtsmen, I believe the design intent will be lost with NX. It was also cool that you could drive the model from the drawing in ProE by just double clicking on the dimension and changing its value. I too am fustrated at not being able to dimension a diameter from a revolved feature as described earlier or referencing edges and lines from other features whilst in the sketcher. I do prefer to use a sketch for nearly all features in NX as it gives more flexiblilty to you modeling ability than using direct features like block, cylinder, pad etc. I would like to be able to create an associative spline whilst in the sketcher. Just a another opinion to add to the mix.

 

[hudson888]

Bfleck,

If you have a look at the image I attached above, and the description of how you get get the same effect by creating mirrored curves, then you can see that it can be done. It may not be done in exactly the same way as you would prefer, but that isn't the same thing at all.

I don't know what you mean when you say that you can't create an associative spline using the sketcher? I think you'll find that you can within the limitations of 2D curve construction. You can create splines with end slope constraints and dimension the knot points if you care to just as any other sketched curve. What is it that you find lacking?

There are more functions for associative 3D splines and curves in the model which aren't sketch based, but to me the whole argument about design intent and designers vs draftsmen collapses when faced with free-form surface geometry. This I say if only because the dimensioning technique as applies to free-form surface elements is largely redundant, your best course of action is to provide data to the CAM processes.

I don't have the Pro-E background to refute the claim that the sketch dimensions preface the drawing, but while NX has some functions that support this kind of thing it seems to me that the nature of drafting is to require some manual application of dimensions. Anything that makes it easier is to be applauded of course, but most purely sketch based models I would not have thought to be overly difficult or time consuming to draft. In addition it is in the nature of the change the CAD brings about that increasingly less drafting may be required. In that way I see the design intent often best reflected by the model in combination with the choice of CAM process.

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[bfleck]

I know the diameter dimension can be created in NX. I just wanted to point out that it is a lot easier in ProE.
Whilst in the sketcher, if you create a studio spline through points and specify G1 tangent constraint at both ends. Assume the first and last points are constructed from the end points of straight line curves. Well, when you change the angle of the straight lines, the spline does not maintain its tangency.
Regards dimensioning. Of course it is very difficult to dimension free form shapes, but I was referring to non free form.
One thing about CAD packages, there is usually a different way to do things and achieve the same result.

 

[joycejo]

In NX you can have the Drafting Dimensions show up on the drawing and you can change the value of the expressions from drafting, provideed you have the option active.
UGII_DRAFT_EXPRESSIONS_OK=1

To add the dimensions select Insert - feature Parameters. Pick the sketch and then pick the view, the sketch must be in the same plane as the view you selct.

When you have the environment variable set you can select tools - expressions and then click on the dimension - from the sketch- and change the value. Maybe not as elagant as Pro/e but the end result is the same.

John Joyce
Tata Technologies iKS
1675 Larimer St.
Denver, CO

http://www.myigetit.com

 

[bfleck]

Joycejo
I have tried inserting the dimensions from the model whilst in drafting and found it limited. Maybe my inexperience in usuing product, but I found it a nightmare to move the dimensions from 1 view to another. Say a detailed view. Usually this detailed view does not have the orginal dimension origin in view to select during the move.
I know you can use the expressions to drive model from drafting, but as you say not as elegant as ProE.