Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5 1

[jeff97070]

Hi,

Let the fun begin, I have 18 years experience using Pro-Engineer. The company I work for is wanting to switch to NX7.5.
I have had one week 40 hour class room training and now about 3 months of using NX and not 100% of the time.

My initial conclusion and it could just be my years of using Pro-Engineer but Pro-Engineer is a much more flexible
easier and faster tool to use than NX. To me NX has way to much information required to get the job done like it's drawing package is very cumbersome compared to Pro-Engineer.

Please share your thoughts and I’m being opened minded about this so maybe it’s a lack of using NX 24/7 for a good year or so.

 

[Kenevil]

John, I think I'm getting away from this thread's post about comparing NX with Pro-E but I'm so happy to hear form someone with your knowledge. I'll retract my statement about NX not being fully parameterized. I'm going to say it CAN be if you pick the correct operators. There are so many ways to accomplish a task and many are not parameterized. Maybe that's what I really appreciate about Catia over NX. For example, Catia offers one way to draw a two point line. It's intuitive, associative, and parameterized. In NX7.5, I know of at least three (1.Curves>Lines, 2. Curve>Lines and Arcs>Line Point to Point, 3. Basic Curves). I try to use the most parameterized operations but my models become uneditable for other designers that are still using basic curves. So, maybe having so many options is a disadvantage in some cases.

I'm using "advance with full menus" role. Maybe all my problems will go away if I switch to a basic role. I'm going to play with that today.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Not to pick nits, but in your example of "three" ways to draw a line between points, #1 and #2 actually results in exactly the same line feature being created. The only difference was whether the line was created while using a full menu (that's #1) or using what some consider a more modern, gesture-based (but menuless) scheme (that's #2). And while we're discussing the menuless scheme (that's #2) it was really designed to be accessed from the 'Lines and Arcs' toolbar (just press MB3 over some 'gray space' in the menu area and toggle ON the 'Lines and Arcs' toolbar). From this single toolbar you can now access virtually all possible methods for creating associative (non-sketch) curves (at least Line and Arcs) using simple mouse gestures and without having to deal with traditional menus.

As for #3, yes there still is the older, non-associative 'Basic Curves' method but that will soon be relegated to a 'hidden' or 'non-preferred' status and over time may be removed altogether since even though methods #1 and #2 were designed to produce associative curve features, they do provide an option to create the Lines and Arcs as dumb curve objects, if that's what you really wanted in the first place.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[Kenevil]

Thread for two...

It would be nice if the gesture-based/menuless option is the future, then get rid of the old options and reduce the menues by 2/3's.

(1)Edit>Transform, (2)Edit>Move Object, and (3)Insert>Instance Geometry is another example where there seems to be too many ways to do one task. Transform doens't seem to be associative (I could be wrong), Move Object is associative as long as you are not copying the object, and Instance Geometry seems to make the first two obsolete.

I don't understand why anyone would want or needs so many options. It just gives users excuses not to be fully associative and parametric.

 

[socialcad]

Maybe that's why they make SolidEdge.

 

[looslib]

What is one of the best things about NX? Many options to perform the same task.
What is one of the worst things about NX? Many options to perform the same task.

That joke has been around since V10 came out in 1994 but it still applies to NX.

As John points out, try to open a file created almost 20 years ago in today's version of any CAD software. He has a UGII V9.1 file that will open in NX8.5. PTC onlys says they only guarantee to open files from 2 prior releases. I guess I should test this as I have 5 releases on my computer, WF3 to Creo2.


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

Ben Loosli

 

[JohnRBaker]

We have learned the hard way that when a new function is added to NX that it's the very UNPOPULAR if we immediately remove the older function(s) which it replaces. That being said, in the case of 'Transform' versus 'Move Object', UNLESS YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO REENABLE THE OLD FULL TRANSFORM MENU USING AN ENVIRONMENT VARIABLE, the current OOTB 'Transform' menu ONLY contains those older methods for which there is NOT yet a 100% suitable replacement. As those remaining methods have been adequately addressed they too will be removed until there is no need for the old 'Transform' menu whatsoever. If you can think of a different approach that you would like us to take, please feel free to tell us what that might be.

Yes, NX does have what some might consider redundant or often very similar functionality but then we do offer our users, via the UI customization tools, the ability to completely restructure the menu and toolbar contents and then saving these changes in custom Roles so that you can produce a presentation scheme suitable for your working environment or personal tastes. I've been using UG/NX for 35+ years and have been supporting it in one fashion or another for our customers for over 32 years and the one thing that I've learned is that no matter what we add to or remove from the software, every customer has differing needs and differing requirements. Therefore flexibility, even at the expense of having the appearance of added complexity, has proven time and time again to be an ASSET and NOT a liability. And with that in mind we will continue to make NX even more customizable while we continue to add new and replace existing functions.

This is who we are and our customers expect nothing less.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[Toost]

Still a bit off topic but relevant, I don't know how many times I (when working for Siemens) first received complaints that there was too many ways of doing things, The received enhancement requests to add more options, from the same person... " I would like to be able to do a special blend like this and this etc". It's a bit "Catch 22", If You need many different options / solutions there will be many options in the dialogs.
Siemens has taken steps to try simplify this by introducing the "Roles" which simply hide the more unusual commands.
The intention with the roles is also that users should simplify their user interface by hiding stuff they don't use.
Another difficult obstacle for Siemens ( all cad vendors) is that as soon as you plan to retire an old feature/ function, you can be sure that there will be people screaming that they cannot live without it.
NX has in that matter the long history as a burden, it's easier to implement drastic changes to the software the younger the software and the shorter the guaranteed ability to open old data.

Regards,
Tomas

 

[multicaduser]

I have always appreciated the business model of NOT eliminating the old ways automatically when new ones are introduced. First, the new ways are not always as stable and rhobust at first as the code writers intend. Second we always have some automation based on the old features that take time to migrate. Third, because time is money it is easy to fall back on the the old ways of doing things when work just has to get done, all while learning the new features. Way off topic because I have no cad comparison advice of relevence to add other than talking directly to users of other cad systems. Twenty four years on what is now NX, so take what I said with a grain of salt.