proE and UG 4

[NikonF6]

We (a large company) are discontinuing ideas and make a switch to proE.
I am writing this for two reasons:
1. Once again who decided on proE never ever made any drawing in their life (the probable reason is price)… This I see again and again throughout many companies. Consequences are visible just anywhere…
2. As I can see many comparisons UG/Catia/proE on internet, I would like to add:
I am witness that many engineers quit their company when they are forced to use proE. Any comparison proE vs UG is just funny to think about, and is nothing more than waste of time.
People who say how good is proE just do not know for better. To one newer tasted good fruit and lemon is sweet.

I would like to learn about your first hand experience of switching to another software and consequences of using wrong software, just because I think this problem with proE becames slowly and really high grade problem in N.America (US and Canada).

many thanks

 

[looslib]

Specifics on why you think Pro/E is bad compared to NX. To be valid compare NX8.5 or newer with Creo2.

I was involved in a divisional switch from UG V16 to Wildifre 2 in the mid-90's. This company division was then sold 2 years later and they switched again to CATIA V5. The engineers who stuck it out have a good resume as they had to use all 3 systems depending on what project they were assigned to. I handled all of the coordination for the engineers Wildfire training needs. They also introduced Windchill/PDMLink into the company, which they kept after going to CATIA.




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

Ben Loosli

 

[SDETERS]

What are you going to do with your legacy data? That Content Migration manager CMM from Siemens to keep 3d models and drawings associative to each other from I-Deas to NX was huge for us. This is working through teamcenter of course.

 

[NikonF6]

looslib, it is your personal engineering standard and character in between that two programs in your post. You turn where you feel is better for you. There is nothing that can do either one and that cannot be be done on drafting board (wooden) or AutoCAD. Different things are in the game, and if you already do not know them no one can tell you that. I just do not want to waste time around proE, but thank you for your time to express your company attitude.

Sdeters, you correct... Ligacy data are worthless to managers here. I would like to learn more how othere handle that.

 

[looslib]

There is no sense in commenting further with your closed mind.


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

Ben Loosli

 

[JohnRBaker]

I suspect that you may not have fully grasped Ben's position (his 'signature' probably conveys more).

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.

 

[NikonF6]

John
that signiture is wrong expression for proE, in the eyes of a draftperson.

In the eyes of a "good" engineer it is a perfect picture of that program that sells on price and turning so many N.American companies to black. The best reason for this is that proE turns a good enginneer to be a draftperson because he have to concentrate more on software operation than on books like "Boundary layer Theory" by Schlichting, and similar good German technical literature. The creativity we used to have is just evaporated... As I mentioned, many enginners quit company, and even change profesion, when they are forced by "managers" to switch to proE. I know that fist hand.

This thread is probably difficut to many, and i would realy like to see where are companies using proE after they used UG / iDeas / Catia.

 

[deedub777]

It is an engineer's job to rise to the challenge! Would it not be better to try and use ProE before dismissing it out of hand? I used Ideas many years ago, then used ProE (V18 thru WF2) for about 11 years (quite successfully) and, at that time, had never used Catia or NX. Now I have used all the mentioned systems and yes, I agree ProE is probably the weaker contender (IMHO). BUT... A company makes decisions based on a number of priorities and it is highly likely that the engineer's task may not be very high on the corporate financial agenda.

I cannot speak for your company, but I would rather use ProE than be out of a job because the company goes bust!

Rise to the challenge and gain satisfaction and design product with a less than perfect tool, many have done in the past and many will do in the future.... after all, a CAD system is just another item in the engineers toolbox.

 

[ewh]

"A good drafter never blames his tools." - Wise old checker

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[capnhook]

"A good toolmaker finds all the draftperson's mistakes." -Wise old journeyman

Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community..

[green]To the Toolmaker, your nice little cartoon drawing of your glass looks cool, but your solid model sucks. Do you want me to fix it, or are you going to take all week to get it back to me so I can get some work done?[/green]

 

[NikonF6]

When slogans about tool non-importance were coined, tools were compass (either Rotring-Germany or sheet metal one), and slode-rullers of differnt brands, some pencils and sharpeners. Math (real one) was main tool for engineers, and common to all, just different knowledge. So what is the differewnce in tool... Nothing.
Engineers did not spend a lot of time around nice pencils. Patern makers and designers were together and designers got dirty hands many times. No much mistakes design tools wise.

Today we have to use much more complicated tool, even of different nature (like CAD, CAM,...). Chinese "engineriuses" are introduced to drop the cost, and design revolves around not real engineering but about operating software. No one in past ask me can you use Rotring compass... unlike today.
When we consider who are in design and manufacturing engineering today, tools comes very high on the engineering tasks lists. You guys probably have not much first-hand experience with Chinese people and think about tools as not important. Thinking it is the same as long ago. My 3D model go to CNC to make a part, and comes to test it. it go to be meshed and i get message "connot mesh" ... Managers takes FEM result as end of stress analysis but not as a little input into analysis. All is flipped over. And you say tool is not important. Eh.

 

[ewh]

You are quite wrong, and it has nothing to do with Chinese people... the tools used are very important, but also very importatnt is knowing how to get the result you desire from the tools you have available.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[NikonF6]

You could be right, ewh. But just from your stand pont of view. Design tools are today, from avarage company size and up, interconnected through internet. Design review go through internet and phone calls too,... Space is no more limit in most of the cases. If you are doing work from markups and just drafting, it all does not matter. And for Chinese engineers I would leave it alone, but if you would like some top-notch examples, no problems.

 

[Sivasr]

Hi NikonF6,

It's really strange, because you guys switching to Pro-E after using Ideas. becuase EDS merged a UGS corp and Ideas, i can tell it's not just a merge obviously turned the Design world into NX.
Well, Even now NX has been updated lots of graphical interfaces but they didn't loose any of their old features and behaviors (Like center mouse button using accept button). Second thing, If you go to NX a same software will offers you to design / Manufacturing / Ansys / Mold / sheet metal / PDM services / PLM apps. I'm sure everything you may get from PTC also but CAM is not that much of worth in PTC, CAM participates manufacturing part of Our products for this you have to go Some existing CAM softwares.I didnt use the Mold and Shhet metal in Pro E. even personally with my experiance i can assume the when the model going to complete in NX..but Pro E some of last mins features forced me to re-start the model from sketch itself(Especially designing plastic components in Pro E).
After sales Services is much important for Customers..in this scenario I'm pretty sure Siemens is a world leader compare to PTC and Dessault Sys.

It's just an example using NX :
Curve modelling is a very old format but powerful.we can create both curves and basic curves. at this point no matter about constrain. only we have switch the ucs as per the direction of curve to draw. Advantage and disadvantage both are same that is Editing the curves is quiet ? it's because new user's cannot understand how to edit or whats happened when they double click the Curve (It's atleast untill NX4). but now a days, especially in NX7.5 it also becomes very easier.
main advantages are if we draw the sketch anyone the user modified just 0.1mm may be easier most probably NX would update this changes except some conditions. But in curve it's very tough NX features like extrude or revolve would not allow the person simply to mofify these features get failure in model tree.
once you completed model If you wish to convert the curves to sketch you can be do in NX but it's applicable only on basic curves option.


SIVASR
Application Analyst

 

[TLrider]

deedub777,

I too come from a Pro/E,Pro/NC background; 12 years of v16 thru Wildfire2 then 3 years of SolidWorks and FeatureCam. I am primarily a CAM guy and use NX8.5 for toolpathing step files. I have been using NX for two years now (self taught) and have difficulties with it, I just don't 'get it' meaning I don't understand NX's methodology or philosophy. My big obstacle is that I think Pro/E and am having difficulty transitioning my thinking. My current thinking is that Pro/E is geometry based and NX is vector based, i.e., if I want to make a line perpendicular to a surface in Pro/E I select a perpendicular constraint, in NX it seems that I am making the line parallel to the vector that is perpendicular to the surface. Is this true?

Mainly I find the documentation lacking in order to learn NX on my own. The other user here is self taught with no previous cad/cam experience and the company resists paying for training.

Having been a Pro/E user do you have any advice for a struggling new tool user?

Thanks, Scott

 

[NikonF6]

I found pro-e very constricting tool in hands of design engineers that use “modeling” (or computer) on temporary base, or just as a part of the job. While other engineers spend a month on a job with pro-e, i get it done in 4 days with UG.
Examples with pro-e problems starts from very beginning, from starting a sketch where some references are asked that are not required nor for manual work (paper and pencil) nor from any other system. It goes further that when make lots of fillets we have to leave computer over night to finish regenerating the model. It is common that I get into the corner and have to start all over. Then injection molding drafts problems, loss of accuracy (Harley-davidson will not accept any measurement from Pro-e, and on my part 13 deg became 12.992 deg), lack of quality simulations, and so on. List can be very long. It is a consumer program, as it is said on the training, and sells on price.
If one use pro-e every day whole day and for simple parts and have a lot of time it can be learned and can be Ok, but and many other are Ok in this case. But for engineers it is disaster, for he must spend time on operating the software not on engineering, and to learn pro-e over and over again.
We have pro-e too in our company. I use Catia 5 and UG for my work, and had a formal training for pro-e. I still learn UG, and learning will never end.
Last time I have used UG (just a little) was 12 years back. My main program was Catia 5. I started with UG a month ago, and now I have little problems to design just anything. You will have hard time to even and imagine difficulties in modeling 10 stages centrifugal pump. I heve no problem to make it after a month of using UG and selflearning following just logic. And all parts are made in one single file, no assembly involved. Add cnc maching, add NX-Nastran for simulation, stability of the program, changes possibilities and you have good helper to engineers.
This is what helped me a lot

http://www.stclaircollege.ca/cadcam/nx7/

Good luck with UG.

 

[deedub777]

Hi Scott,
Firstly, what version of NX are you using?

if I want to make a line perpendicular to a surface in Pro/E I select a perpendicular constraint

Is the surface planar or something else? Are you using the sketch environment or creating individual curves? Let me know and I may be able to hep a little more.

Mainly I find the documentation lacking in order to learn NX on my own. The other user here is self taught with no previous cad/cam experience and the company resists paying for training.

If the company has a maintenance contract, I'm pretty sure the help tutorials are available and there is something called CAST. I'm sure @JohnRBaker can provide advice on this

Having been a Pro/E user do you have any advice for a struggling new tool user?

Try not to think "how would I do this in ProE". Go through the help files, quick videos exist there to help and lobby your company for some training.

 

[looslib]

You do need to change your thinking as UG/NX is different from Pro/E.

When I was in my first Pro/E class, there were 2 other guys coming from UG, also. Every question they asked was Why does Pro/E do it this way when UG do4es it that way type of thing. Finally on a break on Wednesday with the instructor out of the room I told that I was coming from UG, also, and they needed to look at the system froma different view point as they function differently.

Theer was also a funny point in class, when we modeled a hinge and when the angle changed so far, the hinge would flip. It even puzzled the instructor. I decided to give them a little background. We had run into the same issue with a hinge in UG about a year earlier, opened a help desk call and got back that it was a D-cubed constraint restriction in their solver routines. Explained this to the Pro/E class and they were surprised until I added that both UG and Pro/E had used the same D-cubed constraint solver routines.


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

Ben Loosli

 

[TLrider]

Gentleman,
Thank you for the input.
I am using 8.5.
I realize I have to stop thinking Pro/E but that is easier said than done. I consider myself to be an advanced CAM programmer but find NX very difficult to learn thru the documentation and CAST and realize as a seasoned user of another program I am actually handicapped by thinking Pro/E. Honestly I am beginning to feel like I have a learning disability at 52 years old.
NX is very different from Pro/E and I really need a teacher who can explain things and answer questions which is not possible thru software learning. I do use the GTAC support which is excellent however, they are not there to provide over the phone training so I try to work it out as best I can before calling them.
I find the on line documentation to be lacking in NX and that is a big part of my frustration. For example in NX CAM I made a sketch and used it for 'Trim Boundary' to cut away toolpath outside the trim boundary I do not want. In all of the other CAM systems I have used the tool stays within the trim boundary. In NX it allows the tool centerline to ride that line and also go outside of the trim for an approach move. Eventually I noticed a check box within the 'Trim Boundary' dialog and a value field. I checked that box, entered the tool radius and now the tool stays within the trim boundary. I press F1 for help and cannot find anything in the help that explains that check box.
This is the difficulty I am facing learning NX, there are many functions and options that are not fully explained or not mentioned at all.

I have had the vector issue in both sketch and creating individual curves. I was creating a sketch plane the other day and when asked for my horizontal reference I picked a plane to be horizontal as I would have in Pro/E (a no-no) and that plane ended up vertical. In order to get it horizontal I had to tell NX to use it as a Vertical reference. That is why I mention the vector aspect, parallel to the vector that is perpendicular.

NX is a very powerful and capable software, I am just having difficulty adapting to it because it is so different and my difficulty with the documentation.

Thanks for input and listening.

Scott

 

[JohnRBaker]

And for the record, the D-Cubed constraint solvers (a 2D solver, used to constrain Sketches, and a 3D Solver, used to constrain Components in an Assembly) are owned and developed by Siemens PLM Software and licensed to other 'CAD' companies like PTC. The same goes for the Parasolid modeling kernel as well as some other common 'tools' which we license to companies and organizations, some of whom are competitors of ours.

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.