Question from Non I-deas user

[Sirius2]

One of our main customers is looking at the possibility of making all its outsourced work use the native I-deas format data, but in my knowledge of CAD and Cad Data, I dont see how this is possible. I wonder if you could clarify some things for me about I-dea's.

Appologies in advance if I sound blunt, feel free to educate me on SDRC Idea's (lol) but to me now, from what I can read about the program, Idea's is quite an old program and 'long in the tooth' compared to the new programs like Nx3 or Wildfire, Solidworks etc.

I think that I-dea's may have some industry strength specific things which maintains its existance as a platform, yet nevertheless I think its quite dated, but understandably used in large corporations as its robust looking and obviously there is legacy data issues, user base seats, knowledge of its users and things like that.

Our customer is suggesting that they may only want to send native Idea's format files to thier sub contractors (ie us and others) and possibly visa versa, which I assume is down to cost cutting (translation time) and so that they can wash thier hands of any translation problems within thier SDRC Idea's - ie they know exactly what they sent out as that was what they saw on thier screens, so we guys are left to hold the baby if something goes awry on data translation. This is speculation, lol, but you do start to wonder.

In the world of 'mainstream' CAD applications that boomed in the late 90's and especially since 2000, I dont see Ideas as being a well known and well used program anymore, as its 'high end'and niche user based in my estimations. I see it as one thats falling by the wayside to the newcommers. I havent seen any/many programs which allow a direct read of Idea's format files, especially in the Mid range market - which sub contracting firms are more likely to be using.

This seems to me to be a backwards step on thier behalf, and rather than insist on supplying I-DEAS format files, I believe they should be the ones who supply thier lower tier suppliers with a more widely readable format that contains ALL the quirks of their system, or start to move to one of thier other programs (like NX3 and Pro E) which has more chance of being compatable with other CAD systems. Ofcourse, we cannot dictate this even if its the case.

I compiled a list of general exchange formats, and although these dont hold the "feature tree", they seem the only option, but Im not sure yet how seriously and dedicated they are to make us use Idea's files, so Im just trying to get my facts straight regarding Data issues and what the situation is that they/we face.

I suggested my favourite which is STEP, but Im not sure if thier SDRC Idea's has STEP output as standard on every seat in every plant in the country, and nor will I be told I suspect. Does the program have a STEP output as standard? Is it hard to do in SDRC? (export to different formats).

I dont like Iges too much, for that is wrought with problems as a format, and very much relys on the reading system and 'flavours', and ofcourse it often means trying to stitch surfaces and wireframes back into solids again if they dont come in well.

We have SAT, STEP, IGS, Parasolid and others, DXF and DWG for 2d.

I think its unreasonable for them to choose SDRC Idea's as the main format system, and envisage it causing a lot of expense and trouble with smaller manufacturers. However, we like our customers, they are nice to do work for and if they ask us to open native files from thier systems, then thats what we will have to do one way or another.

Ive seen file convertor programs today on the net, they take native SDRC files and convert to STEP and Visa Versa, but I have no idea how much this will cost and how reliable it is. Plus theres ones for NX and ProE, but I can see this becomming very expensive. The programs Ive seen keep hold of the "history tree" both ways....well, allegedly.

What do you think about the situation? Which formats does SDRC Ideas pump out as standard (is there SAT, STEP,Parasolid etc), How easy is it for you guys to create 98% accurate format translations to these formats (including wireframe and surfaces, 3d dimensions etc)? Whats your prefered input format from the midrange market which works the best with I-DEAS?.


Thanks for any replies. Its just a general information swoop at the moment, lol, but its all intresting to know anyway even if this doesnt come about in reality.


Sirius

 

[RCDLtd]

Hmmm, where to start....

I-DEAS software is now owned by UGS and is due to be merged/replaced by NX.

As for age I-DEAS "Master Series", which is when they got serious about parametric solid modelling, is actually younger than some of the other systems you mentioned and most definately not 'long in the tooth'. It's only in the last 7 or 8 years that I-DEAS' development rearly accelerated with the help of some "sponsorship" from the Ford Motor Company.

It is a risky direction for a company to take, expecting all its' suppliers to invest in I-DEAS when its' future is not really understood, but perhaps they have plans to migrate to NX once the collaboration issues are resolved. One thing is for sure though is that the decision to merger/replace is not down to the system capabilities.

What I can understand though is that a company that has fully editable and modifiable, history supported digital environment that is able to simply control a single Master Model for any particular component would wish to protect that environment by insisting that all companies wanting to work with their data share those benefits and work in the same environment. And to do this you can't start writing uncontrolled dumb Neutral files and sending them off to other systems. I'm sure the company knows that it will have to pay a higher cost to its' suppliers for their support but it's weighed up the benefits and feels it's a price worth paying.

With regards to translation, big subject! And you'll find many threads within this forum relating to it. You are correct about 3rd party applications reading Native I-DEAS data, under SDRC's ownership Licenses were not given out to 3rd parties for accessing the Native code. However I have recently seen an application that will read a ".prt" file and a ".mf1" file. But be careful some applications claim to read Native I-DEAS when they are only reading ".idi" files.

The bottom line is, speaking from experience, I-DEAS data will export perfectly well to all mid-to-top range CAD systems as long as simple tolerance rules are adhered to. However the process to achieve the best results will be different for almost every one - But that's the nature of CAD translations with any system.

The STEP translator in I-DEAS is an additional license, although is often bundled within other modules.

If you really don't wish to invest/train in I-DEAS but wish to continue working for the company then why not contract out your Data Management and pass the cost on. That's exactly what most of the smaller Suppliers working with Ford did.

 

[Sirius2]

Thanks for that, RCD.

I have had the impression that programs like Cadds5, Idea's, etc etc are quite old and clunky, stuck away in big companies which used to use the big computers that were necessary in the late 80's for 3d work lol. Perhaps Im misguided in that view lol.

Ive been looking at the UGS page regarding Idea's, and I dont quite understand what it can do that other far simpler and sleeker programs cant....some of the enhancements it boasts of have been available in others for a long time, kinematics, design intent, 3d constraints, etc etc, but I suppose there must be something which keeps it alive in the face of competition. I gather the tools are simply more "robust" than the other programs available today for less.

I didnt know it was merging into the NX series eventually, so this will mean that the company we do work for will eventually transition as the two programs merge into one?.

I think Solidworks opens Unigrahics files directly, but it would be pretty safe to assume it will be quite a few years before Idea's files are "Unigraphics" format files in the NX way.

I hear much about the future regarding some magical cross platform format which retains the "history tree" etc, much like STEP is branching out in this kind of direction I think, and the new STEP CNC type thing. Maybe this will be in effect in 5 years time.......who knows lol.

Yeah, the possibility of the customer issuing thier data and it all being intact around the whole loop and back would be a great goal for them, but I have my doubts on how feasable that is, especially with a niche program like Idea's.

Cheers for the warning on the translator programs, they sound like they magically do everything, but reality compared to marketting hype is bound to be different I suppose.

I find it strange that such a complex program thats in use mostly in large corporations havent free built in translators for STEP etc....but if thats the way it is, I cant see all of thier designers having that luxury.

Its good to know however, that you dont think its too much of a problem for Idea's to export to the midrange system. Unfortunately they become 'dumb', but its not aften we need to manipulate the product model or send them data back.

Thanks for your input

Sirius

 

[RCDLtd]

Having racked up 20,000+ hours on both CADDS (4X & 5) & I-DEAS I can safely say they are not in anyway similar. As much as I loved the "Jack of all trades" approach that CADDS had the application was getting tired and cumbersome.

Regards comparisons to other systems, I only have limited knowledge of Catia and even less with UG(NX). I do know that all are being successfully used by majour OEMs to devlop and manufacture complete Vehicles, and when compared in price are fairly comparable.

I'm not aware of any OEMs attempting to do similar work with mid-range systems, even though there clearly would be a price advantage.

The future of I-DEAS is not clear, and I haven't been listening to any recent press releases from UGS - I gave up since each new one contradicted the old. It's possible I-DEAS 11(NX) will be the last majour release with only point release to come. Full "interoperability" is promised between I-DEAS and UG by way of each carying the others modelling code so that, for instance, you can open and edit an I-DEAS file within UG because UG will carry the I-DEAS modelling Kernel to do so.

I don't think it's a given that the company in question plans to migrate to UG (unless that's what they're saying). I-DEAS will continue to be supported with bug fixes and OS changes for years to come, so if the company is happy with the features it contains now then they have no reason to change in the immediate future.

History/Feature based translation is available now, although in its' infancy. I'm a aware to 2 applications that will translate parts, with their history between a number of different systems. BUT, this is not a one button solution, at the moment it is a very manual method and when there is not a comparable operation type in the receiving system that feature will become a historyless orphan. The end product also has to be carefully checked for accuracy. At the moment I don't believe that Feature based translation is any better than physically remodelling the part in the new system.

Regarding "free" built-in translators, I guess that's just about pricing. After-all, nothing is free, it's just that with some applications you don't have the option to delete the STEP translator and buy just the core program. And if you've got an office full of users, each does not require a STEP license all the time, so why not break that off as a separate module so the application can be tailored to your specific needs.

"...customer issuing thier data and it all being intact around the whole loop and back...." is completely feasible with I-DEAS, I see it every day. It just requires a good process.