SE Poll

[karmoh]

Forum Poll.
There are several regular contributors to this SE forum. I suspect there a large number of lurkers too.
Out of personal interest what version are you using and which category do you fall in to?

1. ST2
a. Trad
b. Sync
c. Combination
2. ST1
a. Trad
b. Sync
c. Combination
3. V20
4. V19
5. Older Versions

Do you use any of the above through personal choice or company enforced?

Food for thought!

 

[KENAT]

Exactly, if we're being forced to change interface with the resulting productivity hit, the thinking is that maybe that makes it time to change to a software that many of our vendors use and which has an influential fan base and which other divisions use which have a PDM system for it we might be able to piggy back...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not gung ho about changing and have some idea of what's involved having been caught up in this kind of thing at my first job. However, the things Siemens have done haven't helped their cause.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[karmoh]

which has an influential fan base

Should be, an enthusiastic fan base!

 

[rcass]

I started in a new job last week using solid edge ST2. I've done every tutorial and then some over the past week. Yesterday I did some quick & dirty concept models & sub assembly in ST. The senior designer wants to use ST but I honestly think it sucks and would rather use traditional. I have 12 years on autocad & ProE plus 10 on solidworks and some training+2-weeks experience on UG NX4. In fact, I prefer SWX but will now be using SE which is ok as traditional works fine and is similar to SWX. I think siemens made a mistake with ST.

 

[lapuser]

ST2, synch for 90%+. Use this by choice on my seat.

 

[burhop]

Karmoh, is it good or bad I'm listening :-(

rcass, you might look at it another way. Traditional is comparable to how SWX works so you are covered and at the minimum sync is nice for imported parts. Plus, PTC, Autodesk, SpaceClaim, Dassault all have or are coming up with similar non-history technologies. So, as the technology matures, you are covered there too.

ST UI, yea, could be better. Many of the CAD applications switched to a ribbon and it hasn't been easy sailing for anyone. ST2 UI is better and ST3 is going to pull in a lot of customer UI enhancement requests from what I'm hearing. It is vaporware right now, I know, but only for a few more months.

Mark

 

[karmoh]

Karmoh, is it good or bad I'm listening sad

Hi Burhop

Good all good

 

[karmoh]

It is vaporware right now, I know, but only for a few more months

.....so keep paying the maintenance fee and one day you'll get........

 

[Trlby]

V20 98% of the time ST2 2% and that's about all the time I can afford, given it's ridiculous inefficient GUI. As far as Sync goes that's still only good for editing "some" existing parts, but for the experienced user, building model's from scratch with Sync offers no advantages over History based modeling in my book.

Maybe by V7... wasn't that about when Solid Edge finally was a viable solution?

Bob Mileti

 

[teebarr]

ST2. Sync 80% for part and sm. Always use sync assemblies to take advantage of editing capabilities. Frames which are trad only are pulled into a sync assembly before parts are added.
tony

 

[PatCouture]

That's interesting Teebar. If you always use Sync assembly, it means you're giving up family of assemblies and inter-part copies. I can't imagine myself working without those tools. Can you give me an example of a typical product you do. I'd like to know if I could also benefit from this. Or maybe I have a completely different workflow than you?

Thanks

Patrick

 

[teebarr]

Hi Patrick
The majority of our work is bespoke automation plus jigs and fixtures. With this type of work we often have to produce design concepts and multiple configurations to present to the client at tender stage. So obviously we end up doing more concepts than actual machines.

For concept work sync is faster, easier to get ideas down and play with design itterations. I would not want to go back to trad. for this type of work. It has really been this work that has allowed us to learn how sync works and given us the confidence to use it in the "real world" i.e a machine design.

We have just started work on V2 of a prototype completed last year for a client (more product development than our usual work) which was done on ST1 but mostly trad. with the odd small part in sync.
There are some major design mods to be made and so far everything has been done in sync except for steel framing of which there is quite a bit. Obviously these are done in trad. but are then brought into a sync assenbly where components are added to make a sub-assembly. This was not practical in ST1 but works well in ST2.

In terms of FoA and IPC, yes that is true we don't rely on these tools. IPC is available but is not associative. I think for a company producing a product FoA and FoP is worth the investment but we have never felt our type of work lends itself to its use.
Associative IPCs are good for models that need to be driven parametrically, but in the short time we have been using sync we havn't had a project that requires it. Because sync assemblies allows you to move geometry in separate parts at the same time, we now rely much less on links e.g between holes in a lid and a body.

We recently had to generate a complex curve and used Curve by Table in sync, but as the sketch is not associative we could not make adjustments via the spreadsheet. We had to revert to trad. I guess this will eventually become a proceedural feature in time.

For us this is a journey we are taking because for certain situations it is a better way to work. This will not be the case for everyone though.
That said, understanding how it works is key to success. Applying trad methods is a waste of time - even sketching has to be thought about differently.

HTH
Tony

 

[PatCouture]

Thank you Tony for your detailled explanation. I do think Sync is good for quick design and it may be interesting for us because we do a lot of custom machines that get modified along the way. So far I haven't use Sync enough to get my head around the new techniques. But as I'm always looking to improve my workflow I may try a workflow similar to yours at least for a small project to see how it goes.

Cheers

Patrick

 

[teebarr]

Patrick
The hardest thing to get the hang of has been Live Rules and how these will be affected by locked dimensions amoungst other things. My advice is to only lock a dimension when absolutely necessary. It is almost the opposite to trad sketch. From there you turn on or off infered relationships found by LR. Also, don't forget the small command bar which will change how a model reacts.

It can be quite frustrating until you get an understanding of how these new tools work. Unfortuneatly Siemens have done a poor job of providing documentation to gain insight into this. Maybe because it is better learnt through application, but I think this is why many loose patience and give up. Until you get your head around these tools, you get a lot of yellow triangles with an exclaimation mark. If you persevere it starts to make sense.

The best resource for sync is undoubtedly Solid DNA. His examples can really help.

Regards
Tony