TOO MANY CLICKS 5

[filbbb]

It seems in UG the click count is going up on simple tasks a few examples:
Reposition component if I want to copy it I have 2 clicks (one to open the pull down and once to click copy) if i go to move object i can decide move or copy with a single click. Same function doubles the click count.

Same thing in the most used box in ug....point dialog box....2 clicks 2 get absolute / wcs / wcs of current part. Old ug had it in one click with no pull-down.

Windows removed most of the pull-down menus and went to single click buttons for all of their commonly used tasks like 10-15 years ago. Why is ug using pull-down instead of buttons?

Many many more examples can be given anyone else have a problem with pull-downs in ug?

I know it wont be in the next release of ug but i would really really consider removing ALL pull-downs in commonly used functions.


Thanks
Future carpel tunnel patient!

 

[filbbb]

Nice rickemeyer!!
Plane is way way more clicks for sure. In nx3 we used to click a point in space, change x, tab tab change z and u could trim or split a solid in a second. Now it’s go find plane 3 points, pick a point, go into point dialog box change x, go into point dialog box , change z. Or you now can go to the pulldown, go to y, find the little arrow, drag it to where you want. Any way to make a simple plane in space since nx5 is a very tiring pulldown process.
Again ill race anyone anytime doing this in nx3!!!

Do you agree even a “show shortcuts” box (one that would actually save its settings) would be an even better solution to all of the continuous pulldowns? Nx has buttons & even keystrokes for everything in the menubar (pulldowns) at the top. It always seemed funny that they saved time only to revert back to what they knew years ago took too much time.

Any more click happy functions?

 

[cowski]

Now it’s go find plane 3 points, pick a point, go into point dialog box change x, go into point dialog box , change z. Or...

Have you tried the inferred option?

www.nxjournaling.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

Plane is way way more clicks for sure. In nx3 we used to click a point in space, change x, tab tab change z and u could trim or split a solid in a second. Now it’s go find plane 3 points, pick a point, go into point dialog box change x, go into point dialog box , change z. Or you now can go to the pulldown, go to y, find the little arrow, drag it to where you want. Any way to make a simple plane in space since nx5 is a very tiring pulldown process.

Could you provide a picture or perhaps even a video of what it is that you're talking about here?

Do you agree even a “show shortcuts” box (one that would actually save its settings) would be an even better solution to all of the continuous pulldowns? Nx has buttons & even keystrokes for everything in the menubar (pulldowns) at the top. It always seemed funny that they saved time only to revert back to what they knew years ago took too much time.

Could you expand on this? I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here or what it is that you're suggesting should be done.

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.

 

[JohnRBaker]

OK, I've talked to a couple of people and they're willing to look at making some minor adjustments which could mitigate some of these issues but I can only do a couple of changes for the next full version of NX.

Now let's get this clear. First, the general issue with the 'point' function, is this when you're creating a simple point using the Curve -> Point function (not a Datum Point)? And second, it appears that you wish to always (or at least most of the time) create this point using the WCS method even though you know that this will NOT create an associative point, correct? And your primary compliant is that you always have to go to the 'Reference' drop-down to set it back to 'WCS' because it's always defaulting back to 'Absolute - Work Part', correct?

OK, what if we were able to change the behavior of Curve -> Point so that once you had selected the 'WCS' reference option that it would remain set to 'WCS' until you changed it to one of the 'Absolute' options, even if you were to exit NX and start a new session. Would this help? If so, I can get this done for the next version of NX.

Now the other example you specifically mentioned, that is defining a 'Plane' thru-three points, like when performing a Trim Body operation. I assume that your complaint is again related to the idea that you prefer to work using the WCS reference method for entering the three points which now you have to open the 'Reference' drop-down THREE times to set the THREE points to WCS when entering the values. Am I correct with respect to THIS issue being one that you wished worked better?

PK, what if you only had to change the 'Reference' setting to WCS ONCE, when you defined the first point, and it would still be set to WCS when you opened the dialogs to pick the other two points, would this help? Again, if this is something that would help you, I can get that change done for the next full release of NX. For now, that's about the best that I can offer.

If these two changes will help, I can get them going. Now before you ask, at the moment there is NO way that I can get anything more complicated or comprehensive done. As I said, if you wish to open an ER requesting that either we turn some of these THREE-option drop-downs into 'radio buttons' (if it's three buttons they would have to be arranged vertically, which wouldn't be a big deal for the Point dialog so that might be a future enhancement) or that we need to come-up with some other approach that would not force users to constantly open dialog drop-downs, that's up to you.

Anyway, if you want me to get at least one or both of the issues outlined above done for the next release of NX, I need to know ASAP.

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.

 

[filbbb]

john,
i will try to get you more pics/info on some of these later this week or mid next week. deadlines!!!!

i apologize for any inconvenience

 

[jerry1423]

After reading this discussion on how many silly mouse clicks it takes to accomplish something; I miss that old PFK all the more.
Heck, to trim a curve you had to press the keys 11-2-2-1-2 and could do that in approximately one second.
Can you image how fast it would be when used with the speed of today's computers?

 

[PHayden]

LOL PFK was Great back in '89.
I could click 15 or 20 buttons and go out and have a cigarett.
I had to quit though, you took my PFK away

 

[JohnRBaker]

Perhaps, but I'm still suffering from the carpal tunnel syndrome in my Left wrist caused by all those years of having to hold my hand up (this was a particular problem with the old-style upright PFK's), with my fingers poised over or punching the buttons.

When I first started to use Unigraphics (AKA 'UG') back in 1977, there was a strict limit of 14 keystrokes that you could enter into the buffer before it would stop taking entries and if you hit that limit, you'd have to stop and wait until it cleared before you could start entering any new selections and so you had to pace yourself so as not to lose any entries. A couple of releases later they increased the buffer size since too many people were hitting it (it took me about 3 months to get to where that would happen to me, something I thought would be impossible when I first heard that you could go 14 keystrokes ahead).

For anyone who is not familiar with a PFK, which BTW was NOT used exclusively by UG as several other CAD systems used something along those lines, and in the case of some, the exact same physical button layout although each system used their own unique button designations, the hardware itself was common; 32 back-lighted buttons arranged in rows of 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4 buttons. If anyone is interested in a bit more of the history of the PFK and some explanation of how the UI worked back then, please go to (sorry but none of the imbedded links on this page appear to be working at the moment):

http://www.plmworld.org/index.php?mo=cm&op=ld&fid=240

Here's an image of the UGI PFK overlay from about 1979:

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.

 

[filbbb]

Johnr…."now let's get this clear. First, the general issue with the 'point' function, is this when you're creating a simple point using the curve -> point function (not a datum point)? And second, it appears that you wish to always (or at least most of the time) create this point using the wcs method even though you know that this will not create an associative point, correct? And your primary compliant is that you always have to go to the 'reference' drop-down to set it back to 'wcs' because it's always defaulting back to 'absolute - work part', correct?"

I this entire post i am talking about the "point" box used to move a component/translate an object from point to point or any other time the "point" box comes up. (PLANE,BLOCK,LINE ECT…..)

Http://files.engineering.com/getfil...26b-440d-ad25-2123c608261c&file=point_box.jpg

I don’t want or need any associativity to move something from point to point in space. The dropdown for wcs should be buttons not pulldowns. The default is very hard to predict. On many commands it “resets” itself after a save as well.
To save the wcs setting is really irrelevant to me. I use each one back and forth all day in the “point” box.

Now the other example you specifically mentioned, that is defining a 'plane' thru-three points, like when performing a trim body operation. I assume that your complaint is again related to the idea that you prefer to work using the wcs reference method for entering the three points which now you have to open the 'reference' drop-down three times to set the three points to wcs when entering the values. Am i correct with respect to this issue being one that you wished worked better?

In nx3 if i was useing a plane i could pick a point immediately after choosing the plane option from, lets say split solid. The “point” box would open and show me in xyz where that point was in space. I could then the change the “x” value, <enter> then change the “z” value <enter> to split a solid in the “y” plane in space. All the xyz values stayed in the “point” box. This is no longer the case for the “plane” function. Not making a plane but using one to split, trim, mirror.
There is many ways to get the same result now but i need a predetermined plane or point to do so quickly. By using the ”xc-zc” option (after several clicks) i can choose abs or wcs with buttons but without either one near my solid it is difficult to find the plane most of the time as the plane is not created on the screen.
Now if i want three points in space i have to click each time i want the “point” box open.



Quote (filbbb)

do you agree even a “show shortcuts” box (one that would actually save its settings) would be an even better solution to all of the continuous pulldowns? Nx has buttons & even keystrokes for everything in the menubar (pulldowns) at the top. It always seemed funny that they saved time only to revert back to what they knew years ago took too much time.

Could you expand on this? I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here or what it is that you're suggesting should be done.


In most of your commands there is a “show shortcuts” option to remove the pulldowns & displays a “button” arrangement. Obviously the “show shortcuts” option would have to remain buttons to make this functional.

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...a8c9-5dc2c80f8d9f&file=SHOW-HIDE_SHORCUTS.png

 

[filbbb]

Cowski,
I have used the inferred option. Works well if you have something to split it to. A line point or solid has to be where you want it.

Lets say i want to split something at a slight angle. Not a measured angle but a place to split a panel between surface transitions. In nx3 i could pick 2 points on the "z" plane then tab tab down to the "z" value and make it 200. A perfect plane thru 3 points. Done in 1.5 sec. Try to do it now. Really ug cannot do it without points or lines. Here’s the click count now

Go into split
Choose from the pulldown to curves and points
Click the "specify plane" button
Goto the subtype pulldown" and click 3 points
Pick a point in space
Pick a point in space
(so now we have our 2 points on the "z=0" plane)
Click on the "specify point" box all of the values are 0,0,0 i have no way of picking the same point in space so there is no way to make the desired plane in the perpendicular z.

So now we try 2 points. When this is done it is about the same clicks to get there. Pick a point and the second point selected is actually perpendicular to the desired plane. I would assume that the plane would be created thru those 2 points. Its not...it is perpendicular to the second point??? Really? Instead of it being called "2 points" it should be perpendicular points!

 

[filbbb]

Was hopeing others would see the issues with the "plane box" functionality & "point" pulldowns.

have you tried to make a plane in space? it cant be done without curves or points.

 

[JohnRBaker]

have you tried to make a plane in space? it cant be done without curves or points.

Not true!

Just rotate the WCS into any orientation that you wish and then you can create a Datum Plane on any of the three principle planes of the WCS or for that matter, a Datum Axis along any of the three principle axis.

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.

 

[filbbb]

so again...i have to have a reference object.

then i have to move the wcs back to my actual working wcs?

again not 3 points in space

 

[JohnRBaker]

Exactly how do you expect to define these "3 points in space", just think them in your head? There's nothing stopping you from either selecting or entering the coordinates, or any combination, for three points, IN SPACE, to define a Datum Plane.

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.

 

[filbbb]

yes there is john. i cannot use 3 points. the wcs resets itself to 0,0,0 everytime you go into the box. so if i pick a point in space i need to copy / paste the x,y cordinates from point 1 in order to get the points. or put a ref line / wcs or points

try to split something in a perfect plane no matter what orientation the wcs is......this cannot be done in ug currently without these points/objects/wcs.

in nx3 it was a 1.5 second operation.


do you have nx3? try it there and notice the selection points retain themselves. see how much faster it is without ref objects.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Then call GTAC and open a PR/ER. No matter how much you bitch about this issue here, it's not going to result in one line of NX code being changed. That's what the GTAC IR/PR/ER process is for. Have you ever taken this up with GTAC? If so, WHY NOT?

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.

 

[filbbb]

was not bitching. thanks for the negativity there! i thought this was a forum to educate the developers with the problems faced by everyday users.

"it's not going to result in one line of NX code being changed. " real nice john. i cannot believe you don't see the problem here.

you really put a damper on what i thought this forum was for! if you are frustrated with my comments then think of how frustrating it is on this end to make a 1 second job turn into 15 clicks & lots of pulldowns and still not get what i could in nx3. your frustration proves that this cannot be done in ug right?

pulldowns are a problem & it is everywhere in ug now.

 

[JohnRBaker]

There are virtually no software developers reading this forum. Despite the value and wide usage of the Eng-Tips forums, as far as Siemens PLM Software is concerned, the ONLY recognized process for reporting problems which have any chance of getting a resolution, that's the aforementioned GTAC IR/PR/ER process. Even I, if I want something to be changed or fixed, I have to open a PR. The only advantage that I have is that I can open a PR directly without having to open an IR first, that's the only difference.

So, you have NOT yet answered my question: Have you contacted GTAC with this issue and have you asked them to open a PR/ER requesting that the workflow be improved? If not, WHY NOT?

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.

 

[ewh]

While I do find myself sometimes agreeing with the OP (I've used the software long enough that muscle memory fights software "improvements"), this is more of a forum for users to help each other when facing situations where they need advice on how to best approach them than it is a conduit for the developers.
We are very fortunate that John is here to give valuable advice from the "corporate" side on how the sofware was intended to be used.

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

 

[Trent5791]

A bit off topic but generally related:
I am a machine designer and in no way do I come close to taking advantage of all the power that NX8.5 has to offer. I believe it is overkill for the type of designing I do. Most of my models have straight lines and flat surfaces. However, it is what my company uses and therefore it is what I use. In terms of "more clicks" I think NX definitely requires more clicks than other CAD software packages. I do see that overall NX is way more powerful in terms of what you can draw model design, etc. However, If I'm being frank and tactful, the UI in NX has a lot of room for improvement and definitely requires far more clicks. For me, as a machine designer, I am far more efficient in Solidworks or Inventor. I'll take the pepsi challange with anybody, anyday, limited to machine design, competitor on NX and me on Inventor and I bet you my next paycheck+theirs...I WILL absolutely annihilate them.

John,
What day jobs do most of the beta testers hold? Are they daily CAD users or just occasional users or never used CAD before in their life? Are they engineers or at least drafters? I have also wondered this many times but have yet to ask. Do the coders at NX look at other software packages like, Solid works and Inventor to see how they are doing things? I only ask because it seems that you would definitely be looking at other CAD packages to see what the competition is doing...so you can keep up...right? I mean, why re-invent the wheel? However, as one who has used Solid works and Inventor it's easy to see that their user interfaces are far more intuitive. NX is way more powerful, yes! But also way less user friendly. So the question is, why are many commands in NX so cumbersome?


Here are a few examples:

(0)I'm surprised that no one in this thread mentioned how many clicks is required to change the color of an object. In other software packages (even non-cad software) There is a max of 3 clicks required. (1) Select object, (2) Open the color changing dialog box (3) Select "color" and done! In some software packages, those that use separate part and assembly files, the first click may or may not be necessary, so no we are talking only 2 clicks...Bam!...Color changed. In NX, I count 7 clicks. This seems extremely excessive to me. Am I doing something wrong? If so, please advise. Best case, NX requires 2.33 times as many clicks as others and worst case, NX requires 3.5 times as many clicks to accomplish this simple, yet often used task.

(1) What about the fact that the extremely common windows key board shortcut Ctrl+tab does not work in NX. Let's say I've got 10 files open, instead of being able to quickly toggle through them by using Ctrl+tab...tab...tab....tab until I see the one I want, I am forced to (1) remember the file name of the file that I want to show on screen and/or (2) go click crazy until I find the one I'm looking for under the "Window" drop down.

(2)Why can't I change windows while in sketch mode...more clicks here, because now I have to finish the sketch before I can change windows, go click crazy changing widows, then flip back to my original file and re-open the sketch.

(3) Why do Have to manually select modeling or drafting when switching from a model to a drawing? I'm in a drawing file, therefore I want to draft, so why not automatically swap to drafting mode. ...more clicks.

(4) Why can’t I click and drag to move parts in an assembly that are not constrained. I must use the “move” command...more clicks.

(5)Measure command could be more intuitive. It is over complicated...and requires more clicks that your competition. Other CAD packages have few measure commands vs the 10+ found in NX, that accomplish the same thing. Take a look at Inventor. It is so simple and intuitive.

(6)Why aren't the assembly constraints nested/shown under their associated parts in the Assy Navigator. In order to see what constraints are associated with a particular item, I have to select the item, expand Dependencies, then click the magnifying glass to see the associated constraints. Plus the process becomes very cumbersome of I want to delete any of the constraints because when I do the selected part magically becomes unselected and I have to start the process all over again. ...more clicks.

(7)Why are menu lists in random order instead of alphabetical forcing the user to constantly search for commands. Imagine a Library with no card catalog. Yes, I know there's a search command.

(8)Why doesn't NX use accepted rounding practices in drafting dimensions. When going from 3 to 2 places after a decimal the rounding practice isn't the norm i.e. 0.125 goes to .12 and it should go to .13. Yes...I know, there's some rounding rule... something to do with evens and odds...but it's not the norm!

(9)In drafting mode, Calling out a feature requires way too much input and thought from the user. There should be a button called “hole note” click the button, click the hole you want to call out, place the call out, 3 clicks...done! The model should NOT have to be open to use this feature. ...more clicks.

(10)Why can't I drag out on iso view from a projected view? ...more clicks.

(11)Why doesn’t the scale of my projected view change when I change the scale of my base view? ...more clicks.

(12) When adding a component to an assembly and locating by placing constraints, the part being constrained should be located based on where the user clicks on the assembly when selecting the constraints. Currently the part being constrained is located randomly, forcing the user to have to search for the part just added.

(13) Why can't I "undo" past the last save. This is absurd and ridiculously frustrating!

(14) If I implement the "save as" command while in an assembly NX replaces the file that I am "saving as" with the new file. This is also extremely frustrating.

I pulled most of these items from a list I made back when I first started using NX about 2 years ago. I was pleasantly surprised to see that, since I wrote the list, many of my issues had been resolved. It is nice to know that NX realizes they do have room for improvement and are doing something about it.

These are all issues that are, in my opinion, very counterproductive. Like filbbb said, I couldn't give a rats furry ass about why something is that way it is. All I know is that the competition is doing it more efficiently. I'm probalby going to get railed in someway, form or fashion for bragging, venting, bitching, complaining here...so bring it on. Yes...I know GTAC...right!