UG NX3 or Pro/E Wildfire 2 6

[ukesoccer]

I'm very new to this forum, so this questions could have come up many times.

I work for an aerospace supplier, and I mostly use AutoCad 2004 for our drawing purposes. However recently my company purchased a Cincinnati Milacron Arrow 500 CNC machine and we are planning to do a lot of small Al and SS assy parts for the aerospace industry. The CNC uses a Fanuc system, and I'm just wondering what would be the best software to get into. Unigraphics NX3 or Pro/Engineer Wildfire 2? For modeling and then into the CNC?

I have some exp with Catia and Solidworks from my undergrad years. So what would be the best software to start learning, and apply it out our facility.

Thank you,

Daniel

 

[MBrookey]

You could go either way. I know both ug and pro. I would take ug over pro any day. But it's user dependent. I felt that ug was more user friendly and you could do more with it. I know programming in ug isn't that bad either, they have improved the programming interface over the years.

I will say I know nothing about pro-E programming, so I don't have any input for you there.

You can also do a lot of things with pro don't get me wrong, if you like to use sketcher only (atleast that is how it was on the last version I was on). That is the one thing I don't like about pro-e.

 

[derekkarp]

I'VE HEARD PRO-E HAS A VERY WEAK CAM SECTION. I'VE USED UNIGRAPHICS FOR YEARS NOW, AND HAVEN'T COME ACROSS A JOB THAT NEEDED TO BE PROGRAMMED THAT WE COULDN'T DO WITH GREAT RESULTS. I ALSO THINK ALOT OF AEROSPACE COMPANIES USE UG OR CATIA, SO FILE EXCHANGE WOULD BE ALOT LESS HEADACHES.

 

[looslib]

I would start by detremining what format your customers are supplying data in. You really want to be working with native data, if at all possible.


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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[wes616]

Agree with hdrl,

If you are in Aero, stick w/ CATIA or UG, where you may be able to deliver native envelopes to your client. Also, check into what your client is using. If they are a major player (or you are trying to become a tier 1 supplier), chances are they may mandate a package to you, for 3d delivery of envelopes. (Boeing & LM are doing this for T1 suppliers on new programs).

If you are just delivering part, and don't have outside interaction (software wise), then the two programs will give you more or less the same end result, then it's as MB said, dependent on what you want / are willing to learn / pay for.

Wes C.
------------------------------
When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed with explosions...

 

[solid7]

then the two programs will give you more or less the same end result,

Same end result, yes - but ask anyone who's ever used Pro/E,(and is intellectually honest) you'll find out quickly that Pro/E has a tendency to make things unnecessarily difficult to do. The learning curve is enormous compared to many other programs.

I've been a Catia guy for about 10 years now. Lots and lots of hours there. But I really like UG. Catia is really great, but WAY too expensive. (UG is up there, but not quite as bad) And if I had to do a cost vs. quality comparison - quality being how much you get for your money, vs. how easy it is to use, I think UG would edge out. Same comparison to Pro/E? Well, there really isn't one... However, as looslib said, you REALLY should go with where your big customers are, and even more - where your POTENTIAL customers are at, or going.

Yes, I do have an "anti-Pro/E" bias. I can't help it. (soured by the "Pre-Wildfire" releases)

---
CAD design engineering services - Catia V4, Catia V5, and CAD Translation. Catia V5 resources - CATBlog.

 

[ukesoccer]

Well our customer is Bombardier Aerospace, so they send us CATIA files. I have used CATIA in my undergrad years, but in no way I'm an expert. I was able to survive with AutoCAD 2004 for the past year, but now looks like I will need to start programming the CNC.

But based on your responses, looks like using UG is the right path to go, thanks for all your help guys.

Now the choice is down to CATIA vs. UG.. ehheehe

 

[ewh]

The bad thing about Catia and UG is that Catia does not use the parasolid kernal, so other translations are required.

 

[solid7]

The bad thing about Catia and UG is that Catia does not use the parasolid kernal, so other translations are required.

Or is the bad thing that the others don't use the ACIS kernel?

If you're doing programming natively, it doens't really matter what kernel you use. If you have to do translations, the smart thing is to get your translator on the CAM side. (as translators from any of the major CAD companies tend to cost exponentially more, and don't do any better job) I hate to sound biased - I've already told you that I'm not stuck on one system - but if you're in Aerospace, and you get work from a big Catia customer, that's probably where you should be looking.

By the way - UG and Catia are easily interoperable. If it's Catia V4, UG has a direct translator. If it's V5, one only needs to save files as .model, (Catia V4 format) and it's a done deal. The Catia V4 translator is built into most builds of Catia V5, and I use it seamlessly with my business partners. The modelling kernel difference is of little significance.

---
CAD design engineering services - Catia V4, Catia V5, and CAD Translation. Catia V5 resources - CATBlog.

 

[ewh]

The UG translator is fine if you do several translations every day, but for those of us that don't, the price is prohibitive. It would be cheaper to send them out to a third party for translating.
It isn't always feasible to do the translations on the CAM side. For example, I have to tweak the models to meet our production capabilities before it gets handed off.

 

[solid7]

The UG translator is fine if you do several translations every day, but for those of us that don't, the price is prohibitive.

How much is it? (I've never priced it)

At any rate, it's a lot easier to justify if you're purchasing it to align yourself with your customer's requirments initially, and not upgrading. In other words, it's easier to justify now, than later. It could prove to be a good bit of leverage for negotiating discounts.

It isn't always feasible to do the translations on the CAM side. For example, I have to tweak the models to meet our production capabilities before it gets handed off.

Point taken. But let me clarify my intent - I use a separate package for CAD/CAM entirely, because the whole thing costs less than Catia NC - which is more elaborate than I need, anyway. So, I have a complete CAD program, as well as CAM, and I use it as a translation "springboard".

You're very right, ont his point, though. CAM, as a standalone, would be worthless for doing anything but pure translation of the final product.

---
CAD design engineering services - Catia V4, Catia V5, and CAD Translation. Catia V5 resources - CATBlog.

 

[Xwheelguy]

I'm going to go out on a limb here....

As far as software goes, it's just going to depend on how complex your models are and also if you're going to be working with large assemblies or not. I personally feel that for BASIC modeling tasks that it's hard to go wrong with mid-range modelers like Solid Edge and SolidWorks. They can give you quite the bang for the buck.

But, if you're going to be getting into some pretty complex surfacing like Class A stuff, then you may want to consider moving into something more high end like NX or Catia.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

 

[solid7]

It might also help to first ask your customer if they require native data. More and more companies are beginning to ask their suppliers to match their system requirements. (even if it means paying a premium)

---
CAD design engineering services - Catia V4, Catia V5, and CAD Translation. Catia V5 resources - CATBlog.