UG ON SHAKY GROUND?

[Em1]

This is a 2 part Question. I'm considering UG NX3 for our company. We're pitting it against SW and Catia. There are 2 concerns I have with UG:

1) Can it handle large assemblies 80K parts (w/ fasteners), 40K (no fasteners), 7K (unique).

2) I've heard UG is an unstable company. Being owned by venture capitalists and having a poor organizational system after merging many companies.

Any opinions on these points or anything else I should consider?

Thanks in advance,

Mark.

 

[J-C]

Any examples of what you do?

Jason Capriotti
Smith & Nephew, Inc.

 

[Em1]

The company build paper moulding machines. They are typically half the size of a football field and are made up of about 5 modules, all connected by conveyors. Most of the parts have simple prismatic shapes (ie. bars and plates). The size is what's overwhelming, not the part complexity.

Anyone's large assembly experiences are appreciated.

Mark.

 

[needahandle]

The magic is in Teamcenter (Engineering).

We have been using UG for ~7 years, with TcEng/iMan for control. Our assemblies are around 30k parts (~10k unique). This is more than a CAD workstation can load, we can probably get ~1/4 of a complete assemlby loaded.

UGS has developed techniques over the years to handle it, including 'faceted representations' at either the piece-part or top levels. We use it at the first sub-level (system), so almost the top. There are limitations to this, as the representations have to be kept up to date.

The solution, according to UGS, is using Teamcenter, instead of just UG. One option is their Visualization suite, which uses lightweight versions (JT files). The new slick way is called "Design in Context". You tell Teamcenter what area you are interested in, and how much surrounding it, and send just the relavent data to UG/Vis. Teamcenter is keeping track of the whole thing, but your 'authoring tool' only has to handle what is important.

The classic examples (because GM funds most of the development) is that you are working on a suspension, and you tell Tc that you only want to see the front corner of the vehicle, with no electrical, and only the station wagon configuration (not the convertible).

We haven't got there yet, but it looks like the best solution. I'm not sure if others have a similar tool.

Terry

 

[J-C]

No matter what CAD you use, you will have to do things to minimize how many parts are being loaded into memory or you will simply run out. UG has some advanced assembly features that Solidworks does not have, but it takes some setup, it's not automatic.

You can mimic these functions somewhat in Solidworks using configurations but that takes time to setup as well.

I suggest testing them. For simple modeling and drawings Solidworks would be faster IMO, but Catia or UG may have more advanced assembly options that would help.

Jason Capriotti
Smith & Nephew, Inc.

 

[Xwheelguy]

More in line with question #2....

We have both UG & CATIA here. Both are fine softwares & both offer capabilities that the other doesn't have. However, if I have a problem in UG, I can pick up the phone & call GTAC & usually get unparallelled software support. I can speak to a development manager & try to work out a niche modeling capability that I'd like to see in UG. Can't do that with CATIA. If UG has any organizational problems today, the only area that I've really noticed it is in the beta testing & finding bugs. However, I try to be patient & give UG a chance to correct any problems they might have while they merge UG & IDEAS into a single software.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com