UG vs. the midrange packages

[cowski]

I have been using UG now for about 4 years for injection molded part design; previously (at my last job) I used Mechanical Desktop for small mechanical assemblies (which it handled fairly well). When I moved to UG I was amazed at the surfacing and blending capabilities and how it handled complex assemblies with relative ease. Since then, the midrange packages (Solidedge, Solidworks, Inventor, etc) have been boasting longer and longer feature lists and I'm wondering what advantages UG still holds over them in terms of modeling and assembly capabilities. I realize that there are many add on packages to UG (sheet metal, die design, wire routing, etc) but if you don't use those (I don't) what keeps you from using a lower cost package?

If you have experience with a lower cost package and UG, please post your opinions. Let's assume you don't have 20 years of legacy data to worry about, just the pros/cons of using the software.

 

[looslib]

I have 17+ years on UG and 3 on Pro/E, so my answer is biased towards them.

The first thing to look at is what are you doing with UG? If you are only designing the parts or maybe the molds, then a lower level package may be okay.

If you are doing the part design, tool design and manufacturing toolpaths, then the tighter integration you get with UG may be worth the extra money.


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

Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand

 

[joshua0977]

I've used UG for about 14 yrs and I have some limited experience with a few mid range packages. The answer to your question is integrated functionality. The mid-range packages will do an excellent job on part and assembly level modeling. If your primary need is to make models and assemblies plus make drawings Solid Edge, Solid Works or Pro E may be all you need. With a package like UG, which I'm sure your aware, has a full suite of tools for the choosing. Many come from alliance partners of UGS that are integrated with UG's Gateway or read UG data directly. There are costs associated with the integration obviously, but that's what you pay for. I think UG and Catia at the high end have no boundaries so to speak. Mid-Range packages are very robust these days but they have a ceiling as to functionality., In my opinion where UG stands out is in its drive for true con-current engineering.. I don't believe the mid-range packages can offer a complete integrated solution. UG while not totally perfect, is working toward that goal. If your company processes include CAE, CAM, QC Programming for a CMM, and con-current engineering is a goal then you need a package such as UG, If not a mid- range package may be all you need.

Jay Peterson
Moog Inc

 

[cowski]

Thanks for the responses.
I'm not looking to move away from UG, which is a good thing since I have no say in the matter anyway. I was just wondering how the 'mid-range' products stacked up in terms of modeling and assemblies. From your responses it seems that they are capable products.

 

[iraniii]

i have worked 7(sum) years on ug-mdt-solidworks and catia
1mm depth of ocean water(my info of each package), spacially in modeling.
I think high level softwares(ug-catia-peo_e) aresimilar to a very old and experienced man that consider any option for doing a job, so speed reduces and accuracy and abilities increse.
but midrange softwares such as mdt-solid edge and work and cadds are similar to a younhg man that with less options in consideration does its job.
this is in modeling(regardless of less modules such as sheetmetal, routing, ...).
A big company needs a high level software to do all designing, calculating, and manufacturing its product in only one software beacuse of associativities between objects and modules, ability, accuracy, not data transfering, least files(data jungle with less trees in design to manufacturing process) and ...