Unigraphics vs. SolidWorks??

[DanielleBacon]

Hi All,
I currently use SolidWorks 2005. I'm looking into using Unigraphics. I've never used this package before. Is it similar to SolidWorks at all? I know that SolidWorks and Solid Edge and ProE are all very similar...as in the basic modelling is the same. But i have heard nothing about Unigraphics. Is one more highly regarded than the other? Or is one more specific to a particular industry? If anyone can give me any advice it would be appreciated!

Cheers,
Danielle

 

[cbrn]

Hi,
question is: why would you shift to UG?
Are there parts of your job for which SW is unadequate? If so, which ones? Do you plan to expand activity in fields where you already know that SW won't be able to accomplish the work? Are you part of a manufacturing chain where machining post-pro or other aspects are necessary? Which software(s) do your suppliers/customers use, that you may consider to "match" in order to better interoperate? etc...
As you already know and use SW, my opinion is that you should have a strong reason to change (or, it may be a simple question of "feeling": I personally can't stand SolidEdge, but it's my personal opinion and not really based on the software's capabilities).
BTW, I really don't find that SW is extremely similar to SE, even less that it is similar to Pro/E, and it won't be similar to UG or Catia. What these softwares share is the working phylosophy and the basic principles, and some common aspects of the GUI as well.

Regards

 

[ewh]

UG and SW are not that similar. SW is a very good package for the money. I would seriously consider if you need the added expense. Do a search here, as this subject has come up before. UG does offer more in it's integration with manufacturing, and it's surfacing and free form capabilities are more powerful than SW.

 

[J-C]

I switched jobs after using Solidworks for 5 years and have been using UG for about 15 monthes. I still use Solidworks at home on a contract basis.

It would help if you specify what you're after. Are you looking at a UG job and just want to know what the growing pains will be? Are you running into limitations or other issues with Solidworks?

Ironically, Solidworks is more similar to UG than Solidedge is. I find Solidedge to be more similar to Pro/E with it's "walk you through the steps" ribbon bar. That's not really saying that UG and Solidworks are all that similar, but like all 3d modeling packages, if you can model in one, you can probably learn to do so in another after learning new names for the commands.

Let's see what you're looking for.



Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP0.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[DanielleBacon]

Thanks for your responses. Basically I currently work at a company who use SolidWorks, and I was thinking of doing some training on other 3D modelling packages to further my career. A job has now come up using Unigraphics, and I wondered if I should 'stick it out' and find a job still using SolidWorks, or whether I should go for this one. I don't want to loose my SolidWorks skills, and start using another package with less future potential and limitations. If Unigraphics is 'better' then thats great! although I know that is a difficult one to judge....
If you have any further advice it would be appreciated again!

Cheers,
Danielle

 

[ewh]

It depends on the industry you want to work in. I got into aerospace (from mechanical) because of my UG experience, and I enjoy this type of work. The most complicated, yet well defined UG models I've come across are from Rolls Royce UK (jet turbines) and Boeing (complex free form surfaces). A great deal of thought has to go into these models.

While you may find opportunities using UG across many industry types, automotive and aerospace seem to be the major customer base. Aerospace is good for lean times thanks to defense budgets. What industry are you in currently, and are you looking for a change?

 

[DanielleBacon]

I'm not actually sure what industry I want to work in yet to be honest! I only graduated 2 years ago. I currently work in the Semiconductor Industry, and I have also worked in the Gas Industry. I fancy a change though now, as I've been in this last job for almost the full 2 years.... I'm just not sure what! Semicon is really interesting, and a growing market, but I'm not sure if I should branch out and try some other industries and types of design.
Automotive or Aerospace would be good, but of course they are popular so competition is high. Thats why I wondered how useful Unigraphics would be long term, and if any particular package has more 'potential'. It seems like SolidWorks only seems to keep on growing in popularity around the world.

 

[J-C]

UG is not as easy as Solidworks, mostly due to an old interface heritage which will hopefully go away soon (NX4???). I'm using NX2 so it's hard to tell what the future holds.

There's a lot of power in UG to create features but simple things like changing the extrude end condition from a blind depth to a through all or up to surface isn't editable later on, delete the feature and start over, or link expressions or something. On the other hand, UG's expressions are alot better than Solidworks equations, though the Solidworks sketch is better than UG's so I find myself using less equations than in UG.....get the idea.

I guess depends on you. If I had a choice, I would probably use Solidworks over UG any day, but the company I work for is too good to give up. Perhaps my opinion of UG will change with the next version though.

...And it doesn't hurt to have another CAD program under your belt, gives you a better perspective and you'll explore different modeling techniques.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP0.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[cowski]

Do you like designing or just doing CAD work?

If you like the design side, you should not worry about a specific CAD package to further your career. CAD skills are important, but in the big picture CAD is just a tool to communicate a design. If I were in a position to hire people, I would hire a good designer with weak cad skills rather than a poor designer with great cad skills. A little training will make you proficient at cad, but who knows how much time and money it would take to make you a good designer (if ever)?

You have experience with one software system, those skills will help shorten the learning curve when moving to a different system.

 

[ewh]

I have to agree with cowski. At this point, your design skills are more important than what software you use. Find a job that you will be happy with, then learn whatever CAD they use. Trying to choose one system over another at this point in your career is a crap shoot at best. ProE, Catia, SW, UG.... after you master one, it is easier to pick up another, as long as you keep an open mind to their differing methodologies.

 

[J-C]

The cad program is a tool, if you don't care for the tool you use or it's inefficient to do the job, then it does matter. I don't think any of us would care to design 3d parts in Autocad as it's extremely weak for that type of work. A 3d conceptual artist would probably cringe at using a cad program to design rather than something like Maya, Alias, or 3d studio.

Also, a good designer that has trouble learning cad or refuses to is no good either. And I know a few engineers who have been through cad training more than once and still can't use it effectively.

All that said, for design, you're going to be able to do it fairly efficiently in all the major cad programs once you learn them (Catia, UG, Pro/E, solidworks, Solidedge, Inventor). Even some of the lesser known programs are fairly capable and some cheap (Alibre). You just miss some features you had in one while enjoying new features you never had in the other.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP0.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[HellBent]

Well...I know designers that couldn't design a box without their hand being held. I know engineers that should be working at McDonalds.

The point here is that a good designer will be good no matter what package he's using. Unfortunately most companies don't hire that way. It's hard to find a company these days that will hire an experienced Catia designer to run UG...or vice-versa. Less than ideal profits don't take kindly to the additional overhead of software training. If a company's customer dictates what package they use (automotive, aerospace, etc) then those are the packages you need to familiarize yourself with. That's just the world we live in now. Take advantage of any free training you can get.

As far as being able to do things efficiently in any package....that's simply not true. I can do things in UG in half the time it takes me or others to do them in v5, Wildfire, or Ideas. We have the "old interface heritage" as you called it to thank for that. We're not locked into sketches and parameters that become more of a hinderance than a benefit on complex 3d designs. As far as Solidworks goes...you get what you pay for. It's simply not in the same league as the high end solutions.

Much of this has to do with what you're designing. If you're designing refrigerator shelves then sketches and constraints can make your life easier. If you're doing parts that involve complex surfacing you'll enjoy the freedom that a package like Alias can offer you. UG is the perfect blend of both worlds. They keep all the tools available to you...it's your decision how to use them. If your package only has 12 functions it's interface can be a lot simpler....lol. Some packages have "friendlier" ways of doing things. For example..Pro/E's tapered helix function is a lot easier to use than UG's. I've always explained the different packages to be like tool boxes. Same tools...you just need to find what drawer they're in. But UG still does the job quicker....lol. Unfortunately they don't teach you the "efficient" way to do things in the training classes and most never do figure them out.

Take care...

 

[ewh]

HellBent makes a very good point about training. There is no way you will become even half way efficient using UG if all you have to go on is a training class or two (or three...). The classes offered are geared to the current release, using the newer functionality. There is much power in the legacy operations UG offers. So many people complain that UG is too difficult. Yes, it is difficult if you are just starting out, but there are MANY ways to accomplish the same thing with the software. This is a huge help when modeling difficult parts. It just takes time to learn where that "magic" command is that you need. UG is far from perfect, and there is some functionality that begs to be improved (arrays for example).
I have over 30,000 hours on UG, with some formal training, and I'm still learning how to model more efficiently. That is one of the great things about this site; you can draw on the cumulative experience of fellow members.


The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson

 

[HellBent]

lol....I hate to even think about how many UG hours I have. Makes me realize how I have no life!!....lol. Let's see...about 60hrs a week average since v8 minus about 3 weeks of vacation. Man that sucks....lol. And yeah...seems I still learn something new every day.

Fortunately I came up before "solids" were the way to do things and I ran a "surfacing" package prior to running UG. New designers these days are usually lost when it comes to any type of freeform work so they usually miss out on all the "shortcuts" that UG has to offer if you model that way. A curve in space is just as "parametized" as a sketch but much easier and faster to edit. Learn how to use them and offset extrusions and you can greatly reduce your design time in most cases. Unfortunately those aren't the techniques they teach in class...or even show you...and most designers don't wander very far from what they've been taught. One of the biggest benefits to UG is also one of it's biggest pitfalls when it comes to working on other people's designs. All those creation options can make it a real pain to work on other people's designs. It sure makes you feel good about yourself when you see how messed up they are though...lmao.

Take care...

 

[ewh]

HellBent,
V8... mid to late 80's? I started on V8 also. I had to laugh when I read your point about understanding someone else's models. Sometimes it's easier to just redo all of it, other times it's better to just jury rig the model and move on (I don't often recommend that, but that's life). I've run into a few designers who purposely unparameterized everything because it was getting too difficult. It was like working in V8 all over again.
And for all those undo's you didn't mean to do, their actually going to give us a redo in NX4! Beats digging ditches!

 

[HellBent]

lol...it was actually about '91, the design shop I started with was 1 or 2 releases behind at the time.
I almost always end up redoing major portions of messed up designs. I've also found that if you can't band-aid it you might as well start fresh, it usually saves you time in the long run. If I look at that feature tree and see a bunch of features that don't have seperate unite or subtract features that I can work with I almost always start fresh...lol. (Note to newbies...never hit anything but "Create" when making a feature...do your subtract/intersect/unite seperately!). And yeah...the unparametized stuff really burns my ass. It's almost like they were taught that if they get an error message they just need to unparametize and the problem will go away...lol. I can't tell you how many times I've had to manually carve radii or features out of a unparametized complex model where "delete face" won't work.

I'd hate to know how many of those hours of mine were spent re-doing my undo's....lol. That will be a VERY welcome command and one they should have had many years ago. Always nice to meet an "old school" guy ewh....lol

 

[Vikingbro]

HellBent & ewh,

Yes, there will be a 'Redo' in NX4, but it will only be within the confines of Sketches. John Baker stated that new features tend to debut in Sketches before being incorporated into the program as a whole (look at associative curves/constraints).

As a UG user since V8 (8 - 2 - EC - EC), I whole-heartedly endorse HellBent's strong suggestion to keep Unite/Subtract/Intersect SEPARATE from the create feature. You will save yourself many hours down the line when the design changes and you need to fix it.

I also have 30,000+ hours - Man, what a mind blower!



Chris Cooper
Cleveland Golf / Never Compromise

http://www.clevelandgolf.com

http://www.nevercompromise.com

 

[J-C]

As far as Solidworks goes...you get a lot for what you pay, especially for only a 1/3 of the cost of UG. I could run circles around the best UG users here for most stuff we model due to the ' old interface heritage" which seems to be going away looking at Nx4. You may have to use sketches but Solidworks also has 3D sketches which can be dimensioned and have sketch constraints unlike curves in UG. As for really complex geometry, Solidworks is getting better at surfacing and has some tools even UG doesn't have. The surface fill command I've found no equivalent for in UG & the Flex and Indent features.

We could go back and forth all day.
You can't unparameterize a Solidworks (Short of export /import), not sure if that's a good or bad thing, both I suppose.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP0.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[HellBent]

I've got a Cleveland Golf hat...can't afford the clubs though....lol That explains their price...have to keep up on the UG maintenance...lmao. One of my first jobs at that job shop was a prototype iron....can't remember who for though. Boy..you guys got the memories flowing. I'm sure I've forgotten about 50% of the stuff I've worked on over the years. Hell..I've probably redesigned the same stuff a few times too...lol.

Sucks about the redo though...I only use the sketcher for simple template components which doesn't happen often.

 

[HellBent]

Hey Gild....I've proven my "efficiency" point to major tier 1 automotive suppliers in "live" benchmarks when comparing UG to other major CAD packages....been there...done that.

As far as your 3d sketch thing....why would you WANT your curves to be sketch constrained when you can simply edit their point positions, lengths, locations, etc? Why add the extra steps of constraining it with dimensions? If you use the sketcher then I'll bet you use the method of drawing 4 lines to create a box rather than doing a single line extrusion with an offset. And although I've only briefly played with it, I believe UG's 3d embedded GD&T functionality will do some of that....if you want to use it.

As far as the other Solidworks commands you mentioned I'm not familiar with them so I couldn't tell you how UG compares. Can you have multiple bodies in one part in SW yet?

That's not my point though. Some packages have functions that others don't. At the end of the day UG is the most VERSATILE of any package I've spent time in....which is most of them. While certainly not an "expert" in most other packages, I've trained long time users of every other major CAD package for their transition to UG and every single one of them has preferred it over their prior package when taught the "proper" and efficient methods of use...and I don't even show them the sketcher.

Take care...