Whats the best way to move a basic 2d part to 0,0,0 ?

[Zrob]

Guys I have to admit, some items in UGS are great others seem a bit strange, such as I am trying to move these parts to 0,0,0 and I am trying to do so with Edit->Transform and some times I get it but most of the time more often than not I cannot get this simple operation to move.(see pic)


Thanks for any help.

 

[Zrob]

Does UGS allow this:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=214287&page=1

 

[JohnRBaker]

Siemens PLM allows you to 'borrow' a license in situations where you need to move a license temporary onto a different workstation/laptop that is not connected to the license server.

Another alternative that many customers use is to install NX on their laptops and then use VPN to log into their corporate license server from wherever they are in the world. There is very little data going over the net, just the requests to check-out and check-in licenses. All of the actual code is installed locally on the laptop so the execution of NX is normal, it's just that there is a small lag, a second or two, whenever you change modules.

However, what many people don't realize is that you can run multiple sessions of NX on the SAME workstation (including dual- and quad-core systems) and it will only check-out a SINGLE LICENSE.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[hudson888]

Zrob,

Up until now we have had a dongle and I think it has been a good thing because it is a straightforward way to move a single license from Desktop to laptop without doing anything illegal or even immoral. We can also serve a license over the Internet. And then there is borrowing which I haven't used much as yet (for lack the need)though I guess that I should look into it. Some of these arrangements may change in the upcoming version as the dongles I think are going to be de-supported. Perhaps we'll be looking at the other options more frequently but in general the capacity for flexibility has been maintained. Now if it is in any way curtailed we would have justification to be unhappy about it and perhaps start drawing comparisons with other systems but until then I think we're probably better off. And in saying so I also mean that if that is the case then we're paying well for it and want to be sure we make every use of those capacities which fully justify the cost. You're both entitled and have my encouragement at least to do likewise.

In fairness to PLM and their predecessors UGS etc they have never to my knowledge taken anyone to task who has sought to use their licenses within the spirit of one license per seat. There may be clauses in contacts that would appear more restrictive but the basis of their business and ours isn't served by trying to put one another out of business. I think that is at least fair.

If on the other hand you want to entertain some sort of two for one deal as the article alluded to then I can't support that because in that case you'd be able to undercut some other operator who HAD paid for his license. You can be almost certain that it was not meant in the spirit of the other system's license agreement that you could do so either.

Best Regards

Hudson