Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
If you want to create a full parametric, associative accurate model with a systematic method, Pro-E is the answer. If I want to create a shape somehow, in the case I don
Thanks guys
I dont want ask UG forums because they don"t have experience in ProE
Of course is my first contact with UG but i have also experience 10 years IN ProE since 18 level,Autocad 10 (running in DOS MODE) until last versions,Euclid 4 years
Of course maybe in time i will change my opinion but i feel UG like a ""JOKE""
> I dont want ask UG forums because they don"t have experience in ProE
Uh huh. Actually there are users posting in this group that also post
in that group and I think a couple of Pro/E users posting there that
don't post here. The idea, though, was ("look there") to spend a little
time reading instead of asking. You'll probably learn more.
I thought "ProE vs Unigraphics .....the winner is??????" was the joke.
I spent 5 hours with UG and i can"t bilieve how simple is.
Of course i did not very complex modelisation,BUT in few hour i generate the program to machinning this part.
Mention;i never saw UNIGRAPHICS before
Of course is very important the past experience,finally i lose time only to search the options functionality of the buttons
I've not used it personally, only heard from co-workers. We have a seat here for our work with one client.
What I understand is there are two very different modeling philosophies at work here. Pro|E's is parametric, with one feature driving later ones. The relationships created are persistent, meaning if you sketch A tangent to existing geometry B, if B changes A will change with it and remain tangent. UG is what's called Boolean and those relationships aren't necessarily persistent. You can create A tangent to B, but if B changes you need to know the ramifications and go changeA yourself to maintain the tangency.
That's my overly simplistic, and likely incomplete,understanding of the difference.
as far as i know, NX is a parametric history based modeler, not what you call a Boolean modeler. they have recently ventured into the non-history side with the so called synchronous technology,which they claim as a game changer.basically it tries to find relations (tangency,concentricity,..) between surfaces and maintains those relations at users will.
P.O.O"relative accuracy" default is .012 and not .0012.
Also, accuracy is a parameter Pro/E uses to converge it's solver, if you want to understand a bit better read up on Newton-Raphson et al for iterative solving techniques.
Am forced to useNX4 at work along with TeamCenter Engineering and can't figure out where to begin where I dislike this.
Sketching sucks, end points of lines are not automatically made coincident.
Have to create reference geometry in order to create diameter dimensions.
Can't reroute features so have to blow away features and then recreate them.
Can't get sketches that are fully constrained.
Our drafters create "wavelink" geometry all over the wazoo in order link geometry between parts and assemblies.
After a time I think all software becomes a kluge after numerous updates and revisions and needs a re-write (that's how Pro/E and Solidworks got their start, CV became a kluge and Pro/E took over then in turn Pro/E became a kluge and Solidworks took off)
The machining functions of UG has always been top notch. I now some machining experts that claim to know both and they tell me they still like Pro/MAN but at the same time tell me how great UG's manufacturing tools are. * you could program the paint robot with UG not Pro/E * I can only base my comments on what I hear because I don't teach machining tools. In conjunction with ford or gm (I can't recall which) the software matured aggressively in the 90's as all software developers set their sites on Pro/E's aggressive development programs. PTC set the pace. Michigan Tech teaches UG (Until I come there to do free classes in Pro/E) and those guys don't struggle to get a job... because their hiring manager knows they can learn Pro/E fast enough.
At one point in the early 2001 era design engine was in talks with UG to get free seats for instruction. We elected not to go that route because there just was not the job demand for it.
I could name more major manufactures using UG than Solidworks tho.BE Aerospace (airplane seats) moved from Pro/E to UG... Half the engineering staff quit over a 6 month implementation process. I wonder how they are doing if they survived the migration.
World economy is a kluge... Edited by: design-engine
Having used UG for 18 years and Pro/E for 6 years, I can tell you that the philospophy of the companies is different and their primary tools refelect it.
UG/NX has been a parametric based system since 1994. They started in the machining world and have a very robust manufacturing package. Both systems can create solid parametric models. Both can create parametric driven assemblies. Both can develop parametric machining tool paths. The user interfaces are vary similar, since they both follow the MS model.
When it comes to large customers, UG wins: GM, Ford, P&W Aircraft(USA), GE, parts of Boeing (McDonell-Douglas, who owned UG for a while).
Large PTC customers are: Caterpillar, John Deere, Ingersoll Rand.
As you can see the customer products are vastly different.
> P.O.O "relative accuracy" default is .012 and not .0012.
My 'out of the box' templates are .0012 Relative.
Reference also:
TPI 32869 2008-10-10_173521_EERN_Discussion_on_Accuracy_-_Abs_vs_Rel.z ip
(my link to the doc is dead so I'll post)
(Rumor has it that factory recommendations are changing to Absolute Accuracy?)
> Also, accuracy is a parameter Pro/E uses to converge it's solver ...
I understand accuracy quite well, thank you. It took wading thru tons of used
car salesman cum CAD reseller trash talk and countless eggspurts parroting it
to reach that understanding.
> can't figure out where to begin where I dislike ...
It is what it is and I assume the quibbles are legitimate. I'm not selling
the software nor do own a seat. Closest I can come is FEMAP. I'd rather take
a beating than model anything with it. I don't know it well. Maybe if I knew
it better?
> CV became a kluge and Pro/E took over then in turn
> Pro/E became a kluge and Solidworks took off)
Now SW is a kludge and Alibre will ...?
I don't know enough or go back far enough to argue the 'trend' theory but Pro/E
was first released in '88 and PTC bought CV / CADDS in '99. I don't know CADDS
but browsing its documentation; I can see where some of the functionality was
ported to Pro/E, the data structures and handling are different, interface is
different. Whether or not something is a kludge is a matter of opinion and
perspective. We talking (coming up from low end CAD ownership, I've come to
hate the terms) "user friendly", "intuitiveness" or 'get the job done'
functional? What's the 'job'? FWIW, kludgey old CADDS is one of two programs
that I know of that boast a 'totally digitally designed in' heavy aircraft.
(Antonov)
> btw which airframer uses UG ????
My only intimate dealings with aircraft design was over ten years ago as an R&D
mechanic. It was a UG (initially ported from the drafting board) shop largely
because of association with MD. I still associate with tool / die / mold
designers using UG. Assertions that it is unsuitable for 'complex design' are,
quite simply, ignorant skool kid talk.
Pro/E is a Winner. Solidworks is a Winner.
So what? So are Autodesk and Wal-Mart.
Sorry if i"m wrong.Maybe i am ignorant when talk abbout UG and of corse ,but i don"t want show here ProE is the winner or Solid works.Of course i don"t have experience in modeling with the UG.
Maybe i work totally wrong,and i ask someone with a strong experience like you or others veteran forums guys.
I agree is difficult to switch to another cad package,and when i saw ProE first time after using Autocad,was not very easy to change.
After years i know the advantage using ProE is HUGE,but like Doug R said :
"""Sketching sucks, end points of lines are not automatically made coincident.
Have to create reference geometry in order to create diameter dimensions.
Can't reroute features so have to blow away features and then recreate them.
Can't get sketches that are fully constrained.
Our drafters create "wavelink" geometry all over the wazoo in order link geometry between parts and assemblies""
Everything what DourR said i saw in few days and i asked myself:Is that normal?
of course is a newbie UG user opinion but when i think to have a very large assemblies with link geometry between i am pretty scared if i must do that in UG
The last few years i designed parts direct in assembly mode and i never had a problem.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
