Unigraphics: CAD program of choice or force?

Hello

Can anyone please tell me what companies actually "choose" to use
Unigraphics as their CAD program? I mean, isn't UG primarily the domain of
the automotive industry (eg General Motors) and it's biggest advocate? If
it weren't for the large automotive companies basically pushing and
demanding that their suppliers use UG (in their typical arrogant bully
style), would UG have basically disappeared from the market by now? Given
the freedom of choice and the MASSIVE improvements in the "new breed" of CAD
programs like Solidworks, any well informed modern organisation trying to
select a CAD package to do their design/engineering would be looking for:

1. design feature capability
2. productivity, efficiency and ease of use
3. cost

I fail to see how UG can exist without the automotive industry. UG is lucky
that the automotive industry is rather conservative, sluggish and very slow
to change with the times. The automotive industry made their decision to use
UG at a time when the existing coding, programming and technology was very
raw, immature and inefficient. The package was so particular, it had to run
on Unix. There was little else to choose from. You basically need the
fastest computers available to run the UG workstations and a very over
priced dedicated CAD operator with years of experience to achieve any level
of productivity.

However, since SW broke into the 3D modelling scene, it was like the curtain
had been drawn on the Wizard of Oz. The whole mystique and elitism which
surrounded 3D CAD (which up till then really only accessible by the wealthy
car and aerospace companies), was suddenly exposed. The advancement in
productivity, efficiency and ease of use was massive and a huge shock to the
fatcats like UG, Ideas and Catia, whose own software almost overnight began
to look pompous, complicated, archaic, clumsy, inefficient and overpriced
garbage that carried it's "I'm not designed to be user friendly, you need to
be privileged to buy let alone know how to use me" legacy like a badge of
elitism. Their days are over. Sure they may still have a place in some
very particular design cases (can someone please point them out), but
really, they now just look so stupid, like an old, overweight and ugly
ballerina trying to compete in a routine against a young, fresh and spritely
nymph effortlessly going through the motions with ease and grace.

SW was conceived from the start with the user in mind. From what I make
out, it was a bunch of ex-UG software guys who got together and said "I
can't believe just how complicated and difficult UG is. This is just
b*llsh*t. The whole concept of 3D design is not really as difficult as
what UG (and others) make it out to be. If we were to code it all again
from scratch we would do a much better job. Lets package the same features
but on a new interface that is specifically designed to be efficient and
affordable."

For me, SW sets the standard for practical, efficient and usable 3D CAD
design. I have been involved with SW from it's early days in 97/98 and have
recently been exposed to the literally scary and sad world of UG design.
Why would anyone in their right mind choose the overlerly complicated
monsters like UG in todays world to do their design? (Of course if the
automotive companies haven't already put a gun to their head and shoved a
copy of UG in their shopping trolley).

Cheers

Bullman

 

Bullman,

It ain't for everyone, that's for sure, but it has it's place. The CAM side
is why allot of smaller companies use it, like aerospace machine shops and
mold shops. It has allot of tools aimed straight at the manufacturing side
of things. SW doesn't have anywhere near the depth of U.G., but most
companies can get by very well with it.

I remember back in the early 90's we had to buy a seat of Catia in order to
do business with Chrysler. This was definitely driven by Dassault and IBM.
This policy drove quite a few mom and pop OEM outfits out of business. I
don't remember EDS using these gangster tactics at all.

Regards

Mark

 

you should see someone about that (obsessive) repetitiveness problem.
worse than Al Gore

 

Thank you everyone (except Cliff "The Oracle Has Spoken" Huprich) for your
thoughtful responses.

Not having personally worked in an engineering environment which uses/needs
surface modelling or CAM, my line of discussion was really directed towards
the industry needs for solid modelling. Would I be wrong in saying that
solid modelling CAD capability covers the vast majority of design and
engineering industry requirements? I understand that surface modelling is
required to achieve organic looking and aesthetically pleasing shapes, but
really, much of the output of surface modelling CAD is used to create the
outer visual package of a product. eg. the panelling, dashboards, consoles
and profiles of cars, plastic moulded shapes etc. I guess also surfaces
relating to aerodynamics etc need a surface modeller. Though important and
necessary, this kind of CAD requirement really represents a minority of the
manufacturing/engineering/design industries needs. The BULK of the
engineering and work that goes on in products is really the stuff that is
packaged underneath the fancy surface modelling assisted designed exteriors.
Simple basic components (non-organic) that can effortlessly be handled by
SW.

Would anyone care to take a guess at what they think, out of the full range
of the CAD market, would be the proportion of engineering/design needs that
can only be fully satisfied by a surface modelling program or a program like
UG?

For those who are doubtful of the influence and power the automotive
companies have over basically forcing suppliers to follow their lead, please
look at this:

http://automotive.ihs.com/pdfs/orderform.pdf

Rather blunt isn't it. I mean, where is the choice? This has got nothing
to do with efficiency or productivity. It is just arrogant bulliness from
an institution that thinks it has "the bees knees" of CAD packages and the
only real way to do design worthy of their own standards is if it is done
using UG, regardless of what the supplier is designing/supplying. What a
supression of efficiency and practiclity.

Where is the bit about "Well, you don't really need to spend $10,000s of
dollars on UG and then spend top dollar on a UG CAD jockey to design and
create the solid models and drawings that can just as easily be imported
into our design tree and be integrated within our virtual assemblies. As a
matter of fact, you could really probably do the same job more economically
and efficiently if you used a program like SW. It is also quite common even
for suppliers who have UG to just send us the parasolid file versions as
opposed to the native UG file."

It is an absolute joke it is like this. Why is it political like this? The
fact is that accessible packages like SW could EASILY hand a good proportion
of the work the automotive companies farm out to their suppliers. Rather
than the need to get UG because of it super high end CAM/surface (whatever
other specialist features you care to mention) being the exception, the
automotive indstrues make it the rule REGARDLESS of what you are
designing/supplying.

Can anyone claim that the majority of a car's components can only be
successfully modelled using UG? Anyone? Then why the hell is it shoved
down the throats of the suppliers???!!!! Can anyone justify using UG to
design items that could just as readily be designed using SW?

Who would agree that if you know you are using UG to design/model/manage
anything that can be done on SW (though faster, more efficiently etc), then
you are simply wasting your time and money. And this is the thing that gets
me. When I see seats of UG being exclusively used to do things that can be
done faster, more efficiently and cheaper using SW, I just think that
someone somewhere has got things wrong and is wasting time, money and
productivity.

Finally, because of UG's inherent complexity, it is WAY out of the reach and
capability of the majority of the design engineers. It is not like a useful
tool like Excel or Word that is easy enough and simple enough to understand
that anyone with a basic understanding of computer software can use. UG is
the domain of the CAD workstation operators exclusively. In
engineering/design environments that have SW, it is more practical,
efficient and easier for a design engineer to directly access and use in a
productive way to help them do their job.

The program is so expensive and difficult to use, that the only way you can
justify it's existence is to plonk an experienced, highly paid CAD designer
in front of the workstation from 9am to 5pm and hope he is able to produce
work that just simply can not be achieved using packages like SW.

Comments?

Bullman

 

look at this:

Ok-- so it's a requirement. On the other hand, it's $195, which puts it in
the land of "big deal".

In the auto business, they spend orders of magnitude more $$$ than that
taking the buyers to strip bars....

 

Would I be wrong in saying that solid modelling CAD

IMO, yes you would be. Take a look around you. Most of what
your surrounded with has cosmetic lines where hybrid
modeling is necessary. This is why UG is a hybrid modeler.
This is why SolidWorks is attempting to become one.

IMO, this would most definitely not be correct.

IMO *everyone* will at some time or another need a hybrid
modeler. It's the *only way* to handle many real world
modeling challenges. I would contend that all the major
players are now moving away from the concept of solid only
modeling... if their product was not properly designed as hybrid
modeler in the first place.

Here, I am in agreement with you. Many UG houses also have
seats of programs like Alias Studio. When UG acquired SDRC
they got a product called Imageware that does some amazing
things that UG can't.


jon

 

I agree. Bureaucratic, bloated, convoluted, inefficient. That sums up the
fat cat automotive industry.

You know I have always had this imagery of th automotive companies being
like a big fat man (like Mr Cresote from "The Meaning of Life") who just
rolls on crushing anything that gets in it's way. It sees problems ahead of
it but just does not have the manueverability to change it's course to avoid
them. It just fattens itself up so that it can smother the problem and wear
the implications, and just steamrolls headlong into them. "If I am fat
enough, nothing can hurt me".

Lots of little parasites nip at the edges but the company just doesn't have
the speed, reaction and flexibility to reach and deal with them. As far as
it's attitude towards CAD, it is not surprising that they ask for a CAD
system with the lot for all who deal with it. A bit like ordering an oily
familiy-sized pizza with the lot for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Who cares
what it does to you and if you don't like some of the ingredients, if it has
the lot (can do it all), then you can be sure that there will be at least
some ingredients in there somewhere that everyone will like. And the guys
who are feeding them the fatty "CAD pizza" are like the waiter serving Mr
Cresote. They won't tell him he is too fat and over eating, or tell him
"You really don't need to eat all this food", "There is a whole new range of
healthy foods out there you should look at if you want to get fitter and
healthier". They, like the parasites, exploit the company's inability to
deal with inefficiency and nestle comfortably in there own little space
between the warm layers of fat, know they have complete control over the CAD
diet of it's host. They (eg EDS) have a complete monoploy over the CAD
software and would never consider any alternatives which are not their own,
regardless of how efficient the alternatives are.

LOL! Halleluja brother!

Not as much as what many of the higher end CAD package users (namely
automotive) would be if they REALLY knew just how over complicated and
inefficient they force themselves and others to be, and how they are
actively being blinded from considering alternatives.

 

Not as much as what many of the higher end CAD package users (namely

Declining UG revenues have forced EDS PLM Solutions to start giving
SolidEdge (V14) some very serious surfacing power which is a lot better
thought out than what is currently in SolidWorks. EDS PLM Solutions also
maybe preparing to give SolidEdge very serious CAM if the rumors are
true and a Parasolid version of SmartCAM is being developed.

EDS PLM Solutions recently fired their CEO and it may very well be
possible that they are going to try and address some of the issues you
mention. Obviously integrating SDRC Ideas into UG has been a massive
undertaking. Only time will tell if EDS PLM Solutions is prepared to
give smaller companies the tools they need. It probably would not be
a bad idea to give SolidEdge a name change and make if fully compatible
with UG.

jon

 

Really? You think that of all the CAD work out there, the majority of it
requires surface modelling for it to be done efficiently? I think you are
forgetting about the industries nuts n' bolts CAD requirements.

I see design work being either a job for solid modelling (the majority,
under the bonnet nut's n bolts engineering) or for surface modelling (the
minority, fancy shapes and packaging).

Finally! At the end of the day, if the part needs to be solid modelled and
can imported back into the master assembly as a parasolid file, then even
SW/SE will do. As this seems to be he case for most automotive car
component's, why must tehy make the suppliers us e UG?

 

This is encouraging news!

The problem I see with UG in today's CAD world is that it carries it's
legacy of complexity and inefficiency. SE/SW represent the standard in
efficient solid modelling. UG definitely is not. SE would never have
existed without SW giving the industry (particularly fat cat UG) a good kick
up the ass. Although SE is a "I was created because we needed to compete
with SW"/"Johnny come lately" kind of package, it has become a very good
alternative to SW. Why do they bother with UG when SE at least represents a
proportion of UG functionality but packaged into a superiorly efficient
software. If would mean a lot if SE could kill and replace the old ugly hag
that is UG.

 

The problem I see with UG in today's CAD world is that it

This is certainly true on the CAM end where UG Manufacturing
is much harder to use than say DelCAM PowerMill. DelCAM
PowerMill is able to be used by casual users on the shop
floor. I define a casual user as a machinist who does not sit
on his ass all day and program behind a computer. A casual
user uses the tool (DelCAM PowerMill) as a means to an end
to machine the part the way he or she wants to machine that
part.

UG Manufacturing is not designed for the casual user.

Further, when it comes to powerful 3 axis toolpath surfacing
I have yet to hear or see with my own eyes how UG
Manufacturing is more powerful than DelCAM PowerMill.
If it is, than from what I can tell at least 95 percent of shops
doing 3 axis toolpath surfacing don't seem to need what
UG Manufacturing may or may not have. IMO, it's a myth
that more powerful features must be harder to use. IOW,
I do buy your argument that other CAD systems are easier
to use than UG.

You ever try IronCAD and if so how do you feel about it's
approach with the Tri-Ball and shielding the user from the
history going on underneath for the most part. I'm not that
familiar with IronCAD but the little I have seen of it I like
some of their approaches. I don't feel IronCAD is getting
enough development, though. Especially in regards to
surfacing.

Money. It's a market that EDS PLM Solutions is very, very
comfortable with... big business.

Your comments are a breath of fresh air in a very stale
newsgroup. Glad you decided to post and hope you keep
posting. I wish we had someone posting about the new
surfacing aspects of SolidEdge V14.

jon

 

You have go to be joking? You are doubting that UG revenue hasn't declined?
Ever spoken to your local UG/SE agent (or would this mean you would have to
talk to yourself?)

LOL! In the same way EDS wasn't "forced" to create SE to compete with SW?
What are you going to try and deny next guru?
While we are on the subject of "force", it is a rather key term in this
discussion appearing in the topic title. Seems like EDS have no shame in
refering to it when describing the position their customers are in. I bet
the EDS marketing people had a real snicker at the cheecky exec who slipped
that in! Life can be fun as a fat cat I suppose.

http://www.eds.com/products/plm/success/unigraphics/pdf/cs_air_international.pdf

LOL? You are not the one who should be laughing. Yet another denial.

http://www.internetnews.com/fina-news/article.php/10795_2223861
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/2168401 (also read the bit about
drop in revenue)

You seem to mock and flatly deny everyones knowledge on the subject but it
is YOU who is actually speaking the BS! You can only do that so much until
you are exposed.
Who is snickering now?

Yeah, why remove capabilities that hardly anyone uses, makes things more
complicated and is justification for marking up the software price?

What? Learn that it is good for fat cats to screw small companies out of the
market becasue they don't want to buy a crappy UG workstation?

I don't think so. I think SE is responsible for saving UG's ass. SE is
closer to what UG wants to be than what UG currently is.

Unless your job involves strapping yourself to a UG workstation 9-5 as part
of your job, don't even bother going anywhere near UG. Your time is better
spent on CAD packages that do the same thing but are orders of magnitude
more affordable, easier to learn, accessible, practical, efficient and
productive.

You are wasting peoples time.
You are in denial.

 

Just like your posts, if you like to top your pizza's up with BS, then yes,
you will be disappointed.

The creation of the parasolid file format was a good thing. Perhaps after
seeing what SW did with it, the guys who made the kernal available to SW may
be regretting it. It is the common denominator that is transferable between
most (all?) solid modelling packages like SW, SE, ProE, UG etc. Does it
matter that it is a dumb solid? If I recall PDF files were specifically
created so that written documents can be read but not edited. Good for
securing your own work. Parasolid files are surprisingly efficient files.
Small in size, easy to load, manageable.

Still doesn't justify stuffing a package to the brim with features that no
one will use, charging and exorbitant price for it. Even SE has a
modularity to it. Last I looked, you could pick and choose which
components/modules you wanted to be included.

 

To Bullman,

Ug is doing there best to catch up!

Check out the newest NX versions.

We use SW and NX together to get the job
done.

Every CAD package has its downside and alot
of advantages. Use them wisely and you'll see
that your standpoint is not a birds eye view.

Greetings,

Ron van Dijk

van Dijk 3D Engineering bv
Midden Engweg 2a
3882 TT Putten

tel. +31 (0)341 416594
fax. +31 (0)341 416764
mob. +31 (0)6 54652256
e-mail
web www.3de.nl

 

Cliff,

SW also has a full API. How do you think all the all of the "fully
integrated" and "100% associative" programs like Cosmos did it.

And I mean fully integrated. Acessable from native menu picks, shares the
same database and history tree functions. How much "fuller" can it get.


Regards

Mark

 

SW also has a full API. How do you think all the all of the "fully

CAMWorks 2003 finally opened it's API. Don't know if it's a fully
open API. Tend to doubt that it is but it's a move in the right direction.
Someone with CAMWorks 2003 want to comment on this ?

Since Cliffy has *never* used SolidWorks and since Cliffy has stated in
alt.machines.cnc that mid-priced CAD/CAM is a joke and that shops should
use UG instead, how the hell would Cliffy know how much "fuller" SolidWorks
can get ???

jon

 

Really? You think that of all the CAD work out there, the

I'm saying that many companies are very likely to run up
against a part that needs to be modeled with hybrid tools or
that can be modeled more efficiently with hybrid tools.
While it is not the majority, the hybrid tools are necessary
in a very high percentage of modeling situations. I believe
the hybrid tools should be at ones disposal in case they are
needed. Further, I believe that based on consumer desire for
more and more aesthetics in the products they buy that more
and more modeling situations will need hybrid tools... even
from companies that never used hybrid tools before or only
need hybrid tools once in a blue moon.

I do not see things this way. See above.

Big companies dictate all sorts of bullshit to their
suppliers. We deal with Honeywell / Allied Signal / Garrett
Airesearch / whatever they are calling themselves this week.
Any idea the kind of hoops Honeywell makes small job shops
jump through ??? If Honeywell can shift *any burden* to the small shop
they do. From stocking parts, to continually modifying
contracts, to asking for a 30 percent roll back in price and
suggesting Arizona small job shops move to Mexico and take
on a Mexican partner. Many shops here are very angry with
how Honeywell does business.

jon

 

Ron, it is not just UG that needs to catch up. It is the companies and the
guys who actually have been using UG and know nothing else of the new breed
of efficient packages out there, like SW and SE. Their whole outlook on CAD
solid modelling is revolved around what they know of UG. They believe that
just because they paid the BIG bucks for it that it must be the best. They
also think that any solid modelling design work worth doing can only be
performed by dedicated, highly experienced and paid CAD operators and not by
casual users (engineers).

You are fortunate the company you work for can both practically and
politically accommodate both SW and NX together. Many UG entrenched
companies like GM fall into the "why do we need to get another package (SW)
when we already have paid top dollar for the best?" (or so they believe).
They really do need to be shown what they are missing out on, both in
productivity and $.

Recall a time when we had people called "typists". They were specialists
and sat behind typewriters all day doing typing for other people.
Technological advances eliminated the need for a dedicated typist. They
have been replaced by word processing programs like Word and by printers.
Now, typing and creating documents is very easy and efficient and just
second nature to most in modern workplaces. This is the way CAD solid
modelling in engineering/design is going. You will not have to be a CAD
guru/software learning masochist to be proficient, productive and capable of
creating very complex models. Software like SE and SW is there as a tool
for virtually any engineer/CAD designer to use at their disposal to express
themselves, in the same manner that common day programs like Word, Excel and
Outlook are.

Who knows how long this will/can be ignored by the big players?

 

Applicon Bravo??? Hey Jon, the 90's just called: they want their
software back!

Having used Bravo NCG and straight Compact II, I can say you don't
know what your talking about...again. All of the cam "features" of
Bravo NCG can be easily replicated in UG.

 

"All of the cam "features" of Bravo NCG can be easily
replicated in UG."

Replicated ??? Why would anyone want to settle for
replication of what a source code language like Compact
II has to offer ???

If a company wants to stay with writing Compact II and does
not want to "replicate it with UG Manufacturing" can you
tell me specifically how UG Manufacturing can do this without
replication. ??? What if someone does not like the idea of
replication, how does UG Manufacturing allow the same
process of writing Compact II source that Applicon Bravo
NCG does. Please be specific.

Have you considered that replication leaves a lot to be
desired ala something like software emulation.

If a companies policy was to edit Compact II source code on
the shop floor instead of editing G code and then repost the
edited Compact II source code can you specifically tell me
how you can do this with UG Manufacturing ???

Looking forward your specific answers on this.



jon