Paul,
Good to hear from someone else out there from the "stone age" of UG.
I started on "UG 1" version 2 or 3 in 1983 shortly after it had been
acquired by McDonnel Douglas Aircraft. It was then called "McAuto".
I agree with your view that it has become a great variational
modeler, the interface still leaves a lot to be desired, but it beats
most of the alternatives in what it can do.
I don't like to make comparisons with other CAD modelers, some are
better than others. I have never had the opportunity to work with
Catia but I have and do work with Pro/E on occasion, and they both
excell in different areas.
I have strong opinions as to which I prefer and why, but I have met
people who can make the same claims about Pro/E.
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
____________________________________________________________________
Michael,
First, How deep are your pockets?
Also, there are some substantial differences in the model construction
techniques that you use and how you can modify the designs.
If you want to talk specifics, contact me directly. lblasch@opw-fc.com
Sincerely,
Larry Blasch
Design Engineer
OPW Fueling Components
P.O. Box 405003
Cincinnati, OH 45240-5003 USA
Voice: (513) 870-3356
Fax: (513) 870-3338
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Unigraphics, Observations
Author: Paul Lasman <caddesign@sprynet.com> at internet
Date: 6/24/99 2:03 PM
>I apologize, this is a CAD question.
>
>I'd like to hear from users of Unigraphics about how they like it. How
>flexible and intuitive is it? How robust, etc.,. How does it compare to
>Alias or Pro E.
>
Michael,
Don't apologize for asking a CAD question, if CAD wasn't part of the
equation there would be no R/P.
I have been using UG for over 17 years back when it was UGI. I have watched
it develop into what I consider to be superior product for the advanced
user as well as the novice. The methods used to create models ( variational
modeling) gives the user so much flexibility that even the most complex
tasks can be accomplished.
I believe that the Alias product has some capabilities that enhance the
creation of forms that may not be easily defined as a numeric x,y,z type of
structure, this could be of some benefit for the person that wants to make
more creative models as opposed to more mechanical type parts.
As for Pro/E I will refrain from making comparisons or assessments as I
believe I am very biased toward UG and feel that UG can outperform Pro/E in
the simple or complex tasks.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on Pro/E, I have no time for a
debate.
******************************************************************************
CAD Design Advantage, Inc.
670 Silver Spur Rd., Suite 228
Rolling Hills Est., CA. 90274
Voice: (310) 544-8358 E-Mail: caddesign@sprynet.com
FAX: (310) 544-1419
Pager: (310) 769-3442 FTP: (call first)
Contact: Paul Lasman
Web Home Page: http://CadDesignAdvantage.com
******************************************************************************
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:51:58 EEST