ST2 the verdict - So far
ST2 the verdict - So far
(OP)
Hi All,
I'm just about to switch to ST2 (from V20) and was wondering if any of you are using (ST2 that is) and your thoughts so far
Cheers
I'm just about to switch to ST2 (from V20) and was wondering if any of you are using (ST2 that is) and your thoughts so far
Cheers





RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I installed ST2 last week and didn't have much issues except this one:
They modified the draft part list. They added more options to it which are good but it messed up all of my current template so I will have to reformat my draft part list Grrr.
It still has an unfinished interface according to me but they made some small improvement over ST1 so at least they are listening.
I don't use Synchronous yet so my observations are more related to the traditionnal modeling.
Patrick
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I'm starting a new job in a weeks time using ST2, so will let you know how I think its progressed.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
There was a time when I waited with baited breath to load a new version. But for some reason this time (since ST1 and the negativity) I haven't got the same childlike anticipation.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
But... I still find the ST interface to be far less productive than the old one. The different icon sizes really is distracting, and there seems to be one more click for every command - the one to get on the correct tab.
Sorry for the rant.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
While the ST2 GUI hasn't changed a whole lot, there are a number of minor improvements that have really made a difference for me. Not moving to ST2 is definitely a disadvantage.
While I have some minor niggles (the V20 GUI wasn't perfect either), I seem to be as productive with the new GUI. The hardest transition to a new GUI will always be for the serious power user.
Sync is getting better and is more useable in ST2. I have just completed a 2 week concept design project entirely in sync and I reckon this would have normally taken almost 3 weeks in trad. Please note, this project is about expressing concepts and is not a fully designed machine - I have yet to do that in sync. If we get this job we will probably do some of it in sync.
There is no doubt that sync is superior to trad for this type of work and I would hate to have to go back to trad.
How sync will work for the actual design process remains to be seen. But if you do as many design concepts as we do then sync will pay its way.
Tony
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Also, some of the keyboard shortcuts are no longer available and some seem to be repeated which can be a little confusing. I miss the shortcut to hide/show all sketches, curves, etc. (Is there something I missing?)
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I find using the scroll button on my mouse helps with switching between tabs but I still find it very annoying getting caught looking for an icon just to realize I need to switch tabs to find it. It's time consuming.
The polygon command and the rectangle by center command by themselves made it worth the upgrade for me :)
Patrick
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I have delayed moving to ST2 until 20th Dec, I have a major project that will be done and dusted by then, I then have a 2 week lull due to the christmas holidays (summer here in NZ) So this will be a ideal time.
Cheers
Karmoh
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
- Trim Tool: doubling the line it is trimming (sketch)
- Measure Minimum Distance: difficult to pick faces - have to change view orientation (part & assembly)
- Quickpick: difficult to pick faces - have to change view orientation (part)
- Not being able to select a sketch when creating a feature - restart SE fixes (part)
- Not being able to select features and sketches by clicking on them in the display area - restart SE fixes (part)
But ST2 has fixed many of the ST 1 bugs. I haven't installed the first service pack yet (link is to 32 Bit service pack for ST2 - requires Siemens webkey).
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I've just been doing a mod to a casting and the guy who modelled it(not here now) decided to do it in sync mode.
I tried to modify it but just couldn't make it work.
In the end I had to re-model it in traditional mode.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I skipped ST1 and went straight to ST2, so cannot comment on any improvements.
The Ribbon Bar, is ok, I'm an excel 2007 power user and do not have any problems with this style.
Good is....... add to quick access bar option
Bad is......... any commands that uses drop down selection, the selected does not remain on top.
Bad is......... No option to reduce the size of icons on the ribbon bar; increase yes (why?)
At the moment I feel the interface is too in-yer-face and I'm conscious of the reduce work area.
I have always used a combination of keyboard shortcuts, right clicks and toolbars, so the transition will not be too demanding, but I will reserve judgment and give it a chance, and I'm optimistic that I will make the adjustment.
The Synchronous side of ST is interesting and easy to learn, but I have a feeling it's not going to be an easy journey to master, even though the workflow for both Sync and Trad is similar, there are some major hurdles to overcome with leaving history based behind.
So the dilemma for the REAL Users is production based engineering centred on Solid Edge, maybe there are hobbyists out there, but I'm a REAL user doing REAL work for REAL pay. 80% of my work is sheet metal based, with the occasional press tooling job. So for the time being I'm sticking with traditional mode.
I'm a beta user for Synchronous Sheet Metal, even though it's fascinating and it allows modeling and modification of sheet metal models through direct action while still retaining the sheet metal integrity, it has no wow factor. Rarely do I find that direct editing of sheet metal designs is a desire, design is normally based around a set of parameters or components that need securing or shrouding. Sheet Metal Design is limited to the production environment and my style of design is based on the CNC or manual machinery that will produce the component. In saying that, I have had a good brainstorming session with a colleague and we have come to the conclusion that Synchronous Sheet Metal may benefit after the initial design concept is mapped. But as it stands (for me) it is of little use in a production environment.
I have a small project on in January that I'm going to produce traditionally. This client is notorious for changes, so I'll produce a Sync Version, then do a comparison with the changes.
Conclusion so far
As time goes on Direct Modeling will continue to get bigger and bigger with even more powerful tools and History based modeling will slowly die. But my conclusion so far is that V102 is V20 with a new interface, with an optional toy to relieve boredom on a rainy day, or to impress a client or new user who is none the wiser.
I keep my fingers crossed and hope I'm not wasting my hard earn cash on maintenance. SE is not a hobby it a tool that I make a living with. At present I'm happy with that tool but if my expectations are not met, I'll move to a more suitable tool.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
As you are a sheetmetal user have a look at this video on the SpaceClaim web site. OK, SpaceClaim isn't as powerfull as SE, but some of their direct modelling is way ahead, and the ability in sheetmetal to re-define edges as bends, rips, and flanges is superb. There was a video somewhere that showed a plastic component being converted to sheetmetal.
I just wondered how this compares to ST2 sheetmetal abilities.
http://
I think SE could/should also learn something from the SpaceClaim interface - icons are the same size, except for a few important ones, command options are mostly displayed in the side bar, and there is only one model type. To make it sheet metal just click a checkbox.
I'm really frustrated that when I start a command in ST some of the options are displayed in the side bar, but I then still have to click an Options button that displays the other settings. The hole command is a typical case. The very first button is Options which opens up the OLD options menu where I set the hole parameters - why can't these just be displayed in the edge bar. You can't even select a saved setting without clicking Options first.
It was OK with V20, you got the Options menu when you started the command, so now you need 1 or 2 extra clicks depending on whether you were on the correct tab.
I only hope this will be addressed in the future, because for me SE has gone from being the most productive CAD interface to just about the worst - SolidWorks has done a better job of implementing the ribbon interface.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
It is the same with ST1 and I find it annoying... I'm disappointed they left it like that in ST2. It's contrary to what it used to be in SE up to V20.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Beachcomber, those Space Claim, corner and edge manipulation tools were perfect. The junction options were sublime. The separating and changing of a flange to an individual tab and then creating a new flange from that edge, was inspirational. Very...very impressive! ST2 Sync Sheetmetal is a long way from that type of manipulation. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope that Sync Sheet Metal development team are emulating that type of functionality that Space Claim are using.......hence the delay
From a layman's point of view, the style of development that puts a new UI on top of an old UI is scary and downright insulting. I maybe well off the mark here, but why have old technology buried under a new UI and call it revolutionary.
To use an analogy, it's like Cadbury changing a wrapper to suit a new consumer culture, but leaving the old wrapper underneath, so you have to remove two layers to get to the goodies.
The Sheetmetal Module in V20 and Trad are very good. SE has always seemed to understand the needs of Sheet Metal Industry. I truly hope that they continue to do so.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
face a different problem when using a screen smaller than 20".
While in sketch or profile mode (trad.) the dimensioning and annotation
functions will be sqeezed into one button (pull down) on the far
right of the ribbon. To place a dimension one has to do two clicks.
Reported in the UGS BBS. Whether it's also applicable to other
localized versions is unknown.
dy
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Have a look at these vids.
ht
h
ht
I don't really care about direct modelling because it does nothing that I can't do already, and I suspect neither do the majority of users. I believe there are far more important issues - like still not having tolerance grades built in to dimensioning, not being able to add columns and text into a BOM, no symmetry relationship in assembly, not being able to sketch in 3D, no multiple bodies in part files and performance issues in complex surface models.
Anyone care to add more?
By the way Happy New Year to all.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
The second one shows that SWX 2010 finally has an export to DXF functionality straight from the modeling environment. You used to need to create a draft of the flattened part scaled to 1:1 and then save that draft as dwg/dxf. That was one of its major flaws IMHO.
I tend to agree with you, I chose SE over SWX 3 years ago, but right now, having familiarized myself lately with Solidworks 2009 through a 42-hour evening course, I'm not sure I'd make the same choice. Even though I still prefer SE traditional workflow (haven't worked with Synchronous), Solidworks has a boatload of features that SE doesn't have, plus maintenance seems to be cheaper.
Even Inventor 2010 seems to have more sheetmetal tools than SE now...
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I wanted to add Happy New Year to you too BC, and to everybody else too! Let's hope it's better than 2009...
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
"like still not having tolerance grades built in to dimensioning, not being able to add columns and text into a BOM,"
In ST2 I read about new functionnalities for the tolerance in dimensioning and there have been lots of improvement in the BOM according to the what's new document. I can't say if it means that you can take them off your wish list just yet but it may be worth a look.
I didn't use any of those improvements yet so I can't comment if they are good or not!
I think the option to design multiple sheet metal part in the same part file is a good tool and looks impressive. But IMHO the workflow seems more logical to design them in the context of an assembly using inter-part copies or part copies.
From what I see, Solid Edge seems to be able to do those things you wish for but they are surely not integrated as well as they are in Solid Works.
Patrick
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
You can not do this in SE (that I know of).
It's all about re-configuring your part, which is much more likely in sheetmetal than in normal part modelling.
Just look at the SpaceClaim vid and you can see that an edge joining two flanges can be defined as a bend, a rip or as a flanged joint - so you could actually take your folded sheetmetal and break it up into separate plates, switch the model back to a normal part file and make them different thicknesses to be made as a welded construction.
You can also do the reverse.
This is the kind of flexibility that should be introduced, but is impossible in SE because they still insist that a sheetmetal part is a different file type.
By now (at least in sync mode) there should only be 2 file types - model and draft.
How many times have you wanted to just model a few bits for a quick scheme and ended up creating a load of part files and an assembly, or modelled it as one part then wanted to break it up into several bits.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I think the real key here as you said is FLEXIBILITY!
Cheers!
Patrick
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
This is true, and the option to reconfigure a flange into a separate part in a history based system (V20 - Trad 100-102) is impossible. With Sync it should be as easy as shown in the Space Claim vid. As it stands Sheet Metal Sync in ST2 is a faint parody.
I attempted to follow the space claim vid and reproduce it ST2 Sync SM and could reproduce all but the corner manipulation and the separation of the flange in to a separate part......................I could also do the same in V20!
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Why????
You can have part files with multiple bodies, each with it's own history and then union them together, so why could you not split a part into separate bodies within the same file?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Not sure what you mean?
Create a sheetmetal tab, add a flange. Then separate that flange from the tab, then add a new flange to the separated flange, which mates with the original tab. While retaining the integrity of the sheetmetal part
Identical to the Space Claim Vid?
Can you demonstrate or explain how please? V20 or Trad
Cheers
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I was not claiming that it is possible with the way things work at the moment, just that it SHOULD be possible to do the things I said.
Maybe I misunderstood your statement, and you in fact meant that it was not possible with the way things work now.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Have a good day
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
So, well done SE, pity I'm still on ST1 !!
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
In part, sheetmetal and assembly I don't - I have to go to the edge bar for the dimension.
Is this still the same in ST2?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
The corner edge manipulation is as the Space Claim Vid (or similar)
BUT I haven't yet found a way of separating a flange and creating a new part with the same model/part. Although I will continue to play.
After using ST2 for a week, it's good, some nice features, although I'm still finding the workspace cluttered, I'm getting used to the ribbon bar and it idiosyncrasies.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
here is one quick & dirty
a separate body (aka. multy lump)
dy
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
OK but it's still ONE body and you couldn't save the flanged section out to another file to create a new part.
Karmoh.. I'm glad you are getting used to the interface but I just find it totally frustrating with all the extra clicking between tabs. Maybe it's because I used the old interface for 12 years or so.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
yes that's the case. I think 'Multi body part' is quite new to
parametric CADs. AFAIK SW can do it now and INV 2010 should
have it now (but I'm not sure). SE can handle only 'multi lump part'
that is all separate items will be treated as one body. The
third technic is 'multi part file' where a part file(!) can contain
other part files, each of these will be treated as distinct files and
can be referenced individually from other parts (i.e from within an assembly)
Autodesk MDT does have this functionality.
dy
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Thanks
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
I'm lucky in a roundabout sort of way, I rarely have issues with interfaces, but I still growl & curse until I find a way
Plus I extensively use Word and Excel 2007 versions, so was prepared for the style.
I still hanker for the simple V20 interface.
I too have been around since V7, the scary thought is I spend more time with SE than I do my wife
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Perhaps that might be the case with most CAD packages but NOT ALL.
Unigraphics/NX (also from Siemens PLM Software Inc.) has ALWAYS supported 'Multi-bodies' in the same Part file. While Unigraphics did not fully support PARAMETRIC solid modeling until UG V10.0 (released in 1993), fully integrated solid modeling was first introduced with UG V7.0 (released in 1989, limited parametrics first came with V8.0 a year later) and it supported multi-bodies, primarily because Unigraphics had already been supporting multiple surface bodies from inception (the first seat of Unigraphics was delivered in 1974), and so we implemented Solid Bodies using the same architecture which was already supporting multiple topological structures (surfaces) saved in a part part file or open in the same session. As the product evolved and we moved from surface models to sheet models to solid model to parametric sheet and solid models, since this was being done as part of the continuing enhancement of the core Unigraphics product line (companies who've been paying their maintenance since their initial investment in Unigraphics in 1974, have NEVER had to REPURCHASE a single seat of Unigraphics/NX) we have had to maintain a consistent working environment since we still support files saved from all previous releases (while some conversion was needed back during the V8.0 to V9.0 era, since V9.1 customers have been able to DIRECTLY OPEN any part file in the latest version of NX without doing anything special).
Anyway, I just thought that a little 'history' may be of interest to some of you. Anf if you'd be interested in learning even more about the early days of CAD, select the last item in my 'signature' below.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
http://www.plmworld.org/museum/
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
Patrick
RE: ST2 the verdict - So far
If we can get our partner to go to ST2 at least we have a 'user defined' column that we could use for item ref.
Not ideal.
The problem arises because our cient is using a system from 30 years ago and manual drawing when you detailed some parts on the assembly. A part detailed on the sheet has a number for the ref, but a part called up from another drawing has a letter ref.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?