SE Poll
SE Poll
(OP)
Forum Poll.
There are several regular contributors to this SE forum. I suspect there a large number of lurkers too.
Out of personal interest what version are you using and which category do you fall in to?
1. ST2
a. Trad
b. Sync
c. Combination
2. ST1
a. Trad
b. Sync
c. Combination
3. V20
4. V19
5. Older Versions
Do you use any of the above through personal choice or company enforced?
Food for thought!
There are several regular contributors to this SE forum. I suspect there a large number of lurkers too.
Out of personal interest what version are you using and which category do you fall in to?
1. ST2
a. Trad
b. Sync
c. Combination
2. ST1
a. Trad
b. Sync
c. Combination
3. V20
4. V19
5. Older Versions
Do you use any of the above through personal choice or company enforced?
Food for thought!





RE: SE Poll
We just migrated from V20, as a company we aren't ready for synchronous yet.
RE: SE Poll
RE: SE Poll
I have a Fundation licence.
I use Sync for small project that can serve as training time. I'm not convinced yet that I can use Sync on a regular basis.
I choose SE back in 2003 with V14 and never looked back. Unfortunately that's the only Cad software besides AutoCad that I used since then too.
Patrick
RE: SE Poll
Currently ST1 traditional.
Previous client (up to last Dec) is still running V20 because they can't afford the loss in productivity on a live project going to ST interface.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: SE Poll
I have already done a training for the sync env.
But after the training I used it once or twice for a real (small)project but nothing more than that.
I am self-employed, so yes I decided to buy SE 5y ago.
But I decided in october last year to stay for one year on maintenance (ST3).
And if there are no huge changes in SE traditional, I will quit paying maintenance. And probably change to something else.
But I also must say I love to work with SE.
But since they introduced ST and the awfull new UI without asking the customer I certainly changed my opinion about Siemens PLM.
I think we still need a lot of things in the draft environment. Like tools for (very)fast placement/alignment of dimensions, changing tol. mutch faster. Automatic recognition of threads to say something.
Like you can see not big things, but things that just needed to be done.
In the part environment I am quite happy except off the placement of holes and the lack of predefined features.
(Again this can be done easily if they just want to spent some time for it.The beauty of it is that all these things already exist-because many of us already made them, so they only have to collect them ! Just do it.)
So basically they are running behind the competition in a way. Because they spend all the money they have in ST, I think there are not so many people waiting for this new direct modeling tools we already have in the trad. env BTW.
And yes ST will have a future ! but not now ! except if they can make it in one or two versions workable like we use the tools we have now.
RE: SE Poll
even with 5 replies a theme is beginning to form.
RE: SE Poll
St1: no
St2: sporadic (trad.)
========
The last poll done in May 2009 had this result:
Total licenses by those who participated 550 (as per 4. May .2009)
- V20 or lower = 372 = 67,7%
- ST (trad. or ST) = 178 = 32,3%
dy
RE: SE Poll
anybody that matters reading? doubt it!
RE: SE Poll
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: SE Poll
We usually upgrade every second release, because every upgrade usually forces us to upgrade our PDM system (which has lots of customization). But with ST1 I advised my boss not to do the upgrade and wait for ST2. My reasons were the following:
-GUI. I don't mind the fluent interface too much (love it in Office), is it better that the old one? No, but not a deal breaker. My problems were with the lack of customization, yes we had the QAT, but it was really lacking features (like reorganize). Also the new vertical ribbon bar is a disaster.
-ST. Most of the thing we produce are rotational symmetrical and when I played around with ST1 I saw that it was really hard to place dimensions to a circular surface. So back then it was a cool technology, but something we would hardly ever use in production.
That was then, now I'm really lobbying for an upgrade to ST2, main reasons being:
-SE Simulation, if this had been in ST1 I would have pushed for us to upgrade back then. It's has exactly the right level of features. All the hardcore analysis we send to our team in India anyway, but to be able to do the more basic stuff in house is really great. And yes we have Femap Express, but that is a sad little product.
-Live sections, removes the problem I had with placing dimensions to a circular surface.
-Better GUI, it's still not optimal, but it's getting better.
-64bit, not a new feature in ST2, but it isn't available in V19 and we are starting to switch over to 64bit Windows, so it would of course it would be nice with a 64bit SE.
If we do the upgrade I still think 95% of all order related modeling will be done in traditional env. there are still too many things missing in synchronous (assembly features, suppress feature with a variable and some other things).
RE: SE Poll
> SE Simulation
not that this is not part of 'Foundation' nor 'Classic' it's
part of the new bundle 'Premium'. Whether available as separate
module is not known. In any case extra $$$
dy
RE: SE Poll
RE: SE Poll
@fun4sparkie- We're are not using SEEC and we are still on XP (Sigh!), so there is no problem with upgrading
RE: SE Poll
I've found some prices (in Eur, net without VAT [value added tax])
the prices may vary (recommended retail price)
- Premium (nodelocked) 11,000.00 floating 11,150.00
Premium bundle
- SolidEdge Classic
plus
- Xpress Route
- Wireing
- Simulate
- Simulate as separate package (SE Foundation or Classic required)
- nodelocked 4,350,00 floating 6,960.00
dy
RE: SE Poll
Because my University gives me no choice!
Anthony
RE: SE Poll
Will be upgrading to ST2 - Traditional next week.
Will be turning on Synchronous for our machine builders, but not for product design with the exception of a Synchronous Assembly template for SE Simulation use (it only works on Synchronous Model files, so you have to insert Traditional assemblies into a Synch Assy file).
Ken
RE: SE Poll
Actually, want to go to V20 fairly soon. Holding off any any ST because I just can't see finding the time for all our users to get on the new interface.
Also, our local Siemens office has had a massive reorganization (lay-offs) and now suck.
I'm just waiting till we go to Solid Works, 'cause between the interface change and their crappy customer service Siemens has shot their selves in the foot.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: SE Poll
Using ST2 in both traditional and synchronous mode
Paul
RE: SE Poll
There are some enhancements in V20 that could be useful.
http://f
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
RE: SE Poll
Don't get me wrong, I'm not gung ho about changing and have some idea of what's involved having been caught up in this kind of thing at my first job. However, the things Siemens have done haven't helped their cause.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: SE Poll
Should be, an enthusiastic fan base!
RE: SE Poll
RE: SE Poll
RE: SE Poll
rcass, you might look at it another way. Traditional is comparable to how SWX works so you are covered and at the minimum sync is nice for imported parts. Plus, PTC, Autodesk, SpaceClaim, Dassault all have or are coming up with similar non-history technologies. So, as the technology matures, you are covered there too.
ST UI, yea, could be better. Many of the CAD applications switched to a ribbon and it hasn't been easy sailing for anyone. ST2 UI is better and ST3 is going to pull in a lot of customer UI enhancement requests from what I'm hearing. It is vaporware right now, I know, but only for a few more months.
Mark
RE: SE Poll
Hi Burhop
Good all good :)
RE: SE Poll
.....so keep paying the maintenance fee and one day you'll get........
RE: SE Poll
Maybe by V7... wasn't that about when Solid Edge finally was a viable solution?
Bob Mileti
RE: SE Poll
tony
RE: SE Poll
Thanks
Patrick
RE: SE Poll
The majority of our work is bespoke automation plus jigs and fixtures. With this type of work we often have to produce design concepts and multiple configurations to present to the client at tender stage. So obviously we end up doing more concepts than actual machines.
For concept work sync is faster, easier to get ideas down and play with design itterations. I would not want to go back to trad. for this type of work. It has really been this work that has allowed us to learn how sync works and given us the confidence to use it in the "real world" i.e a machine design.
We have just started work on V2 of a prototype completed last year for a client (more product development than our usual work) which was done on ST1 but mostly trad. with the odd small part in sync.
There are some major design mods to be made and so far everything has been done in sync except for steel framing of which there is quite a bit. Obviously these are done in trad. but are then brought into a sync assenbly where components are added to make a sub-assembly. This was not practical in ST1 but works well in ST2.
In terms of FoA and IPC, yes that is true we don't rely on these tools. IPC is available but is not associative. I think for a company producing a product FoA and FoP is worth the investment but we have never felt our type of work lends itself to its use.
Associative IPCs are good for models that need to be driven parametrically, but in the short time we have been using sync we havn't had a project that requires it. Because sync assemblies allows you to move geometry in separate parts at the same time, we now rely much less on links e.g between holes in a lid and a body.
We recently had to generate a complex curve and used Curve by Table in sync, but as the sketch is not associative we could not make adjustments via the spreadsheet. We had to revert to trad. I guess this will eventually become a proceedural feature in time.
For us this is a journey we are taking because for certain situations it is a better way to work. This will not be the case for everyone though.
That said, understanding how it works is key to success. Applying trad methods is a waste of time - even sketching has to be thought about differently.
HTH
Tony
RE: SE Poll
Cheers
Patrick
RE: SE Poll
The hardest thing to get the hang of has been Live Rules and how these will be affected by locked dimensions amoungst other things. My advice is to only lock a dimension when absolutely necessary. It is almost the opposite to trad sketch. From there you turn on or off infered relationships found by LR. Also, don't forget the small command bar which will change how a model reacts.
It can be quite frustrating until you get an understanding of how these new tools work. Unfortuneatly Siemens have done a poor job of providing documentation to gain insight into this. Maybe because it is better learnt through application, but I think this is why many loose patience and give up. Until you get your head around these tools, you get a lot of yellow triangles with an exclaimation mark. If you persevere it starts to make sense.
The best resource for sync is undoubtedly Solid DNA. His examples can really help.
Regards
Tony