×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

(OP)
Hi,

Let the fun begin, I have 18 years experience using Pro-Engineer. The company I work for is wanting to switch to NX7.5.
I have had one week 40 hour class room training and now about 3 months of using NX and not 100% of the time.

My initial conclusion and it could just be my years of using Pro-Engineer but Pro-Engineer is a much more flexible
easier and faster tool to use than NX. To me NX has way to much information required to get the job done like it's drawing package is very cumbersome compared to Pro-Engineer.

Please share your thoughts and I’m being opened minded about this so maybe it’s a lack of using NX 24/7 for a good year or so.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

While I'll let real (and 'unbiased') users respond to your query, I will point out that NX 7.5 is two releases out-of-date.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

more flexible is what ways?

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Please enlighten us on how you can begin to make a comparison after 40 hours of training and 3 months of experience after using Pro/e for 18 years?

John Joyce
N.C. Programming Supervisor
Barnes Aerospace, Windsor CT
NX6 & NX7.5

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

I had 15 years on Ug from UG2-V3 to NX1 when the company I used to work for decided to switch us to Pro/2000i2. I am now using Wildfire4.

1) You need more training! We trained our UG users a minimum of 13 days when they switched to Pro/E. Basic Solid Modeling-5 days, Sheet Metal Design-2days, Assembly Modeling-3 days and Drafting-3 days. We then added 2 days Pro/Intralink training and some others got Mechanica, Routed Systems and cabling.

2) There are many things in UG that are more robust than Pro/E. There are some things in Pro/E that are easier than NX. They tend to wash out over the years as they leap-frog each other with new enhancements and refinements.

3) At least Siemens doesn't release software (too often) that is not ready for production use and users can load and run an initial release. With PTC, I would NEVER turn a F00 (initial release code) loose on my users and usually it would be 4 or 5 builds before I would move to a new release of Pro/E.

4) When we switched from UG to Pro/E, the users hated the drafting module the most about Pro/E. Cumbersome, too many menus, text looks like crap, etc. Even on WF4 here, I still hear complaints about PTC drafting, and we have never used anything else besides some AutoCAd for electrical work.

What versions are you comparing? Like John said, NX7.5 is 2 versions old and 2 years behind. For reference, that would be Wildfire 5 which is 2 releases behind Creo 2.

I would move back to a NX shop in a heartbeat! For reference I am a manufacturing engineer, not mechanical and I spend most of my time these days as a system admin and working with PLM tools. However, I have done design, drafting, NC programming and GRIP programming in UG and design and drafting in Pro/Engineer.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

I just thought of one area where 'NX has way to much information' would be very useful.

Try to find out what layer a symbol is on in Pro/E? Pro/E, to my knowledge, does not provide any information on layers by selecting an object. Even when I have the layer tree open, I cannot find what layer my drafting symbol is on. Most likely it is not assigned to any layer, so it is just in the file. Pro/E's data structure and maintenace of where in the file structure something is located is almost non-existent. In NX, every entity is on a layer, even system type stuff, although layer 257 is hard to get to at times. I know since V10 and parametric modeling the use of layers in UG/NX has not been as important as it was in pre-v10 days.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

more flexible is what ways?

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

NX and ProE each have their strengths and weaknesses. In general, NX is far more flexible than ProE IMO. Try turning a part model into an assembly model or an assembly model to a part model in ProE.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Part to assembly - Create a new part and import original part as a component. Our engineers do single part assemblies.
Assembly to part - It it is a single part assembly, select the model and create component in context.

I know what you mean, just teasing with the above.

I agree that NX is more flexible and provides more information about the objects in the design than PTC provides.
At the same time, there are features in Pro/E that are better than NX. Family tables of parts are better executed in Pro/E than the way NX does them. NX was way behind in developing the Template conceptfor base parts and drawings.

Like I said before, they leap frog each other with new ideas and implementation of new concepts. NX does a much better job of getting it right the first time.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

(OP)
I want to thank everyone for your input. I just have to much Pro-E in my blood where I can do it in sleep so the long and short of this is it's just going to take time to get NX down.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

I used ProE for 6 years before making the leap to Unigraphics v18 and was able to come up to speed with no formal training other than the CAST or Computer Assisted Self Teach tutorials which were informative but the majority of my training was accomplished by testing things out to find out how Unigraphics did things differently. At that point in time the options file for UG was a huge several hundred or thousand line .dat file which required manual editing. Most people say ProE or Creo now has a steep learning curve. So I believe it will take some time but not too much to get into a NX groove and love it.

I have not used NX in some time but plan to get a trial copy of it to see all the new powerful capabillities they have made with the Synchronous Technology features. The other resource that helped me get knowledge on how to use NX or UG back then was the site you are using right now to post this Question. looslib and I are like opposite sides of a coin. I used ProE first then got into UGNX whereas he started on UG and moved to ProE.

I applaud both companies for the robust CAD products they make but it's important to recognize that all products have flaws.

In Terms of Layers ProE has a pretty robust system for it's layers allowing certain feature types to be auto placed using layer rules which can be added in the config options. Layers in NX can be prettey complicated for new users including the Visible in view options and being able to have an item visible but not Selectable on screen. Items don't need to be on layers but most ProE users don't really care about this.

Enhancement request maybe?
As far as releasing too often that is more accurate to say for Catia who Releases functionality which takes 2 or 3 R#s to be stable V5R15 may have had new functionality that has bugs which may not be fixed till R18 if that.
Back in V18 days UG crashed for me 10+ times a week. Recent releases of Proe crash way more than in the past. For any system I'd recommend not using it the entire day. Close the program at least once a day to prevent it from loosing stability.

"It's not the size of the Forum that matters, It's the Quality of the Posts"

Michael Cole
Boston, MA
CSWP, CSWI, CSWTS
Follow me on !w¡#$%
@ TrajPar - @ mcSldWrx2008
= ProE = SolidWorks

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

stable....I use NX all day every day, with very large assemblies, and 4 or 5 sessions running at the same time, all with large assemblies open.
I'd say....at the most........i get one crash every 3 months....although, somethimes you'll do something stupid & it might hang up for a while, but if you leave it 10 minutes or so, it'll usually recover.
If i was using software that crashed every day i'd get very p___ed off
I've been on NX since V17, it's never crashed once a day.... before that i used catia 4.19 i don't remember that crashing that ofter either

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

One of the things I have always told my users of UG/NX and Wildfire is to reboot every night when you go home. Windows does not manage memory cleanly and closing a program will still leave fragments in memory. A reboot clears them. The users here are very bad about rebooting daily and even weekly. If they run into some flaky problem, I tell them to reboot before I'll even look at it. 95% of the time, they don't come back because the reboot solved their problem.

As for crashing, Wildfire is worse than NX ever was, especially with large assemblies. Before moving to 64-bit computers, we had to be very careful how we loaded some of our largest assemblies of aircraft. You could watch task monitor memory usage go up as parts were loaded by Wildfire. At 2.2GB memory used by the xtop process, Wildfire would just vanish from your screen. PTC eventually coded a memory watch into their code that would warn you when you had 5% or 10% left. Not totally helpful when loading a large assembly and you are 85% loaded.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

I've been using UG/NX since about 1999. Because I didn't know better, I thought it was great until I spent a year on Catia V5. I haven't been on Pro E but I agree with your comment "NX has way to much information required to get the job done ".

It's also poke intensive and the pokes are not consistant between operators. It's like a different company designed each one independantly.

Additionally, it's not fully parameterized. This will upset a lot of people but it's true. Quick example, create a sphere with it's center point on a point. Now move that point... the sphere wont move. There are many similar situations. My company asked me to put this into a presentation to give to a "mentor". He came back with a bunch of translating options... which were not parameterized.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Quote (Kenevil)


Additionally, it's not fully parameterized. This will upset a lot of people but it's true. Quick example, create a sphere with it's center point on a point. Now move that point... the sphere wont move.

Well you may have been using UG/NX since around 1999 but you must have stopped around 2008 before NX 6.0 was released (we're currently delivering NX 8.5) since starting with NX 6.0 all so-called basic or 'primitive' solid bodies, a Sphere being but one of these, have been "fully parameterized". For example, if you create a Sphere relative to a Point and you move the Point the Sphere would move as well.

And for the record, back in 1999 (or even earlier) you could have simply created a Sphere EXACTLY the way Pro-E (and a bunch of other systems) did; just sketch and revolve a circle whose center was located at a Point. If you had then "moved" that referenced Point, the sketched 'Sphere' would have moved as well, just like it would have done in Pro-E (and a bunch of other systems).

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Thanks for info. It seems automotive is a little behind at NX7.5. I look forward to the update if it addressed my statement but that was just one example. Helix seems to be realitivly unparameterized along with many associative line operations to points. Do you know if there were changes to those operations?

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

The 'Helix' has been completely reimplemented in NX 8.5 (the consensus is that it's perhaps now the MOST 'parametric' object in NX).

As for you comment about "many associative line operations to points" I'm not sure what you're referring to. Perhaps if you could be a bit more explicit I could make specific responses.

One thing that you need to keep in mind, like MOST other systems, NX is depending more and more on using Sketches for 2D curve and profile type tasks and while it is true that the older none-parameterized (i.e. 'dumb' curves) are still supported, they are being relegated to a 'legacy' class of objects meaning that they have been removed from the default User Interface layout and must be 'resurrected', as it were, by 'customizing' the UI to make them accessible once more.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

The helix in Nx 8.5 is really well done!

thank you

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

If I am not mistaken NX/Unigraphics has been able to create parametric spheres since around 1991

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

While that has been ostensibly true, at least in the sense that the size of a Sphere 'feature' could be changed parametrically, either by directly editing the expression controlling the Sphere's diameter or by editing the size of the circle if you used the 'Select Arc' method of creation, however, like the other so-called basic or 'primitive' objects at the time, which included along with the Sphere, the Block, Cylinder and Cone, ONLY the size parameters where editable. What was missing was the ability to control the location or orientation of this objects either by associating them with some other object, like the example of a Sphere referencing an existing Point, or by directly editing some sort of origin/orientation scheme inherent to the feature itself. That all changed starting with NX 6.0.

So while it is true that the SIZE of 'primitives' have always been 'parametric', it was incorrect to say they were 'associative', which to many people, and we agree, is an important characteristic of being 'fully parametric'. Now in our defense, UG/NX is one of the few systems which actually provided any sort of basic or 'primitive' bodies. Most other systems, particularly many of the newer 'sketcher-based' systems, expected users to create sketches and use either an extrude or revolve type of operation to create these same basic shapes, so even though the old 'primitives' were never fully associative, they were still very useful for what they were intended to be used for, as the FIRST BASIC body to which detail feature were to be added. If they were ONLY being used in that manner, the fact that they could not be associated to another object was hardly ever an issue. It was ONLY when they were being ADDED to or SUBTRACTED from an existing body that this lack of associativity became an issue and in all honesty, this was considered to be an abuse of a 'primitive' feature. These types of operations SHOULD have been performed using an extruded/revolved sketch, like all the other systems where they expected people to work this way, but BECAUSE we were kind enough to continue to even offer the ability to create these basic or 'primitive' bodies we were expected to bring them up to the latest standards of BOTH 'parametrics' AND 'associativity', which, for the record, I voted against doing since I considered it as not being relevant for the INTENDED USE of basic or 'primitive' bodies, but I was overruled.

So now you know the 'rest of the story'...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

John, I think I'm getting away from this thread's post about comparing NX with Pro-E but I'm so happy to hear form someone with your knowledge. I'll retract my statement about NX not being fully parameterized. I'm going to say it CAN be if you pick the correct operators. There are so many ways to accomplish a task and many are not parameterized. Maybe that's what I really appreciate about Catia over NX. For example, Catia offers one way to draw a two point line. It's intuitive, associative, and parameterized. In NX7.5, I know of at least three (1.Curves>Lines, 2. Curve>Lines and Arcs>Line Point to Point, 3. Basic Curves). I try to use the most parameterized operations but my models become uneditable for other designers that are still using basic curves. So, maybe having so many options is a disadvantage in some cases.

I'm using "advance with full menus" role. Maybe all my problems will go away if I switch to a basic role. I'm going to play with that today.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Not to pick nits, but in your example of "three" ways to draw a line between points, #1 and #2 actually results in exactly the same line feature being created. The only difference was whether the line was created while using a full menu (that's #1) or using what some consider a more modern, gesture-based (but menuless) scheme (that's #2). And while we're discussing the menuless scheme (that's #2) it was really designed to be accessed from the 'Lines and Arcs' toolbar (just press MB3 over some 'gray space' in the menu area and toggle ON the 'Lines and Arcs' toolbar). From this single toolbar you can now access virtually all possible methods for creating associative (non-sketch) curves (at least Line and Arcs) using simple mouse gestures and without having to deal with traditional menus.

As for #3, yes there still is the older, non-associative 'Basic Curves' method but that will soon be relegated to a 'hidden' or 'non-preferred' status and over time may be removed altogether since even though methods #1 and #2 were designed to produce associative curve features, they do provide an option to create the Lines and Arcs as dumb curve objects, if that's what you really wanted in the first place.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Thread for two...

It would be nice if the gesture-based/menuless option is the future, then get rid of the old options and reduce the menues by 2/3's.

(1)Edit>Transform, (2)Edit>Move Object, and (3)Insert>Instance Geometry is another example where there seems to be too many ways to do one task. Transform doens't seem to be associative (I could be wrong), Move Object is associative as long as you are not copying the object, and Instance Geometry seems to make the first two obsolete.

I don't understand why anyone would want or needs so many options. It just gives users excuses not to be fully associative and parametric.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Maybe that's why they make SolidEdge.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

What is one of the best things about NX? Many options to perform the same task.
What is one of the worst things about NX? Many options to perform the same task.

That joke has been around since V10 came out in 1994 but it still applies to NX.

As John points out, try to open a file created almost 20 years ago in today's version of any CAD software. He has a UGII V9.1 file that will open in NX8.5. PTC onlys says they only guarantee to open files from 2 prior releases. I guess I should test this as I have 5 releases on my computer, WF3 to Creo2.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

We have learned the hard way that when a new function is added to NX that it's the very UNPOPULAR if we immediately remove the older function(s) which it replaces. That being said, in the case of 'Transform' versus 'Move Object', UNLESS YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO REENABLE THE OLD FULL TRANSFORM MENU USING AN ENVIRONMENT VARIABLE, the current OOTB 'Transform' menu ONLY contains those older methods for which there is NOT yet a 100% suitable replacement. As those remaining methods have been adequately addressed they too will be removed until there is no need for the old 'Transform' menu whatsoever. If you can think of a different approach that you would like us to take, please feel free to tell us what that might be.

Yes, NX does have what some might consider redundant or often very similar functionality but then we do offer our users, via the UI customization tools, the ability to completely restructure the menu and toolbar contents and then saving these changes in custom Roles so that you can produce a presentation scheme suitable for your working environment or personal tastes. I've been using UG/NX for 35+ years and have been supporting it in one fashion or another for our customers for over 32 years and the one thing that I've learned is that no matter what we add to or remove from the software, every customer has differing needs and differing requirements. Therefore flexibility, even at the expense of having the appearance of added complexity, has proven time and time again to be an ASSET and NOT a liability. And with that in mind we will continue to make NX even more customizable while we continue to add new and replace existing functions.

This is who we are and our customers expect nothing less.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

Still a bit off topic but relevant, I don't know how many times I (when working for Siemens) first received complaints that there was too many ways of doing things, The received enhancement requests to add more options, from the same person... " I would like to be able to do a special blend like this and this etc". It's a bit "Catch 22", If You need many different options / solutions there will be many options in the dialogs.
Siemens has taken steps to try simplify this by introducing the "Roles" which simply hide the more unusual commands.
The intention with the roles is also that users should simplify their user interface by hiding stuff they don't use.
Another difficult obstacle for Siemens ( all cad vendors) is that as soon as you plan to retire an old feature/ function, you can be sure that there will be people screaming that they cannot live without it.
NX has in that matter the long history as a burden, it's easier to implement drastic changes to the software the younger the software and the shorter the guaranteed ability to open old data.

Regards,
Tomas

RE: Pro-Engineer compared to NX7.5

I have always appreciated the business model of NOT eliminating the old ways automatically when new ones are introduced. First, the new ways are not always as stable and rhobust at first as the code writers intend. Second we always have some automation based on the old features that take time to migrate. Third, because time is money it is easy to fall back on the the old ways of doing things when work just has to get done, all while learning the new features. Way off topic because I have no cad comparison advice of relevence to add other than talking directly to users of other cad systems. Twenty four years on what is now NX, so take what I said with a grain of salt.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources