NX4 Save As NX2 1

[PieBoy]

Hello all, probably a simple answer, tried to search but it's not working.

We have a guy doing some design work, he is working on NX4, our customer requires NX2 files. Can someone guide me thro' the method of "save as" or exporting to NX2.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Dave K]

You'll have to export the solid as a parasolid (at the NX2 version level), and then import that into an NX2 part file.

-Dave
Everything should be designed as simple as possible, but not simpler.

 

[PieBoy]

Thank you for the reply, my guy has tried this and this method losses the drawing ect that have been produced.

Is there an after market converter, or additional plugins for NX4? Sorry for my ignorance, I'm a Pro-E man.

 

[jackley]

For drawing export, you'd have to do something like a .cgm or .pdf. It would be 2 files that go to the customer (parasolid and another format).

Justin Ackley
Designer
jackley@gmail.com

 

[PieBoy]

Ok so essentially there is no way to save a NX4 to an NX2, the customer wants NX2 drawings/parts/Assy to open in their version of NX2.

Is this correct?

 

[JohnRBaker]

There is no downward compatiblity in most any CAD system including UGS NX. If you wish to preserve as much of the model drawing content as possible, you will need to use something like STEP or IGES to move newer files back to an older format. The Parasolid export route is recommended for moving surface and solid models where there is a need for an exact (non-conversion) representation, such as moving a design model from a newer version to a older system for manufacturing. However, only the surface and solid model can be moved in this manner.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
UGS NX Product Line
SIEMENS
UGS PLM Software
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/ugs

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[PieBoy]

Well thank you all for your help, seems like I'm up the creak with out a paddle. Something we should have checked with our customer.

Thanks again.

 

[Xwheelguy]

John,

Is it even possible, with the addition of new tools, to have NX save as a previous version, or is this area just something UGS hasn't investigated thoroughly enough to find out if it can even be done in some manner other than a dumb solid in the end? AutoCAD was able to do it back in R14 (SAVEASR12) and it worked well for 2D data, but I'm not sure how well it worked with 3D data and retaining any history.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

 

[jackley]

Tim, I have often wondered this. Seems like, this is coming from a non-programmer, that with the technology you would be able to. I can 'save as' to Catia, Iges, Step, Autocad files. But I can't 'save as' to a previous version of Unigraphics.

Would make things nice.

Any ideas John?

Justin Ackley
Designer
jackley@gmail.com

 

[Xwheelguy]

Yeah, the lack of knowing what limitations exist for software can quickly bring to an end something that seems like good idea at the time.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

 

[JohnRBaker]

OK, how do I account for a new feature type that was added in NX 4 that NX 2 does not understand? Remember, NX 2 was written before we knew what was going to be in NX 4, so how do I convert that new NX 4 feature type into something that doesn't exisit in NX 2?

BTW, NX is not unique in this respect. While some systems might allow it, becareful about what you might be giving up. Autodesk is a very simple system when it comes to the types of geometric objects that it creates. I suspect that you would have problems doing that with Inventor. And I'm almost positive that Catia or Pro/E doesn't support anything like that either.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
UGS NX Product Line
SIEMENS
UGS PLM Software
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/ugs

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[Xwheelguy]

Yeah, I didn't consider the drastic changes that had gone on during the NX series so far. Hopefully there won't be as drastic a change (at least to "basic" modeling commands like Extrude and Revolve, etc.) in the future releases of NX, which might allow for some more flexibility in this area.

Catia has a converter that's basically the same as NX saving out or importing Parasolids. Nothing keeps the history of the model during the conversion.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

 

[looslib]

Pro/E is no different than NX in that they cannot save to an older version format.


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

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[MSPBenson]

I appreciate this is a big thing but I belive something could be done to help the matter a bit.
It wouldn't beyond the wit of programmers to create a routine to export out the part and the drawing as dumb entities into a prt file that could be used to backward save. At least older versions of ug would actually be able to view them with this.
You could almost have something that runs through the part and if it hits new geometry that isn't handled in an old version then it dumbs that feature and it's children only. Granted some models will come out as useful as a parasolid but on the flip side some will actually be workable. Considering that a large proportion of the updates in the latest versions of UG were interface driven then this isn't as bad as it sounds.

In all honesty I believe that CAD packages in general (not pointing any fingers) use this "it's hard to do this" excuse as a reason to force people to upgrade to the newest version of their CAD package. They also seem to forget that if they differentiate they will have a sales angle.
That last bit is only my opinion though )


Mark Benson
Aerodynamic Model Designer

 

[JohnRBaker]

It wouldn't beyond the wit of programmers to create a routine to export out the part and the drawing as dumb entities into a prt file that could be used to backward save.

We actually have 2 'utilities' that will do just that. They're called IGES and STEP.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
UGS NX Product Line
SIEMENS
UGS PLM Software
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/ugs

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[MSPBenson]

John,

I'm talking about a routine that will take BOTH the drawing and the part geometry and place them into a single file. You can't do this with either IGES or STEP.
Currently this is lengthy process if you want to do this manually especially if you have to do this for a large number of parts on a day to day basis.
I could probably program this myself using nxopen so that you just have to hit a button and supply a path but it's the sort of thing many people would benefit from and I believe would merit being included in the core of NX.

Cheers,


Mark Benson
Aerodynamic Model Designer

 

[JohnRBaker]

I don't understand what you saying. If the files are currently NOT in the same file, why are you trying to back-load them into a single file anyway?

However, this is a moot argument since we're not going to do this as it would be a waste of valuable time and money on our part, and trust me, if this were allowed to fall into the hands of people who don't really know what they are doing, it would cause so much confusion and mistakes that the whole idea of have a robust single math-model that defines your product would be jeopordized. At least when you do an IGES/STEP conversion that are no illusions as to what you're getting.



John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
UGS NX Product Line
SIEMENS
UGS PLM Software
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/ugs

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[MSPBenson]

John,

Sorry for the confusion.
Some of us still aren't in the land of master model concept and have both the drawing and the model geomtery in the same part.
The same would apply for a master model drawing and seperate model part.
If you want to export these to an old version of UG it is a laborious process and this could be easily achieved programatically.

To be clear I'm only talking about a cgm version of the drawing and a parasolid version of the model here (both "dumb" geometry").

Sometimes the fact that the parts aren't parametric can be a blessing. If you are a supplier to other firms you don't really want to send them a parametric model if you own the design. However being able to supply versions of your models and drawings (master model or not) to any older version of UG would be very useful.



Mark Benson
Aerodynamic Model Designer

 

[JohnRBaker]

If that's all you want to do, that could probably be done using NX Open.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
UGS NX Product Line
SIEMENS
UGS PLM Software
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/ugs

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[cbrn]

Hi,
I don't want to disagree with anybody herein, and I can easily conceive the problem of interpreting "new features" in a version which didn't supported them, BUT...
The example of Pro/Engineer, which has been done previously, is not correct.
I don't know how things go now with Wildfire, but back in the times of versions 19, 18 and 17, PTC was very proud of the fact that whatever version of Pro/E would open whatever file created in the same "family" of products, i.e. they DID have backward/forward compatibility. I say that because I used this opportunity when I was at Univ and the Mech Dept was already on v.19 when I myself still was on v.17 at home because of a Student license.
Don't ask me how this was possible: I suspect that, when an unrecognized feature was encountered, it was unparametrized and the pure-CSG description used instead. In fact, opening a file coming from a "future" version could take a very long time.
OK, probably it's "a waste of time" (sic) for programmers to incorporate routines in order to do that, but the story I mention demonstrate that at least it is technically possible. Hystory tree, roll-back, etc are one thing; parametric description of a topology is another thing (mathematically speaking) and I really don't understand why it would be said that this latter couldn't be preserved, whichever the method / features used to create it.
Do you want another example? OK, ANSYS will import topology directly from UG, including parameters. Afterwards, you can even switch UG off but ANSYS will continue being able to modify the geometry using the imported parameters, as long as the topology is not violated of course. From Ansys' point of view, the TOPOLOGY is "dumb" BUT still parametric.

Regards