PDW- Is it a wild-goose chase? 3

[MFDO]

Hi,
I’m an experienced Die Designer and newbie to NX. I logged-in to this forum after a long time. (Used to be a SWx user)

My goal is to become a power-user with NX’s PDW, with an efficient throughput (automating all the repetitive and obvious work, the way I used to work before). Looking at the threads and comments here I notice that NX’s PDW is not quite popular among the users.

Am I chasing a wild-goose? Has anybody implemented it successfully with couple of weeks customisation (as an out of the box solution)? Any real success stories…?

I gladly appreciate your sincere thoughts.


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[DieMan44]

We are die shop and GM supplier that is using NX. We added the PDW years ago and my co-worker took a class for it. We have never completely implemented it because it is so cumbersome. We use some tools that come with it but other than that we design our dies in native NX. I had created some seed files (die set assembly with expressions that controls everything) that seems to work better and in a more logical way than the die plates that comes with the PDW. Also the part library is very small and out dated. Support for the PDW is pretty much non-existent. We are demoing Solid Works with Logopress, this seems far superior to the PDW.

 

[nxprog]

MFDO
I am in the process of implementing the PDW, and the way to get it done is training. The best training is "job specific" training. I would recommend working with a consultant closely with you to identify your specific needs. It’s not something that you’re going to implement fully in a couple of weeks. You need to implement the software piece by piece, starting with the strip layout, and then building a library.


NX 7.5/8.0/8.5/9.0

 

[MFDO]

Okay, with the formal PDW training, the first impression I got is that, it is a highly theoretical process and has a very rigid structure which is good for specialized and routine part manufactures. If you design variety of dies with new concepts every day, I’m wondering about the flexibility and the amount of templates we have to carry. I see a huge implementation time to customise according to all our needs.

I know still it’s little bit early to comment and I wish I got a wrong impression. Even to insert a screw, must select a template with correct direction which contains correct number of plates. Today I may use a screws to mount 2 parts vertically down, tomorrow thru 10 parts upwards and later in a different direction on a cam etc. ect.. To be efficient, do we need to capture templates for each and every possibility? It will be an enormous size of Reuse Libraries which will be very hard to maintain.

In other software, must only show the basic requirements. The mounting face (thread plate) and the Screw head plate (logical and practical). Then it captures the design intent and automatically insert the screw with correct standard lengths and pockets and details accordingly to each part it crosses (also have the possibility to customise further on fly adding more machining holes, springs, spacers, ejector pins etc. as needed to the axis).

Also I find it’s week on editing/changing a Ruse Library component. If I want a different screw mounting method, unable to change the screw mounting type since it is driven by one particular template. In this case, I think the only option is to delete and re-insert the new template (if I have one).

I'm not trying to find fault and criticize PDW. I just would like to see it strengthening and widening boundaries of its basic powers to use seamlessly in any practical situation, similar to adding CNC capability to a manual workshop (don't think of profile grinders and specialised tools beforehand).


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[MFDO]

Hi DieMan44,
I can see your posts thread561-205031 and thread561-103521 from 2004 trying to implement PDW.
Now you say you are considering Logopress after all these years of efforts?
I'm trying to revive three unused current PDW licences. Am I fighting a losing battle?


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[MFDO]

I’m being contacted outside of this forum to find more details of PDW and following is such:

Hello Mike,
I would like to talk to you about the NX prog die wizard…I am a user also in the process of implementing it.
I am curious to hear your take on the difference of the NX PDW and ********. You are the only person I have seen that has experience on both.
Let’s talk soon…
Regards,

I don’t mind sharing information personally but would like to have an open discussion with as many as possible so our cumulative voice will be helpful and heard by many other interested parties to make some educated criticism and decisions.

I know most of the NX users are big players with pride and don’t want to discuss shortcomings openly. But we should come out from the shell and demand our requirements and to shape the software we live with daily. As customers we are always right and hope our vendors know that.


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[3dr]

This thread is right at the core of my issues as a Tool Designer.

I've also developed a Expression driven NX Die Ass'y Template along with a "smart" part library that often looks to attributes within the ass'y template.

It's been a lot of hard work and I would say it's a BETA version at this point. However, it has proved to work well so far and I'm committed to continue the expansion.

What I don't like about the PDW and others like it is feeling like I'm being put in a box. I want and need the flexibility to go off the reservation at any time. Also, if something gets jammed up way down stream in a design, I can find a way out of it because the diagnostics are strait forward.

LOGO and PDW are scary in that regard.

My 2 cents

Dave

 

[MFDO]

What should we remember is how far is smart, smart? For a contract designer, it may be sufficient for him up to finish the assemblies fast by just subtracting “False” bodies. But when you are in a manufacturing environment, Design intent (the info of each feature=attributes) should be carried thru the downstream processes for an efficient throughput, which is one of the main points to use PDW or other die specific programs. (i.e doing repetitive work behind the screen feeding information to retrieve later down the road at detail drawings, Machining…) These days we talk about Feature based Machining, not part base machining as in the past.

Since these systems are evolving with each and every release, we have to be careful when we develop our own templates and Libraries. Soon or later those isolated methods could be obsolete. For instance if you have your own macros, Journals or grip programs you have to constantly update to keep up to the current. New Hole inserting method….How many can afford this?


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[3dr]

Yes MDFO, you are correct and well informed. There are some down sides to doing your own thing. No doubt.

We do a some other types of structures and tooling besides dies. And, I don't have the need to leverage the mfg content down stream. We just don't do enough of one specific discipline here. I just toss my design work over the proverbial fence as it were. The shop takes it from there.

I have tried to keep the customization fairly simple to minimize up keep down the road. Basic attributes and expressions drive everything. I have no Grip or NX Open content. Tho I would love something just to make the editing of the "part" Attributes easier. I just posted my appeal here,

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=350160

The smart content parts are just models that will morph to anything within a part family. Ex: "Dadco C Series gas spring" Then report the catalog # and other info back to the BOM.

Takes away a good bit of the tedium.

Dave

 

[MFDO]

@ 3DR, In other CAD software, File Properties (= NX Part Attributes) could be accessed by Windows Explorer's file properties. There are plenty of 3rd party programs available to Add/edit/delete these properties outside CAD.

Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[MFDO]

3dr,
If I’m not mistaken NX’s Part Family=SWx part Configurations.

By experience I know, if a SWx parts are having too many part configurations, Large assembly performance (rebuild time) goes down. I wonder if this is the reason that PDW adopted inserting table driven standard components.

I was looking for NX’s best practices documentation and still couldn’t find any. I wold like if anybody could share if such exist.


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks

 

[MFDO]

Has anybody using “Component Array” function to drive stack of library components/sub-assembly in an assembly? I.e. a Sketch/feature (tap hole) pattern driven. ex. Screws, Dowels, pins and bushings etc.

It seems to be working but seems to be having a glitch of multiplying number of components (some times).


Michael Fernando (CSWE)

http://www.solidCADworks.com

Tool and Die Designer
Siemens NX V8.5 + PDW
SWX 2013 SP3.0 X64
PDMWorks 2013
Logopress3
FastForm Advance
FormatWorks