Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
ST2 the verdict - So far 1
- Thread starter karmoh
- Start date
PatCouture
Mechanical
Hi karmoh
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
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
beachcomber
Mechanical
I've been working on V20 for a few months, but ST1 before that. I have to admit I took a while to get used to the interface of ST1, and I don't think its as productive as V20 interface.
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.
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.
-
1
- Thread starter
- #4
beachcomber
Mechanical
I started the new job but still on ST1 so I can't comment yet. One of our partners in the project is staying on ST1 for now so we have to.
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.
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.
bc
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
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
We switched to ST2 yesterday. It seems to be a little more stable and some of the icons have moved or been resized. The relate functions in assembly are no longer a drop down but rather a collection of icons.
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?)
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?)
For those who did use shortcuts for hiding or showing all sketches, curves, surfaces, etc., you can add them to the quick access toolbar and then use alt + (# - depending on order they are added) as a "workaround." It's now just a matter of relearning the shortcuts. Just make sure they are in the same order in part & sheetmetal environments (not available in assembly) to avoid confusion.
PatCouture
Mechanical
I don't see a reason for sticking with ST1. As teebarr said the improvements are minor but they make a difference. they removed a lot of nonsense we were seeing in ST1. Of course the new GUI is not perfect but I'm getting used to it. In ST2 they added a lot of buttons to the home toolbar so there is less switching between tabs.
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
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
- Thread starter
- #10
Thanks for the input guys,
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
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
Sorry if this seems slightly off-topic, but there does seem to be some new bugs in ST 2, here are some (or all) of the ones I've experienced in these first few days:
- 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).
- 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).
beachcomber
Mechanical
Just wondering if anyone has done anything complex in Sync mode yet, and then modified it ?
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?
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?
- Thread starter
- #13
First Impressions,
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.
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.
beachcomber
Mechanical
Hi karmoh,
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.
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?
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.
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?
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
beachcomber ... IMO, the best thing about the SolidWorks implementation of the Ribbon Bar is the inclusion of a disable option. Same for the latest Mouse Gestures fad.
One other thing for SolidWorks is you still have access to the old toolbars, and can customize them, and keep the ribbon. I was surprised to see that on the 2009-2010 Educational version.
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.karmoh said:
- Thread starter
- #17
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
![[tongue]](/data/assets/smilies/tongue.gif "[tongue] [tongue]")
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.
![[sadeyes]](/data/assets/smilies/sadeyes.gif "[sadeyes] [sadeyes]")
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.
for those that have the localized German version of ST2 might
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
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
beachcomber
Mechanical
I know this is going off topic a bit, but just to add to my last posting, I think its time for SE to catch up with other systems in terms of USEFULL functionality - especially (and I never thought I'd say this) with SolidWorks.
Have a look at these vids.
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?
Have a look at these vids.
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?
Thanks for the vids, beachcomber.
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...
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...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question