Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

Pro v Unigraphics

biff

New member
Need some honest opinions along with facts as to whether Pro/E is better than UG!



On what basis do you state your case?
 

sandoz90

New member
well, i am currently trying to get a translator to bring in solidworks into proe2001. however i went on solidworks website and they slate the sh** out of proe and the unix OS.



this did really annoy me and made me think not to use a translator at all and tell my bosses that i cant do the work so i'll have to remodel all parts and do OT.



so solidworks have increased my productivity by using pro e and made my bosses pay more for my work .



i will not be made to use a windows system and i will nto fall into billgates wallet.



pro e is far superior

the end
 

jrchrist

New member
If you do any sheetmetal design, then Pro/E's sheetmetal package blows the UG version away!



I am a Pro/E user since 16, and just recently learned UG v.16 and 18. It is difficult to have an objective opinion on the core modeling features of both. I prefer Pro/E but that is probably because I have more run time on that than UG.



UG has some weakness in its sketch functionality, and it also is very weak on datum features, especially curves and points (which are not parametric!)



Pro/E is weak on assembly constraint options (as of 2001), and it is also not the greatest drafting tool (even with Pro/DETAIL.) I hope Wildfire addresses these issues.



Bottom line for me: It's more about the person driving the mouse and keyboard than it is about the software. Both Pro/E and UG are undoubtedly 2 of the top 3 MCAD solutions, and used correctly, can enhance product design and development.



-James-
 

swcalvert

New member
Why is it when someone asks about Pro/E vs. UG does Solid Works show up? SW is NOT a Unigraphics product.



Again, this is a very hard question to answer. I have been using UG for 7 versions now and I've been using Pro/E for less than 6 months and I have to say UG is easier to learn. It is not better than or worse than UG, but more the same. I mean, you can normally get a finished model in about the same number of steps. I love the Pro/E sketcher except for the fact that you can't do multiple cuts or protrusions within one sketch (I may be wrong but that's what I've been told). I love how UG looks, it takes up the whole screen and uses lots of icons. I love the drag and drop functions within UG (I'm not sure how Wildfire works yet, but hopfully it will have some of the same functions), you can drag components around within the assembly structure, you can drag features around within the feature structure.



Remember, it's not the software that makes a good model, it's the designer.



hope this helps,



steve c
 

nkpham

New member
for those who work in any of the CAD programs, do any of you do bridge design? I have problems with Pro E, but it's not really the program's fault since it wasn't specifically designed for these purposes. some people are telling me to use UG, but I don't know if that is bridge design oriented either.
 

Orgatech

New member
My experienced opinion is that UG is less organized and confusing if You look at the interface with all the icons, whereas in proe You only see those Buttons which make sense in using at the moment and follow the design intent. The sketcher works faster and also is award winning. Proe has two types of Assembly connections - those for static connections and those for movable connections and there has just so far for me never been a been a mechanism - from cam to gear case that I was not able to animate.
 

swcalvert

New member
Orgatech, you are correct that you see many more icons with UG, by design. I hope that when I see the Wildfire interface, it's as good as UG. UG is set up like any other Windows program: menaning that you can drag and drop your toolbars, either docked or un-docked, to wherever you want them. AND you can turn off/on whatever icons you want to see and use. UG kicks Pro/E's butt when it come to current version interface (V18 UG vs. Pro 2001). And the icon look has been part of UG since Version 16, when it went windows.



You are correct that Pro/E's sketcher is much better than V18 UG. I love how it's set up for reference edges.



steve c
 

swcalvert

New member
And another thing. My friend James (see above) makes a very good statement about sheetmetal design. If you are looking to design sheetmetal, then Pro/E is the way to go. I'm embarrassed about UG's sheetmetal package.



steve c
 

rexley

New member
SWCALVERT,

While in sketcher mode, you are able to do multiple sketches

or protrusions and cuts. I do it from time to time. Just

remember that all entities sketched in a single sketch mode

will have the same depth. Also, the more complicated you

make in a single sketch mode tends to add some delays while

sketching as well as during a part regen. Experiment with it!



Ron E.
 

swcalvert

New member
Yes, Ron I releaize that, it's just I 've been told by other Pro/E users that having multiple closed looped entities in one sketch is not good practice in Pro. In UG I would sketch on one plane all the bosses, cuts, ribs and extrusions that I would need for the inside of a plastic enclosure. Each feature would still be dependant on that one sketch, it's just now I could see all I needed in one sketch. I like that kind of knowledge up front and, I'll also say, that I love the way Pro/E uses features along with sketches. I mean I don't have to worry about what layer I need showing when I edit a feature, beacuse the sketch is part of that feature, where as, in UG, the skestch is a feature by itself.



steve c
 

miked

New member
You can create a sketched datum curve to capture your intent ie bosses, ribs and catches then refer to them in sketch mode with the use edge command. When you update the datum sketch the features will update. This will give you the up front knowledge and it can drive your parts and assemblies.

Mike
 

jbland

New member
i think maybe a lot of the reason why SW comes up when UG is mentioned is because they run on the same kernel. ug's kernel, parasolids. so modeling functionality should be exactly the same. how you get there with picks may be slightly different though.



parasolids is used by ironcad, sw and solidedge. as far as overall funtionality goes none of these including UG touch Pro/E. as far as a specific purpose you have to weigh that and go with the best package for that specific purpose.



drafting and detailing have never been a strong point for Pro/E. my belief here is that ptc believes model based manufacturing will erase the need for drafting packages all together. why spend the money in development on something that will be of the past soon.
 

swcalvert

New member
To jbland:



Parasolid is the kernal that UG, SW, Solid Edge and many other are written on. There are more parasolid seats in the world than the kernal that Pro/E is written on. Now, having said this, this doesn't make one CAD software better than any other. What makes one better than another is the interface, functionality, tools and so on. After having seen 2001 and now Wildfire, I think Pro/E is a very good, if not the best tool around. I do think that the Windows based systems like UG are easier to use and Wildfire is a start in that direction.



Steve C
 

skuld

New member
Hi Guys.....



Now it's my turn. I use UG, Pro/E and CATIA (I also use AutoCAD but I don't Normaly admit to that ^_^) . What you will find in most lager companies ia a mix of CAD software. From the perspective of a Product designer Pro/E is pretty good Our product engineering department love Pro/E. Its major strengths are the parametrics and relativly easy learning curve. The first part of the curve is steep but once you get your head around the sketcher and some basic princpals the you can pick allot up as you go. It functions best with mechanical type designs (I supose thats why the word engineer is included in it's name). Its surfacing can be a little grumpy to use and not particulaly good in the area of Free form Oganic type suracing but it was never intended as a nurbs / organic modeler.



But if you walk across to our tool design area you see mostly UG workstations. UG is wonderfull for working with Unparamatized features IE the type of solids outputed from translation files. Asemblies can quite hapily be just salped down in model space and you can get to work there and then. Dont wory about mating conditions constraints, reference features etc... If a component isnt where you want it, no problem just move it in an X, Y and Z direction and your there. (but you can assign mating conditions is you want).



GM have a great set up with there parts in a motor car. You just model every every component about the vehical co-ordinate system (a point in front of the front bumper bar) and assembly is a doodle just bring all the parts into the assy about a co-ordinate system and there is all is. Ther is no real problem if you have a multiple use for that part because you can just add more co-ordinate systems or you simply X,Y,Z translate the part to a new postion no messy constriants, no ugly reference features



UG is also very tolerent about modeling practises as well some people accuse UG of being loose and slack but a bit of modeling dicsapline up front and you can build any thing.



UG also is better equioed to deal with oganic type models

The UG suface models can read point scans from a file and use these to generate surfaces. No messy datum planes or curves just a set of points outputed from a coorinate measuring machine and you've got yourself a UG sheet body that look like the clay model out in the artist's studio.



So I hope that might help settle the question. Like the others I am not going to say one is better than the other because I like both. But I will add the statement that you should look at what type of design work you are doing and what sets of tools each package provides. But in the end of the day for general engineering work both are equal top of the list.
 

Sponsor

Top