UG (Unigraphics NX) is an interactive CAD/CAM system, a software used for three-dimensional drawing. It is powerful and can easily realize the construction of various complex entities and shapes. UG is developed and implemented based on C language. It is a flexible software tool for numerically solving partial differential equations developed using the adaptive multigrid method on unstructured grids in two- and three-dimensional spaces.
The operating environment of this tutorial: Windows 7 system, Dell G3 computer.
What software is ug
UG (Unigraphics NX) is a product engineering solution produced by Siemens PLM Software. It provides users with Product design and processing processes provide digital modeling and verification means. Unigraphics NX provides proven solutions for users' virtual product design and process design needs, as well as to meet various industrial needs. UG is also the abbreviation of user guide and universal grammar.
This is an interactive CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) system. It is powerful and can easily realize the construction of various complex entities and shapes. At the beginning of its birth, it was mainly based on workstations. However, with the development of PC hardware and the rapid growth of individual users, its application on PCs has achieved rapid growth and has become a mainstream application for 3D design in the mold industry.
The development of UG began in 1969, and it was developed and implemented based on C language. UG NX is a flexible software tool for numerically solving partial differential equations developed using adaptive multigrid methods on unstructured grids in two and three dimensions.
Effective simulation of a given process requires knowledge from the applied field (natural sciences or engineering), mathematics (analytical and numerical mathematics) and computer science. However, the use of all these technologies in complex applications is not too easy. This is because combining all these methods requires enormous complexity and cross-disciplinary knowledge. Some very successful techniques for solving partial differential equations, especially adaptive mesh refinement and multigrid methods, have been studied by mathematicians in the past decade. At the same time, with the huge progress in computer technology, especially It is the development of large-scale parallel computers that has brought many new possibilities.
The difference between UG software and PROE
One of the comparisons
UG is mainly suitable for large-scale Automobile and aircraft factories build complex digital models, while PRO/E is mainly suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises to quickly build simpler digital models. When the modeling is more complex, often any parameters are useless. I usually use PRO/E to create relatively simple wireframes and surfaces, and then transfer to UG to create advanced surfaces and chamfer them. Due to repeated product changes, most of the parameters have been deleted. Both softwares have their own advantages and should be mixed for modeling to achieve the best results. When the parts are larger and more complex, ug is generally used for digital modeling, cimatron is used for rough machining, and ug is used for finishing.
Comparison 2
I have always felt that these two software are very close in modeling ideas (in fact, this is indeed the case overall ), but maybe it’s because UG hasn’t arrived home yet, so I always feel very uncomfortable in many places.
A few questions are listed below, please give expert guidance:
1. About hybrid modeling. One of the biggest features of UG is hybrid modeling, which I understand means that irrelevant features are allowed to exist in a model. For example, during the modeling process, the base point of the feature construction can be created by moving and rotating the coordinate system. These features appear to have no positional correlation with previously created features. Because there is no record of coordinate system transformation in NAVIGATOR TREE (similar to the model tree in Pro/E). Another example is the creation of BASIC CURVE, which is not recorded as a parametric feature in the NAVIGATOR TREE. For example, if I want to change an arc curve into a spline curve, it is very difficult, and sometimes the change does not affect the changes of the sub-features. In Pro/E, there is great emphasis on the full correlation of features. All features have a strict parent-child relationship according to the order of creation and reference. Modifications to the parent feature will be reflected on the child feature. I once asked the UG technical engineers of EDS in Shanghai about this issue. They said that full correlation can be said to be a double-edged sword. For experienced designers, design modifications will be very convenient, but for designers with little experience, it will be very convenient. , it is very easy to have errors that cannot be generated after modification. In this case, hybrid modeling is more suitable.
2. Regarding Datum point, Datum point in Pro/E is a very powerful function, and all reference points are fully related and will change as the parent feature changes. In many cases in UG, points are irrelevant. For example, select the midpoint of one side of a cuboid as a reference to create another feature. When the side length of the cuboid is increased, the position of the midpoint does not change with the change of the side length, and the position of the features made later will not change, so it cannot truly reflect the design intention. (I just learned UG and I don’t know much about UG. This is just my feeling now).
3. Regarding curve and Sketch, all sketched sections in Pro/e are parameterized size driven, while in UG only Sketch sketched sections are parameterized, while curve is a non-parametric feature. Not sure if my understanding is correct? I once read a UG book. In the surface modeling examples above, the curves are all constructed using curves, and spline curves are constructed by inputting intermediate control points. I think it may be very difficult to modify the model by modifying curves. In addition, in UG, under-constraints are allowed in Sketch, but this is completely unacceptable in Pro/e.
4. In terms of surface modeling, many people say that UG's surface function is very powerful. After comparing it with Pro/e (2000 version), I think it is indeed the case. UG not only provides richer surface construction tools, but also can control the accuracy and shape of the surface through some additional parameters (relatively less in Pro/e). In addition, UG's surface analysis tools are also extremely rich.
5. Regarding the interface, although Pro/e has a "face" of Windows, it is actually a Dos program transplanted from the UNIX operating system. It does not support Windows file type links. Start Pro /e is actually executing a proe2000.bat batch file. Moreover, based on the security of UNIX, multiple saves of a file will produce multiple versions of the same file, which is very different from UG. In Pro/e, the working path is a very important concept for an assembly. If the search path is not set in config.pro, an error will occur when the parts in the assembly are not in the working path, because opening the assembly means that the assembly will All sub-assemblies and parts are loaded into the memory. If there is no search path setting, the program cannot find the parts. It seems to be different in UG. When opening an assembly, you can sometimes use the partially load method, which will occupy less system resources.
6. Regarding operations, UG divides many standardized features (similar to the click and place features in Pro/e) very carefully, such as Pocket, Slot, etc. This is equivalent to merging several Pro/e features into one. In Pro/e, there are more sketching features, which may not be as efficient as UG modeling, but it has greater flexibility. For example, it may be very difficult to change a round hole to a square hole in UG because they are two different features, but in Pro/e, it is very easy. ? The above are some comparisons between the two softwares. It may be because I am more familiar with Pro/e. I personally think that if the design you are engaged in does not have too many surface shapes, using Pro/e will be more flexible. sex. Of course, if you want to create curved surfaces, UG may be better. It should be noted that my understanding of UG is not in-depth. If some of the above opinions are incorrect, I also hope that everyone can give me your opinions. Thank you!
Comparison 3:
1. One of the biggest features of UG is hybrid modeling.
2. You can use constraints to control correlation. There are related points in UG18 SKETCH, which are parameterized, and the points can also be dimensioned!
3. The Taiwan version of the book is misleading, but it also illustrates another method of modeling. ?One thing should be clear. For the surfaces and entities constructed by CURVE, modifying CURVE can also change the entities or surfaces!
4. Needless to say, curved surfaces!
5. UG is also transplanted from the workstation. The interface is relatively friendly. The file format of UG is only PRT, which can include engineering drawings and processing. . . Waiting for all the information!
6. It is very simple to change the round holes in UG to square holes (the same is true for others), just redefine the lines used by the features!
Comparison 4:
I originally wanted to talk about UG and PRO/E, but after thinking about it, based on everyone’s actual use, in general They are almost the same, but each has its own usage habits. I only started to contact and use UG in 2013, and started using PRO/E in 2008. Now UG and PRO/E occupy the same position in my work. It is best if the two softwares can learn from each other's strengths. Personally, I prefer PRO/E for design, and have stronger UG capabilities. I can do it handily in all aspects. For some messy surfaces, lines, mold changes, design changes, UG is still easier to use. Smoother, at least you can remove the parameters at any time and reduce the feature tree. PRO/E also has advantages in assembly design, and the sketch function is unmatched by UG, so. . . . It depends on personal habits.
Comparison Five:
Since everyone has said so much, let me say a few words:
1. It should be said UG The comprehensive capabilities are very powerful: from product design to mold design to processing to analysis to rendering, it covers almost everything.
2.pro emphasizes pure all-related product design, which seems a bit weak.
3. As for which one is better, it actually depends on how much we can use it. For most users, I believe that both software can complete the functions we require.
4. If you require a generalist, then of course UG is the first choice. If you only do product design, you can do it, but you must learn to be proficient and not simply
The key to talking about which software is good is that you can use it to do it. How many things.
5. From the perspective of beginners, I recommend that there are video teachers that are better to watch. The books are boring and can easily make you sleepy.
The videos are vivid and make learning easier, making it easier to learn UG. Can get started faster and better.
6. GUI interface, functions can be marked with icons, making it clear at a glance.
Comparison 6:
Let’s talk about format conversion!
UG’s core PARASOLID is supported by most 3D software! Only PROE insists on the simplest!
The most commonly used processing software is MASTERCAM, and PROE can only be converted through the original IGES or STEP.
Comparison 7:
ug’s surface and rendering can be said to be perfect!
Proe seems to be doing this kind of thing, everyone thinks it’s a little weak! I have never seen a picture of this rendering quality from Proe!
I use both UG and PRO/E. PRO does a good job in solid modeling, but surface modeling, parametric modeling, TOP-DOWN modeling and hybrid modeling are not so good. PRO is not suitable for large-scale assembly, and its assembly technology needs to be improved. As for CAE, the two softwares use different solvers. In this aspect, UG is better than PRO/E.
As for CAM processing, UG is generally used. I can’t explain why because I don’t use it. In terms of molds, UG is still better, and UG is better for sheet metal and aviation sheet metal.
The two software development starting points are different. PRO/E is mostly used in small processing enterprises, while UG is mostly used in automobile and shipbuilding enterprises. As for industrial design, I have to mention that SOLIDWORKS was the first to enter the Chinese market. The interface style is very suitable for Chinese people to use, and the plug-in integration is quite superior. Many institutions such as the Army Research Institute still favor this software, followed by CATIA developed by the French company Dassault for the aviation field, which is also quite superior. This software may become a trend in the design world. Those who make molds have to say that TOP-SOLD is an expert in progressive molds. The software developed specifically for molds, I-DEAS casting molds, is his strong point. Its analysis function is quite superior and is developed by the same company as UGS. As for industrial styling, I still favor Rhino, the world-recognized prince of curved surfaces. It is also worth mentioning that another software from PTC called Surface Magician is only specialized in curved surfaces.
ANSYS is generally considered the leader in industrial analysis, but ALGOR that has appeared in recent years is also quite good. The interface between this software and various industrial design software is quite good, even in SOLIDWORKS It can be used directly as a plug-in.
Such things are dazzling, but no matter what software is used, it is a tool after all. The key is the person who uses tools, even if he uses CAD, he can design good products. Excessive pursuit of software perfection is not what we designers have to do. What we have to do is to be proficient in a software and use this software to do our own business well.
For more related knowledge, please visit theFAQcolumn!
The above is the detailed content of What software is ug?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!
