The second comparison
A user's idea:
I have been using Pro/E for several years, and I am learning UG recently. I always feel that the two softwares are very close in modeling ideas (in fact, the overall idea is true), but it may be because UG hasn't arrived home yet, and I always feel that many places are not suitable. Here are a few questions, please give me some advice:
1. About hybrid modeling. One of the biggest characteristics of UG is hybrid modeling. I understand that irrelevant features are allowed in a model. For example, in the process of modeling, the base point of feature construction can be created by moving and rotating the coordinate system. These features seem to have no positional correlation with previously created features. Because there is no record of coordinate system transformation in the navigation tree (similar to the model tree in Pro/E). Another example is the creation of a basic curve, which is not recorded as a parameter feature in the navigation tree. For example, it is difficult for me to change an arc curve into a spline curve, and sometimes it does not affect the change of sub-features. In Pro/E, the complete association of features is emphasized, and all features have strict parent-child relationship according to the order of creation and reference. Modifications to the parent feature will definitely be reflected in the child feature. I once asked UG technical engineers of EDS in Shanghai about this question, and they said that full correlation can be said to be a double-edged sword. For experienced designers, design modification will be very convenient, while for designers with little experience, it is very easy to make mistakes that cannot be generated after modification. At this time, hybrid modeling is more applicable.
2. With regard to datum point, datum point in Pro/E is a very powerful function. All reference points are completely related and will change with the change of parent features. In many cases in UG, the point is irrelevant. For example, select the midpoint of one side of a box as a reference for another feature. When the side length of the cuboid increases, the position of the midpoint does not change with the change of the side length, and the feature position made later will not change, which can not truly reflect the design intention. Maybe my UG is too shallow to master. )
3. Regarding curves and sketches, in Pro/e, all sketch sections are driven by parametric dimensions, while in UG, only sketch sections are parametric, and curves are nonparametric features. I don't know if my understanding is correct. I once read a UG book (Quark's). In the above surface modeling example, curves are all constructed by curves, and square curves are all constructed by inputting intermediate control points. I think it may be difficult to modify the model by modifying the curve. In addition, in UG, underconstraints are allowed in sketches, but not in Pro/e at all.
4. In surface modeling, many people say that UG's surface function is very powerful. Compared with Pro/e(2000 edition), I think so. UG not only provides richer tools for surface construction, but also can control the precision and shape of the surface through some other parameters (relatively few in Pro/e). In addition, UG's surface analysis tools are also extremely rich.
5. Regarding the interface, although Pro/e has the "face" of Windows, it is actually a Dos program transplanted from the UNIX operating system and does not support the file type link of Windows. Starting Pro/e is actually executing a batch file of proe2000.bat, and based on the security of UNIX, saving a file many times will produce multiple versions of the same file, which is very different from UG. In Pro/e, working path is a very important concept for assembly. If you don't set the search path in config.pro, an error will occur when the parts in the assembly are not under the working path, because opening the assembly means that all subassemblies and parts in the assembly will be transferred to memory. Without the setting of search path, the program can't find the part. It seems different in UG. Sometimes, you can use the method of partial loading to open an assembly, which will take up less system resources.
6. With regard to operation, UG has divided many normalized features (similar to the point-and-place features in Pro/e) in detail, such as Pocket and Slot, which is equivalent to merging several Pro/e features into one. In Pro/e, however, it is more about drawing features, which may not be as efficient as UG modeling, but it is more flexible. For example, it may be difficult to change a round hole into a square hole in UG, because these are two different features, but in Pro/e, it is very easy.
The above is my comparison between the two softwares, which may be because I am familiar with Pro/e. Personally, I think Pro/E will be more flexible if the design I am engaged in does not have too many curved surfaces. Of course, if you want to make a surface, UG may be better.
It should be noted that my understanding of UG is really not deep. I also hope to communicate with you about some incorrect views above. Thank you!
Comparison 3:
One of the biggest characteristics of 1 and UG is mixed modeling.
2. Relevance can be controlled by constraints. There are related points in UG 18 sketch, which are parameterized, and points can also be dimensioned!
3. The Taiwan Province edition is suspected of misleading others' children, but it also illustrates another modeling method.
One thing is clear, for surfaces and solids constructed by curves, modifying curves can change solids or surfaces!
4, the surface is needless to say!
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 machining. . . Wait for all the information!
6. It is very simple to change a round hole into a square hole in UG (the same is true for others). Just redefine the line used by the feature!
The fourth comparison:
Originally, I wanted to talk about UG and Pro/E, but after thinking about it, the actual use of UG and PRO/E is basically the same, but each has its own usage habits. 1996 began to contact and use UG, 1998 began to use pro/e. Now UG and PRO/E occupy the same position in my work, so the two softwares had better learn from each other. Personally, I think PRO/E is biased towards design, and UG is more capable and handy in all aspects. For some messy surfaces, lines, mold modifications, design modifications and UG, it is still relatively smooth to use, at least you can remove parameters and reduce feature trees at any time. PRO/E also has advantages in assembly design, and the sketch function is beyond UG's, so. . . . Look at personal habits.
The fifth comparison:
Since everyone has said so much, let me say a few words:
1。 It should be said that UG's comprehensive ability is very strong: from product design to mold design to processing to analysis to rendering, it is almost all-encompassing;
2。 Pro emphasizes simple all-related product design, which seems a bit weak;
3。 As for which is better, it actually depends on how much we can use it. For most users, I believe that both softwares can complete the functions we require.
4。 If you need a generalist, UG is the first choice. If you do product design alone, you can do it, but you must learn it well. Don't simply say which software is good. The key is how much you can do with it!
5。 From a beginner's point of view, my personal opinion is that UG can get started and learn by itself faster!
6。 GUI interface, the function can remember icons at a glance, plus now there are more UG materials!
If you are offended, please advise!
Contrast 6:
UG is the first choice for learning mold design. There are standard parts of the mold, such as a simple set of mold, 5-minute mold, 5-minute mold blank, thimble and other standard parts, and 30-minute water distribution, but you need to have practical experience in mold design.
Contrast 7:
Support UG, because the parting of PROE is really not as good as UG. Little brother, I use PROE for two years and UG for one year. Please give me more advice.
Contrast 8:
UG is a hybrid modeling, which can be parameterized locally (of course, it is no problem to parameterize completely), which is beneficial to model updating.
PTC is completely parameterized, and it is ok to edit and update small designs (household appliances), but large ones (airplanes and cars) will not crash once, and its refresh time will affect designers' thinking.
Contrast 9:
Pro/E is very market-conscious. At that time, AutoCAD occupied the CAD market in China, and there was a software IntelliCAD abroad, which was no worse than AutoCAD. I heard that many functions are better than AutoCAD. However, due to the development of domestic piracy and AutoDesk's advanced thinking, AutoCAD quickly occupied the domestic market, which is rare in other countries. Pro/E has also learned the practice of AutoCAD, so that piracy will occupy the China market, and more people will meet it and enterprises will recognize it, which will gradually form a scale effect.
There is a rule in the market that the best is not necessarily the most used. Windows operating system is not the best, but it is the most, especially the broken 98. In order to help UG company better fight PTC, is it recommended to pirate more UGs?
Similarly, with UG company, why not write CAST and Document in Chinese will play a certain role in the development of UG market.
Tenth comparison:
Talk about format conversion! PARASOLID, the core of UG, is generally supported by more than three-dimensional software. Only PROE insists on the simplest! MASTERCAM is the most widely used processing software, and PROE can only be converted into AZ through original IGES or STEP.
Eleventh comparison:
This is the surface and effect diagram of ug, which can be said to be perfect!
Proe seems to be doing this kind of thing, and everyone says it's a little soft!
I haven't seen proe produce such a rendering quality picture.