presentation and passage from nx to solid edge st

[VALEBASO]

good morning to all, it is from a while I follow you carefully drawing many interesting ideas... Unfortunately in the company for which I work (draw thugs) after investing on nx now, despite the good results obtained, but considered insufficient to continue with the use. want to go back to using the fantastic anti-war software: gbg v.8 which has been consolidated in the company for years.
I want to return to the simple two-dimensional because of a company destined to sad fate... so I am moving to look for new lids, although the period is well known to all of us.. .
we come to the therefore I was advanced a proposal of collaboration to cultivate this my interest, but the software to use would be solid edge st, (to which I gave a peek but nn I still banged the nose as you must... ) and I wanted to ask, someone gives the substantial differences between the two, I believe that the philosophy of use is the same view the same origin siemens.. .

Thank you for your attention. :finger:

Valuation

ps for moderators nn finding a section dedicated to the presentation I joined application and presentation. . .

 

[IPdesign]

good morning to all, it is from a while I follow you carefully drawing many interesting ideas... Unfortunately in the company for which I work (draw thugs) after investing on nx now, despite the good results obtained, but considered insufficient to continue with the use. want to go back to using the fantastic anti-war software: gbg v.8 which has been consolidated in the company for years.
I want to return to the simple two-dimensional because of a company destined to sad fate... so I am moving to look for new lids, although the period is well known to all of us.. .
we come to the therefore I was advanced a proposal of collaboration to cultivate this my interest, but the software to use would be solid edge st, (to which I gave a peek but nn I still banged the nose as you must... ) and I wanted to ask, someone gives the substantial differences between the two, I believe that the philosophy of use is the same view the same origin siemens.. .

Thank you for your attention. :finger:

Valuation

ps for moderators nn finding a section dedicated to the presentation I joined application and presentation. . .

for the presentation there was this specific link nx, if you want copy paste http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=14379 for nx
Despite her mother's the same, I doubt there are common points .
solid edge in fact was acquired already made time ago by ugs and therefore if I do not remember the 2 development teams remained separate and the dialogue is limited to reading files of each other.
demonstrating the fact that no ug drafting is seen by solid edge
I had time to look at the interface, but unless the latest versions have changed the concept of work, they reason differently.

however surely there will be someone who has a way to use them both and we wait for his most reliable news

 

[VALEBASO]

thank you... wait for more comments! !
:finger:

 

[ALRO]

Hi.

in ns. azieda, (electrodomestic sector), we use both solidedge and nx, and I can tell you that the difference is obvious.
Actually they are not all in favor of nx as you might presume.

The two environments have in common : parasolid for modeling and d-cubed as a geometric solutor, so if in the modeling phase, for example, there will be quanche error linked to the solutors, the problems will arise both in nx and if. (proved and verified!).

at the data interchange level, the two environment can read the respective files, assuming that in the case of if, there are separate environments regarding the modeling of the parts regarding the assembly environment,
the sheet-metal environment and the drafting environment. in nx (as you already know), the environment is unique.
in any case in the passage from itself to nx and vice versa, the loss of all the features takes place.

in case the modeled parts with you and parts in nx, the smartest way I found (for the moment), for
to make the two environments interact, is to realize dynamic interpart links.

a onor of record it should also say that with the last method of modeling introduced both in itself and in nx,
of synchronous technology such a problem could be faced differently. (... if they're roses... )

at user interface level who environments are different, even if you notice a certain effort especially in the case of nx
to make the interface look more "friendly", and therefore simple as that of itself. (.. apart from the last
se-st1 interface, se-st2 which is a real scandal !!!)

in each even if the icons are beginning to resemble each other, the modeling methodology still remains very different.

at room level: in the case of modelling (nx), compared to the environment part (if), the options are 10 to 1, so if to model
a particular in nx you can get lost in the multitude of possibilities, in case you if the options are reduced to 1.

there is to say vice versa that the drafting environment of itself is much better than that of nx, as well as the sheet-metal.
(... although the latest nx versions have definitely aligned).

as you see the differences are many with some point in common, I stop here even if ....it would be the beginning.


tree

 

[IPdesign]

Hello tree
I actually hoped for your intervention to clarify everything.

It's a bit that you don't feel, maybe today I'll call you and we'll have 2 chats

bye

 

[VALEBASO]

In short, it is a much more we say "elementary" than nx so I assume that the passage from nx to itself is rather "simplified", said in general terms, then we know that simple in life there is very little... :biggrin: cmq I made agreements of the case I think a course of a few days the passage is feasible... Thank you very much for now.