What do SW users want to know about SE?

[matt]

Are there any Works users out there who have tried to transition to Edge? I know some of you have tried it.

Could you talk about what you thought was difficult or confusing about the transition? If you want to send me private message on this, that's ok. Asking for a friend

[mike miller]

I've got just enough experience with SE to be extremely dangerous, but I'll try to list my biggest hurdles that I've encountered so far. The biggest thing I've noticed with SE; there are fewer methods available to accomplish a goal than with SWX. Not saying this is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a good thing. I just need to retrain my "SWX brain".

Here are the biggest hurdles laid out more specifically:

• selection order is VERY important. Pre-selection is almost always required.

• understanding the Design Intent panel

• no "S" key. This one trips me up constantly.

• different terms for assembly creation (assemble tool, flash fit, ground, origin, relationships, etc.)

• understanding how assembly-level relationships affect assembly-context edits

Now for a list of "lightbulb moments":

• editing in full 3D instead of using sketches

• effortlessly changing base geometry without burning down the tree

• nothing EVER moves unless you tell it to. This is both difficult to grasp and incredibly freeing!

• ability to specify the direction of change when editing a dimension (symmetric, left, or right)

• BOM management (think totalitarian control). All the settings are in one place and auto ballooning actually works.

[mattpeneguy]

So, I found the "custom properties" functionality confusing mainly because it was so complex. I never asked for any help on that aspect, though.
One big thing that SW cannot do is to link the BOM Number into a View Title (or anything, easily). I know I can do it manually and if I do it right then it will update correctly. But I want to know if SE handles this better. Is this even possible in SE? Do you have a link to someone demonstrating this functionality. I couldn't figure it out during the trial period.
We deal with some ASMs with hundreds of parts and it sure is hard finding the parts in the BOM by name.

[bnemec]

what is a .psm file and why do I need it?
what is a .cfg file and why do I need it?

[matt]

What about sketches and bodies? Did any people who tried SE struggle with those functions?

[jcapriotti]

What about sketches and bodies? Did any people who tried SE struggle with those functions?

Yes, I'm sure most is my lack of knowledge or just workflow differences I can't wrap my head around yet.

Keep in mind, I was in ordered mode which may differ from Synchronous sketching.

• When starting a sketch, no planes presented themselves. There are 3 base reference planes that I had to select from the tree or turn them on to select graphically. Then there was also some base coordinate sys plane system you could also select but the planes are small and selecting them was picky if it wasn't the one most facing you.
• Smart dimension didn't seems as smart as SWX. I couldn't select two lines to create an angle, either use the angle dimension or you have to hit "a" to toggle.
• Maybe I'm holding my nose wrong but preselecting a sketch then selecting Extrude didn't select the sketch. I had to select elements from the sketch, kind of like contour selecting. Couldn't figure out how to unselect an element, no list of selected elements and reselecting did nothing.
• Creating Protrusion didn't autohide sketch. Settings?
• Extra step to get out of sketch edit. First hit green check, then hit Finish.
• No way to cancel sketch editing? Undo maybe.
• No face select and start a sketch?
• Few right click or popup options when selecting sketch elements. (Applying relations, changing geometry to construction, etc)
• So I start a sketch, how do activate Extrude or cut without exiting first, then selecting Extrude command, then reselect sketch?
• Offset sketch, couldn't select face. Selecting edges wouldn't work as expected in all cases
• Few trim/extend options. Power trim didn't always trim correctly if at all. Didn't SE invent this concept? Had to use split to get what I wanted.
• Splitting and trimming mirrored sketch geometry lost the symmetric relations.
• Dragging partial under-constrained geometry to get a feel of what constraints are left didn't work. The sketch was blue in areas but I couldn't drag it.

[AlexLachance]

The little try that I did give it, I did not think that it was that confusing. I mean, I did find a little while to find little things such as trim/extend, but that's only because the icon was slightly different to what I'm used to.

I haven't transitioned to or thought about it, but the synchronous technology is really quite a beautiful thing, one of your videos really showed the strength of it.

I'm kind of curious to know how one would use SolidEdge in a similar way as SolidWorks is used with the Skeleton Sketch method. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's probably just a mindblock I have from working in a history based program for so long.

I also liked seeing that little video you showed of design intent, though I think it's something that's also available in a way in SolidWorks, but rarely ever used.

[Ry-guy]

The little try that I did give it, I did not think that it was that confusing. I mean, I did find a little while to find little things such as trim/extend, but that's only because the icon was slightly different to what I'm used to.

I haven't transitioned to or thought about it, but the synchronous technology is really quite a beautiful thing, one of your videos really showed the strength of it.

I'm kind of curious to know how one would use SolidEdge in a similar way as SolidWorks is used with the Skeleton Sketch method. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's probably just a mindblock I have from working in a history based program for so long.

I also liked seeing that little video you showed of design intent, though I think it's something that's also available in a way in SolidWorks, but rarely ever used.

SolidWorks skeleton sketch design process sucks. I wouldn't try and duplicate that in any system! There is a reason that SW partnered with DriveWorks!
Sorry, just my opinion. If you are really after that level of design/engineering control and design repeatability then you should NOT be looking at mid-range CAD packages. You should be looking at the big guns (i.e. NX, CATIA, hate to say it PTC). These system have tools for top-down design and "automated" engineering.

[FMAAID]

I knew there had to be better way, or software in this case. I have never tried NX,Catia or PTC.
My boss always says ruff seas make great sailors, If I apply that to SW ruff seas the past 10 years then Yes it created a great sailor but also one who hates the sea.

[mike miller]

I'm currently test driving Solid Edge. For the most part I really like what I see, although I think the user interface could use some help to reduce mouse travel. (No breadcrumbs or detailed context menus??!?! Nooooo way, c'mon maaaaan!)

The more I use SE the more I realize how inconsistent SWX's command sequences are. For example, all the commands I've used in SE begin with a pre-selection of the entity to use (such as a hole), followed by the command (such as Mirror), then the reference (mirror plane in this case). There is always a dynamic preview and, unlike SWX, it tells you if it will fail instead of allowing you to click okay and then springing a surprise. If the dynamic preview looks good, RMB will always accept without requiring more clicks if you happen to bump the cursor (SWX, I'm looking at you... ). After accepting, the command stays active until you press ESC or initiate a different command. It takes getting used to, especially in the assembly environment, but I'm quickly learning to predict the next step because it's so consistent.

[matt]

...After accepting, the command stays active until you press ESC or initiate a different command. It takes getting used to, especially in the assembly environment, but I'm quickly learning to predict the next step because it's so consistent.

Yes, I think you're getting it. SW just lets you go all over the place. SE is a bit more predictable. Again, the differences in the products mirror the differences in the companies.

[jcapriotti]

Yes, I think you're getting it. SW just lets you go all over the place. SE is a bit more predictable. Again, the differences in the products mirror the differences in the companies.

I prefer the more open ended way solidworks does it but it is harder for new users as it's less "walk" you through the steps.

Ironically I found NX to be more similar to Solidworks than Solid Edge in that regard. Edge always reminded me of ProE but nicer.

[SPerman]

After a couple of hours of playing with SE, the order of operations is going to take some getting used to. As others have mentioned, SE does things differently than SW, and my brain is still in SW mode.

[matt]

After a couple of hours of playing with SE, the order of operations is going to take some getting used to. As others have mentioned, SE does things differently than SW, and my brain is still in SW mode.

That specific question - how do you do things in SE for a SW user - is what I made some of these videos to answer. This on in particular on Workflow:



And then a playlist set for SE 2022

[SPerman]

My MO for learning software for my entire life has been to start using it and figure it out. I've decided for SE I'm going to go through as much training material as possible before getting serious about using it. Your videos are on the list of things to review as part of that process.

[SPerman]

One of the things that really stood out to me in my very brief use is the difference in how escape and enter behave in the two programs. (And CTRL-V, by default, does not paste in SE.)

[bnemec]

One of the things that really stood out to me in my very brief use is the difference in how escape and enter behave in the two programs. (And CTRL-V, by default, does not paste in SE.)

After a couple of hours of playing with SE, the order of operations is going to take some getting used to. As others have mentioned, SE does things differently than SW, and my brain is still in SW mode.

Amen! I've worn out my enter button on the mouse using Solidworks trying to figure out why its not doing expected action.

The process in SE is select the operation then the objects, most of the time. In SW I think it's the other way around. I find myself struggling to select what I want as SW is offering the thousand elements around and BEHIND what I want, especially welds. Trying to learn selection filter, it FEELS to me that SE is nicer in that it automatically applies selection filters based on the expected input for the active operation. Very hard to unlearn habits.

[KennyG]

One of the things that really stood out to me in my very brief use is the difference in how escape and enter behave in the two programs. (And CTRL-V, by default, does not paste in SE.)

Confused by your comment about CTRL-V... That is a base Windows command, and it does indeed paste by default in SE as long as you meet the following prerequisites:

• Something must be on the clipboard

• You must be in an area or control that accepts input

• The object on the clipboard must be the correct object type for the area or control you are trying to paste into

[SPerman]

I've just dipped my toe into the SE learning. So far I've learned more from Matt's videos than from the Siemens tutorial vidoes, but I haven't watched enough of either to have a valid opinion. I think part of the problem is that the SE videos I've watched are all in synchronous mode, so I'm having to learn a new way of modeling at the same time I'm learning new software.

[SPerman]

Confused by your comment about CTRL-V... That is a base Windows command, and it does indeed paste by default in SE as long as you meet the following prerequisites:

• Something must be on the clipboard

• You must be in an area or control that accepts input

• The object on the clipboard must be the correct object type for the area or control you are trying to paste into

I was creating coordinate systems, and trying to paste into one of the offset value boxes. I was hoping CS in SE behaved like they do in NX, but it appears they are as useless as they are in SW.

[mattpeneguy]

I was creating coordinate systems, and trying to paste into one of the offset value boxes. I was hoping CS in SE behaved like they do in NX, but it appears they are as useless as they are in SW.

Is this true? Do CSs in SE come with planes? Anybody doing modeling in place with SE and using CSs?

[mike miller]

Is this true? Do CSs in SE come with planes? Anybody doing modeling in place with SE and using CSs?

It's certainly far better than SWX 2021. A Csys in SE comes with planes and axes and can be used downstream for patterning, mating, sketching, extents, etc.. It can be defined by geometry or by keyed in values relative to another Csys including the base/origin. I'm sure they're not as capable as NX Csys but I've found numerous uses for them.

[SPerman]

That's good to know. I guess I haven't figured out how to use CS properly in SE, because I don't see any planes or axis, other than the base CS.

[mike miller]

That's good to know. I guess I haven't figured out how to use CS properly in SE, because I don't see any planes or axis, other than the base CS.

They're implicit, for lack of a better term. Here's a short video.

[mattpeneguy]

They're implicit, for lack of a better term. Here's a short video.

Wow! Much better than SW is an understatement.

[SPerman]

They're implicit, for lack of a better term. Here's a short video.

Thanks for that. I'm starting to see how things need to be done in SE. It seems order of operations is much more critical than what I am used to in SW or NX.

I still don't understand the value of not making things explicit. Why not show the planes under the CS? And if there are axis, show them too.

image.png (7.6 KiB) Viewed 4476 times

I'm clearly struggling with a case of "why doesn't it behave like my old software."

[mike miller]

Thanks for that. I'm starting to see how things need to be done in SE. It seems order of operations is much more critical than what I am used to in SW or NX.

I still don't understand the value of not making things explicit. Why not show the planes under the CS? And if there are axis, show them too.

image.png

I'm clearly struggling with a case of "why doesn't it behave like my old software."

The biggest hurdle I faced was understanding how SE relies on graphical display instead of selection windows and Property Manager. In this case, you really don't need those planes and axes in your tree. If you want to sketch on a Csys plane, start the sketch command and simply mouse over it and select the appropriate one. Same goes for patterning, start the command and then select the axis in the graphics area.

Edit to add: I don't know if SE's way is necessarily better or worse than SWX, it's just different. This article is almost prescient: https://dezignstuff.com/can-software-x- ... oftware-y/

[SPerman]

I guess its just the way my brain works and what I am used to. If there are planes there, why not show them to me?

I'm sure you are correct. The "history tree" side of the screen is for us old farts. Just use what's shown on the screen and be done with it.

[bnemec]

I'm clearly struggling with a case of "why doesn't it behave like my old software."

yes. Muscle memory is what makes some so efficient in one system, but can be a terrible hurdle when learning a new one.

I guess its just the way my brain works and what I am used to. If there are planes there, why not show them to me?

LOL, I'm trying to get SW to stop showing all these darned planes all the time!

The biggest hurdle I faced was understanding how SE relies on graphical display instead of selection windows and Property Manager. In this case, you really don't need those planes and axes in your tree. If you want to sketch on a Csys plane, start the sketch command and simply mouse over it and select the appropriate one. Same goes for patterning, start the command and then select the axis in the graphics area.

What's a "selection window"?

I see a theme in Mike's post. "Start the command and then..."

[KennyG]

I guess its just the way my brain works and what I am used to. If there are planes there, why not show them to me?

I'm sure you are correct. The "history tree" side of the screen is for us old farts. Just use what's shown on the screen and be done with it.

There is no Plane or Axis object on a coordinate system, but a Cartesian Coordinate System naturally depicts a plane between any two axis' or an axis along any one of its axis'. That is what SE is allowing you to use. Pathfinder only depicts user created objects like the CSYS created by the CSYS command or Planes created by the Reference Planes command.

[SPerman]

This is what I was used to seeing in NX. An origin, 3 planes and 3 axis.

image.png (12.42 KiB) Viewed 4433 times

[KennyG]

This is what I was used to seeing in NX. An origin, 3 planes and 3 axis.

Curious, why the XC, YC, ZC and the separate X, Y, Z?

[mattpeneguy]

This is what I was used to seeing in NX. An origin, 3 planes and 3 axis.

image.png (12.42 KiB) Viewed 4419 times

That's nowhere as useful as this:

[SPerman]

Curious, why the XC, YC, ZC and the separate X, Y, Z?

There are a number of different types of cs in NX. That notation indicates the work coordinate system. This is typically the same as the absolute coordinate system, but you can define a new WCS if you want.

It is handy if you are designing in place. Say your gas filler cap needs to be at some odd distance and angle. You create a coordinate system at that position, and then set the new coordinate system to that location. Now you are creating the part around an appropriate coordinate system, but you can pull that part into an assembly and locate it off of the original absolute coordinate system.

There were other use cases as well. It's been over 5 years since I've used NX, so my memory is fading. The workflow I was taught originated with IDEAS. Siemens tried to kill it as soon as they bought it, but the people used to the IDEAS workflow insisted they build in the same CS functionality. (Or at least that is the story as I heard it.) I don't know if that is the recommended NX workflow. If they are pushing the asynchronous in NX as hard as they are in SE, then it is probably obsolete. What I can say for sure, when the software supports a proper coordinate system, it is a very powerful tool


Here are a couple of examples from the NX help web site.

Datum CSYS examples
Defining critical locations in a product assembly
For an aerospace vehicle, you can create a datum CSYS at the absolute origin to define the vehicle coordinate system. You can create another datum CSYS to define the wing coordinate system. You can then use the wing coordinate system as reference to design and position the parts in the wing assembly structure.

Creating features in a detailed part
For a detailed part, you can use a datum CSYS to help define the location and orientation of features. This is useful when there are no convenient edges and faces or when you need to control the location of features with multiple translation and angle parameters.

image.png (39.11 KiB) Viewed 4412 times

Here are the different ways you can create a CS in NX.

image.png (46.07 KiB) Viewed 4412 times

[SPerman]

Matt, feel free to split out this NX thread drift if you like. I didn't mean to get so off topic.

[jcapriotti]

That's nowhere as useful as this:
image.png

SW 2022 finally caught up......but a missed opportunity to match what NX can do since they were in the code already. I honestly have never thought I needed a coordinate system and have only ever created them for exporting to other systems, but I can see their utility in some cases.

image.png (25.11 KiB) Viewed 4267 times

[mattpeneguy]

SW 2022 finally caught up......but a missed opportunity to match what NX can do since they were in the code already. I honestly have never thought I needed a coordinate system and have only ever created them for exporting to other systems, but I can see their utility in some cases.

image.png

image.png

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember this is SW. They have a history of rolling things out before it's ready. Have you tried using the new coordinate system functionality to do something useful? I thought I read somewhere that it didn't work the way it was expected. I'd test it out and post my results, but we're stuck on Windows 7 and I can't install SW 2022.

[jcapriotti]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember this is SW. They have a history of rolling things out before it's ready. Have you tried using the new coordinate system functionality to do something useful? I thought I read somewhere that it didn't work the way it was expected. I'd test it out and post my results, but we're stuck on Windows 7 and I can't install SW 2022.

I played around with it and it seemed to work fine but I just can't think of a use case where I work that needs it. I wouldn't say it isn't ready, for what it is does, it seems to be fine. It's just for catch up functionality they could've done more.