Hey Steve, Thanks for the comparison.; NX is a very interesting tool and seems to have made some strides. But I would respectfully like to point out that CATIA Icem Shape Design (aka ISD) can easily do everything that you demonstrated in NX . There are several options that accomplish dynamic movement of the surface based off of control curve manipulation. Both Sweep and Loft will do the trick but it's also possible to do with Feature Modeling. Another bonus in CATIA Icem is that the user can generate the surface based on the following: 1) Input Tolerance 2) Orders and/or Segmentation 3) Both Tolerance and Orders/Segmentation The resulting surface output can be NURBS or a single segment Bezier....it's up to the user to decide. Thanks and keep up the good work! gerard
Always good to hear from you Gerard. I know ISD can do that stuff. I know how powerful it is. As you know I used to work as an Application Engineer for Dassault/ICEM right after the purchase. Not to be glib, I can't afford a seat. NX has these tools in its baseline MACH 3 product. It also comes with: Reverse Engineering tools (Do not need a special license to import an STL) Convergent Modeling capabilities which basically turns an STL in to a surface and normal modeling tools work on them for the most part with additional Convergent tools but those come with an additional cost but it is not bad. Synchronous The equivalent to IMA And of course since the tools are all standard to a MACH 3 license; all other applications and tool sets are right at hand. It is full blow modeling of almost everything for half the cost of an ISD license. Would I love to get my hands on ISD? Hells yes! It is an amazing tool. I do not say that lightly. But, it is very prohibitive as far as costs. Cheers.
Hi Steve, Well, you are a surfacing legend at ICEM Inc.; Heck, I had to come in and try to fill your shoes :) after you left. My comment was to only to point out that CATIA does have world class solutions for Class A surfacing. Your point of view is well taken- thank you for clarifying, my friend! g.
Bro, your family is synonymous with brilliance... You guys are all top notch. Lets do a video steam together. You can talk about ISD and I can talk about NX/GSD & Freestyle. It'll be fun.
Just like guitar players, it's the user, not the guitar or in this case software. Both are very good, most folks have never seen full blown Catia with every license, a lot more there than you know
Now I am student/Follower of NX software learning and other comparative software like (CATIA, SOLIDWORKS, PTC) but finally i choose NX more reliable and easy interface lot of Tools, I think don't waste your effort on these software like (CATIA, SOLIDWORKS, PTC)
Thank you for these useful videos. I heard that CATIA is able to convert point cloud to facet body. But in NX it's impossible I think. What do you think about it?
Is there any good source for learning NX surfacing instead of jumping on YT videos or going through random tutorials? I'm talking some good structured A to Z course with examples.
Just one thing that I'd love mention here... Although in CATIA doesn't have a tree history in this case like NX, we have a powerful tools called UNDO and REDO. :)
Solidworks has a history tree, and as a good CSWE I never really use it, I waste time trying to find an operation that I can basically edit directly or delete or delete or edit, of course if I want to edit something, I'd better create a new operation to replace that one. operation and thus save me valuable minutes or hours modifying and updating parts
The only argument I have with that is how often are people modifying a design with control points instead of just changing the original curves or adding guide curves, etc. You didn't compare the actual surfacing methods and the quality of options for manipulations and I think that would have been good to weigh in on this. There are other options too that are parametric and control point controlled like the imagine and shape tools.
Oh, I have had to do it. It is a nice option. Especially for anything that is going to be offset for a B-Side that is giving you any difficulties. One does not always have the option of correcting curves used to build a surface as well. Their are many reasons to simplify in this manner. Thank for the comment.
@@ClassASurfacing So I think the tool you would want to use in that case is "Feature modeling" in the ICEM shape design workbench. It allows you to deform the surface just as you did in the video but also takes into consideration changes to the multisection surface after the creation.
@@ClassASurfacingAlso I believe in the later V6 versions added a lot of improvements in that area. I've seen a few videos on it and I'm jealous I don't use it.
@@Diallo268 ISD (ICEM Shape Design) is a remarkable tool. Really fantastic. I can't afford a seat so I don't use it. That may change soon and if it does I will be putting out a lot of content.
The dialog boxes of Catia and UG are ugly. If only the dialog boxes of UG were as convenient as the solidworks, the interface of SolidWorks would be the best for the public to use. Unfortunately, the surface is not good!
This is a topic that is taken care of on 3DEXPERIENCE, the new platform for CATIA as well as Solidworks or any other DS brand. We delivered new UI for surfacing tool, and that will be extended in coming years to other apps. Solidworks R&D helps a lot here as you can guess :-)
A simpler surface is of higher quality, or more "A-class like" if you will, so NX wins also on surface construction. I was surprised by this, as I always assumed Catia was the king among mechanical CAD software when it came to surfacing. Turns out I was wrong! On the other hand I'm disappointed in version 12 from NX as there are almost no new or improved features for CAD modeling.
There is a simple reason, NX is not the fist choice for class A - It's called CATIA Icem (e.g. V5 Icem Shape Design or the traditional Icem Surf) www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/icem-surf/
The simple reason that Catia has more seats is IBM. That is the only reason. IBM some 30 years ago helped Dassult out and at the time IBM was almost monopolistic with its footprint in the CAD world.
Oh you use GSD in CATIA for A class surface modeling? That's joke :) please use ICEM environment on CATIA and with approximate setting u can change V and U order with minimum gap then you can see that the surfaces in CATIA are so smooth and better than other same software
I know. I used to work for ICEM and Dassault. NX does it native and does a great job. Their is one place that NX is lacking and Siemens is fixing it. Plus, GSD is really powerful. Really really powerful. Only thing missing is the ability to use a G3 constraint. You can easily fake it. I really like ISD but it is also really expensive and I do not feel it is worth it for most peoples.
CATIA was more available from decades ago to various companies. NX was a home grown tool made by an aerospace company 45 years ago. Eventually GM bought it and started using it but by then V3 and V4 CATIA were dominant. NX is catching up now in many places.
Mercedes migrated their systems from Dassault Systèmes (Catia) to Siemens (NX) in 2010, other german companies are migrating too. Other companies that use NX include: Suzuki, Fiat, General Motors, Mosler, Nissan, Chrysler, Mazda, Tata, Ford India, Hero Moto Cop, Volvo, Scania, Flextronics, Ducati, Onida, Mahindra, Bajaj auto, TML, Punjab, International Tractors, Asia Motor Works, Ashok Leyland, Hero Honda, Ace, Escorts, HAL, Major Defense Labs, Ofb, Bhel,Bel, L&T, Pari, Pam Group, Indian Railways, Ntpc, Cgl, Textron, John Crane ... Some other use both.. Even some use PTC. Anyway, Catia is not bad either, but the reason not to move is because retraining thousands of people takes a long time and effort, and migrating all their models causes a lot of problems.
as for class A surfacing it seems like most of the automotive companies use Alias. Please correct me if i'm wrong - Catia or NX is used mostly to transform already created surfaces (in Alias) to engineering CAD models to reconstruct all the internal parts like door beams and interior parts. And there is another way - to build CAD model of the car body based on a scan of clay model (1:1) where NX and Catia are both capable to work with stl data and produce class A outer surfaces by certain techniques.
Игорь Зузов I have also been thinking the same. I am particularly interested in automotive class A surfacing but I am unsure if automotive companies would use NX/Catia for this task or dedicated surfacing software such as Alias. Is Alias better for quick concept work?
CATIA in particular has been targeting smaller organizations with 3DEXPERIENCE in the Cloud, organizations small enough that buying Alias might not be feasible on top of MCAD licenses. Also, the surfacing of CATIA and NX is far preferable in architecture, where the greater ease and flexibility of simulation, parameterization, and systems engineering is quite a bit more important (larger surfaces = needs to be made of many small sections, often made of relatively brittle glass that requires tight tolerances)
Hello. Well, actually the comparison is not the most relevant as the surfacing + x-form NX workflow should be compared to CATIA Icem Shape Design. Generative Shape Design is targeting accuracy first, and algorytrhm are provided to 1) respect tolerances 2) generate best quality within tolerance. Thus GSD features very often enrich math against their geometrical inputs. And as you say it is not bad, it is just not an issue to stay in Class B / C / D surfaces world. But when it comes to class A, you'd better go to CATIA Icem Shape Design (or also in CATIA Mechanical Refinement app), where by default features try to use the inputs maths, and where you have the Feature Modeling tool that allow you to deform a shape (curve or surface), keeping history, and as UI is very similar to Free Style Ctrl Points you can also provide a symmetry plane...and remeber it :-).
NX out of the box keeps history. Even back to solid faces. I can X Form pretty much anything and it all stays linked. ISD is nice but for the money it is not really worth it. Heck, RHINO which costs less than $1000 competes with ISD in a lot of ways. It is all about the user.
@@ClassASurfacing ISD is the full set of tools for final class A. But you alos have Mechanical Surface Refinement which is basically dedicated to GSD users and that is not more than a GSO I believe. Goal is to make a powerfull feature like Feature Modeling available to GSD / Free Style users. Feature modeling can process any geometry (solid face, GSD surface, IMA surfaces). That would be the tool to compare with X-form. After if your intent is also to compare solutions at equivalent price i would really really not put Rhino there, especially because doing nice surfaces with Rhino means high skills else it is easy to do crap ^^ Historically Free Style was not supposed to keep history as to be used earlier in the process than GSD that is why it cut the links.
I used to work for ICEM and did ISD. I don't see the value of ISD. NX is just as capable. In many ways it is better and in some ISD is better. But, NX is half the cost and you don't have to deal with that horrid Named User License and you get more tools in NX.
10 years ago maybe yes, it's been improving a lot you know. People are using ISD now, coupling that with knowledgeware too. ISD is more tolerant than GSD and you can control the maths of the features. Plus it has some features you don't find in GSD (especially curve & surface convertions) that are really usefull. Well honestly try it through Mechanila Surface Refinement app if you can.
Look up Synchronous technology. It can do history based changes to a solid with the NURBS tool X-Form and I-Form Better Kinematic tools Better large assembly management Nothing beats the NX Hole tool. Nothing Fluidly move from Surface to Solid and back to Surface again. No other workbench is needed Convergent Modeling is wow. It takes an STL and makes it work like a regular surface so all standard operations work on them Now remember, I have about 20,000 hours on CATIA V5 and V6 so there is a lot in them I love as well. But, this is a short list of where NX excels.
Hi ,steve I'm from india & want to learn class a surfacing from you .where can i conatct you for the course & fee or is there any partucular website of you.
This is a nice comparison. I like your honest, neutral opinion. Thanks.
Hey Steve,
Thanks for the comparison.; NX is a very interesting tool and seems to have made some strides. But I would respectfully like to point out that CATIA Icem Shape Design (aka ISD) can easily do everything that you demonstrated in NX . There are several options that accomplish dynamic movement of the surface based off of control curve manipulation. Both Sweep and Loft will do the trick but it's also possible to do with Feature Modeling. Another bonus in CATIA Icem is that the user can generate the surface based on the following:
1) Input Tolerance
2) Orders and/or Segmentation
3) Both Tolerance and Orders/Segmentation
The resulting surface output can be NURBS or a single segment Bezier....it's up to the user to decide.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
gerard
Always good to hear from you Gerard.
I know ISD can do that stuff. I know how powerful it is. As you know I used to work as an Application Engineer for Dassault/ICEM right after the purchase. Not to be glib, I can't afford a seat.
NX has these tools in its baseline MACH 3 product.
It also comes with:
Reverse Engineering tools (Do not need a special license to import an STL)
Convergent Modeling capabilities which basically turns an STL in to a surface and normal modeling tools work on them for the most part with additional Convergent tools but those come with an additional cost but it is not bad.
Synchronous
The equivalent to IMA
And of course since the tools are all standard to a MACH 3 license; all other applications and tool sets are right at hand. It is full blow modeling of almost everything for half the cost of an ISD license.
Would I love to get my hands on ISD? Hells yes! It is an amazing tool. I do not say that lightly. But, it is very prohibitive as far as costs.
Cheers.
Hi Steve,
Well, you are a surfacing legend at ICEM Inc.; Heck, I had to come in and try to fill your shoes :) after you left.
My comment was to only to point out that CATIA does have world class solutions for Class A surfacing. Your point of view is well taken- thank you for clarifying, my friend!
g.
Bro, your family is synonymous with brilliance... You guys are all top notch.
Lets do a video steam together. You can talk about ISD and I can talk about NX/GSD & Freestyle.
It'll be fun.
Just like guitar players, it's the user, not the guitar or in this case software. Both are very good, most folks have never seen full blown Catia with every license, a lot more there than you know
Now I am student/Follower of NX software learning and other comparative software like (CATIA, SOLIDWORKS, PTC) but finally i choose NX more reliable and easy interface lot of Tools, I think don't waste your effort on these software like (CATIA, SOLIDWORKS, PTC)
a sports car or an off-road utility vehicle? depends on what you need. it's the same with all CAD programs
Thank you for these useful videos.
I heard that CATIA is able to convert point cloud to facet body. But in NX it's impossible I think. What do you think about it?
Both can doit, but none is specialized on that task
Is there any good source for learning NX surfacing instead of jumping on YT videos or going through random tutorials? I'm talking some good structured A to Z course with examples.
Great video sir....
Thanks to share your knowledge......
Just one thing that I'd love mention here... Although in CATIA doesn't have a tree history in this case like NX, we have a powerful tools called UNDO and REDO. :)
Solidworks has a history tree, and as a good CSWE I never really use it, I waste time trying to find an operation that I can basically edit directly or delete or delete or edit, of course if I want to edit something, I'd better create a new operation to replace that one. operation and thus save me valuable minutes or hours modifying and updating parts
The only argument I have with that is how often are people modifying a design with control points instead of just changing the original curves or adding guide curves, etc. You didn't compare the actual surfacing methods and the quality of options for manipulations and I think that would have been good to weigh in on this. There are other options too that are parametric and control point controlled like the imagine and shape tools.
Oh, I have had to do it. It is a nice option. Especially for anything that is going to be offset for a B-Side that is giving you any difficulties.
One does not always have the option of correcting curves used to build a surface as well.
Their are many reasons to simplify in this manner. Thank for the comment.
@@ClassASurfacing So I think the tool you would want to use in that case is "Feature modeling" in the ICEM shape design workbench. It allows you to deform the surface just as you did in the video but also takes into consideration changes to the multisection surface after the creation.
@@ClassASurfacingAlso I believe in the later V6 versions added a lot of improvements in that area. I've seen a few videos on it and I'm jealous I don't use it.
@@Diallo268 ISD (ICEM Shape Design) is a remarkable tool. Really fantastic. I can't afford a seat so I don't use it.
That may change soon and if it does I will be putting out a lot of content.
@@ClassASurfacing Well best of luck to you and thanks for sharing! Good info and I'm always looking for new perspectives.
Appreciate and thank you
The dialog boxes of Catia and UG are ugly. If only the dialog boxes of UG were as convenient as the solidworks, the interface of SolidWorks would be the best for the public to use. Unfortunately, the surface is not good!
This is a topic that is taken care of on 3DEXPERIENCE, the new platform for CATIA as well as Solidworks or any other DS brand. We delivered new UI for surfacing tool, and that will be extended in coming years to other apps. Solidworks R&D helps a lot here as you can guess :-)
I can tell you that the surface quality is a lot nicer after milling an NX surface. Why? No idea
A simpler surface is of higher quality, or more "A-class like" if you will, so NX wins also on surface construction. I was surprised by this, as I always assumed Catia was the king among mechanical CAD software when it came to surfacing. Turns out I was wrong!
On the other hand I'm disappointed in version 12 from NX as there are almost no new or improved features for CAD modeling.
I will do doing several videos on what tools I have access to. They have done a lot with DMU this go but have done some with modeling.
There is a simple reason, NX is not the fist choice for class A - It's called CATIA Icem (e.g. V5 Icem Shape Design or the traditional Icem Surf)
www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/icem-surf/
The simple reason that Catia has more seats is IBM. That is the only reason. IBM some 30 years ago helped Dassult out and at the time IBM was almost monopolistic with its footprint in the CAD world.
Is freestyle Catia module being used to create plastic automotive part ?
It can be used for sure. I have used it myself in certain situations. It cab help make things faster but not totally necessary.
Oh you use GSD in CATIA for A class surface modeling? That's joke :) please use ICEM environment on CATIA and with approximate setting u can change V and U order with minimum gap then you can see that the surfaces in CATIA are so smooth and better than other same software
That is exactly what i want to say. GSD not provide explicit surface control, but ICEM does. that comparison is wrong.
I know. I used to work for ICEM and Dassault.
NX does it native and does a great job. Their is one place that NX is lacking and Siemens is fixing it.
Plus, GSD is really powerful. Really really powerful. Only thing missing is the ability to use a G3 constraint. You can easily fake it.
I really like ISD but it is also really expensive and I do not feel it is worth it for most peoples.
GSD does provide continuity controls but not NURBS. I have designed entire exteriors using GSD.
If nx runs overall better in terms of performance why do most automotive companies prefer catia?
CATIA was more available from decades ago to various companies. NX was a home grown tool made by an aerospace company 45 years ago. Eventually GM bought it and started using it but by then V3 and V4 CATIA were dominant. NX is catching up now in many places.
Mercedes migrated their systems from Dassault Systèmes (Catia) to Siemens (NX) in 2010, other german companies are migrating too. Other companies that use NX include: Suzuki, Fiat, General Motors,
Mosler, Nissan, Chrysler, Mazda, Tata, Ford India, Hero Moto Cop, Volvo, Scania, Flextronics, Ducati, Onida, Mahindra, Bajaj auto, TML, Punjab, International Tractors, Asia Motor Works, Ashok Leyland, Hero Honda, Ace, Escorts, HAL, Major Defense Labs, Ofb, Bhel,Bel, L&T, Pari, Pam Group, Indian Railways, Ntpc, Cgl, Textron, John Crane ... Some other use both.. Even some use PTC. Anyway, Catia is not bad either, but the reason not to move is because retraining thousands of people takes a long time and effort, and migrating all their models causes a lot of problems.
as for class A surfacing it seems like most of the automotive companies use Alias. Please correct me if i'm wrong - Catia or NX is used mostly to transform already created surfaces (in Alias) to engineering CAD models to reconstruct all the internal parts like door beams and interior parts. And there is another way - to build CAD model of the car body based on a scan of clay model (1:1) where NX and Catia are both capable to work with stl data and produce class A outer surfaces by certain techniques.
Игорь Зузов I have also been thinking the same. I am particularly interested in automotive class A surfacing but I am unsure if automotive companies would use NX/Catia for this task or dedicated surfacing software such as Alias. Is Alias better for quick concept work?
CATIA in particular has been targeting smaller organizations with 3DEXPERIENCE in the Cloud, organizations small enough that buying Alias might not be feasible on top of MCAD licenses. Also, the surfacing of CATIA and NX is far preferable in architecture, where the greater ease and flexibility of simulation, parameterization, and systems engineering is quite a bit more important (larger surfaces = needs to be made of many small sections, often made of relatively brittle glass that requires tight tolerances)
What if You would work with an ordered Geometrical Set in Catia v5? Then You would have a straight History.
NX is the winner!
Hello. Well, actually the comparison is not the most relevant as the surfacing + x-form NX workflow should be compared to CATIA Icem Shape Design. Generative Shape Design is targeting accuracy first, and algorytrhm are provided to 1) respect tolerances 2) generate best quality within tolerance. Thus GSD features very often enrich math against their geometrical inputs. And as you say it is not bad, it is just not an issue to stay in Class B / C / D surfaces world. But when it comes to class A, you'd better go to CATIA Icem Shape Design (or also in CATIA Mechanical Refinement app), where by default features try to use the inputs maths, and where you have the Feature Modeling tool that allow you to deform a shape (curve or surface), keeping history, and as UI is very similar to Free Style Ctrl Points you can also provide a symmetry plane...and remeber it :-).
NX out of the box keeps history. Even back to solid faces. I can X Form pretty much anything and it all stays linked.
ISD is nice but for the money it is not really worth it. Heck, RHINO which costs less than $1000 competes with ISD in a lot of ways.
It is all about the user.
@@ClassASurfacing ISD is the full set of tools for final class A. But you alos have Mechanical Surface Refinement which is basically dedicated to GSD users and that is not more than a GSO I believe. Goal is to make a powerfull feature like Feature Modeling available to GSD / Free Style users. Feature modeling can process any geometry (solid face, GSD surface, IMA surfaces). That would be the tool to compare with X-form. After if your intent is also to compare solutions at equivalent price i would really really not put Rhino there, especially because doing nice surfaces with Rhino means high skills else it is easy to do crap ^^
Historically Free Style was not supposed to keep history as to be used earlier in the process than GSD that is why it cut the links.
I used to work for ICEM and did ISD.
I don't see the value of ISD.
NX is just as capable. In many ways it is better and in some ISD is better.
But, NX is half the cost and you don't have to deal with that horrid Named User License and you get more tools in NX.
10 years ago maybe yes, it's been improving a lot you know. People are using ISD now, coupling that with knowledgeware too. ISD is more tolerant than GSD and you can control the maths of the features. Plus it has some features you don't find in GSD (especially curve & surface convertions) that are really usefull. Well honestly try it through Mechanila Surface Refinement app if you can.
How to turn on in NX, tab with opened files ?
You need NX 12 for that. It is a new option introduced in everything NX12 and after.
which softwere maximum use in germany catia .or NX???
Catia, but almost every body is switching to NX slowly
In automotive everyone uses CATIA except Daimler who use NX.
@@wearehuman5035 I do not know about anyone switching to NX except Daimler.
Daimler probably switched because of political reasons. I don't see any other rational reason to do this.
NX is so far ahead of Catia that it might as well be a different species of CAD.
It really is getting that way. Some things NX does is amazing.
@@ClassASurfacing show me something i cannot do with CATIA gentlemen ;-), i'm waiting
Actually, NX does an incredible amount over what CATIA V5 can do. V6 may have some tools I have not seen yet.
Also, V5 does somethings NX doesn't.
So does CATIA, they both have their pros & cons. I just wonder where NX is amazing :-)
Look up Synchronous technology.
It can do history based changes to a solid with the NURBS tool X-Form and I-Form
Better Kinematic tools
Better large assembly management
Nothing beats the NX Hole tool. Nothing
Fluidly move from Surface to Solid and back to Surface again. No other workbench is needed
Convergent Modeling is wow. It takes an STL and makes it work like a regular surface so all standard operations work on them
Now remember, I have about 20,000 hours on CATIA V5 and V6 so there is a lot in them I love as well. But, this is a short list of where NX excels.
Hi ,steve I'm from india & want to learn class a surfacing from you .where can i conatct you for the course & fee or is there any partucular website of you.
CATAIV5 looks very old, just like software in 90s! The UG interface is designed just like children's cartoon.
I guess that is a matter of opinion. I really like the NX interface. I think it is very clean and it is easily customizable to suit my needs.
Sir plz explain flange surface
This is joke In india