Here is what I received; I appreciate all the information that was
provided. The original post is at the end of the message. Have a great
weekend and holiday season.
What, if anything, do you use for off-line programming of CNC
machining centers (e.g. CAM)? That would influence my decision ...
Yikes. Change just for the sake of change. Are mfg the models at stake?
Post processor development? Communicating with outside vendors who have
Software is software. Proe has a larger install base than UG. UG has
been bought and sold many times over the years. Are they stable?
My understanding is that UG is not a parametric modeler, but a Boolean
modeler. Parent child relationships as you understand them on Pro|E do
not exist. We have a single seat here and 2 folks that are familiar
with both UG and Pro|E. They both curse when they have to use UG. For
example, I understand that if you build one feature on another, changing
the 'parent' feature does not necessarily mean that the child will
change as well. I may be wrong in that assessment, as I've not actually
I have used both ProE and Unigraphics extensively over the past few
years. Here's my take on it.
1. Never had UG crash. The ability to model with the use of Csys instead
of planal modeling gives UG an edge over ProE. Surfacing module in UG is
much more user friendly. Assemblies in UG are simpler to build and
constrain. You can have more than one part in a part file - think of
2. The sketcher in ProE with the intent manager turned on is much better
than UG but as stated it is planar so 3D curve production is more
3. The creation of drawings in UG just plain sucks. The dimension are
all created and while there is some associativity it is a real bind to
have to create them in the sketch and then again in the drawing.
4. The NX module allows UG to do any automation. They are migrating to
"all in the model" in UG.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any further ammunition. For
what it is worth UG is best for modeling, ProE for drawing production
We had a similar situation within our Sector. One division used UG and
tried to get the others to conform. They called it "common tools". I
wrote an e-mail to our management showing the priponderance of our
supplier company's and divisions using ProE. Seems the only division or
company that used UG was the one trying to switch us over. The "common
tools" scenario went down in flames. We still use ProE.
I don't know, but I've heard that it takes a lot more memory space to
store UG programs and projects than it does ProE, that ProE is a lot
more efficient. Can't give you numbers though.
I believe if you look at the percentage of company's that use ProE
versus UG, you'll find ProE wins by a very wide margin.
Here is a thread discussing Pro-E vs Unigraphics vs Solidwoeks vs Catia:
currently available tools)
Several years ago, we conducted a study of the big 3 CAD systems (Pro/E,