UG is mainly suitable for large parts, such as product drawings of washing machines and refrigerators, and some small and medium-sized companies still use PROE for modeling convenience.
When the modeling is more complicated, it is changed. Because of the existence of parameters, it is not of any use. I generally use PROE to draw some simple product drawing files and then transfer to UG to create a higher level of surface. Chamfer.
Due to the version upgrade of the product drawing file, it needs to be modified repeatedly, and the parameters will be removed at this time. UG and PROE can be said to have their own advantages, and the two softwares should be mixed together to model to achieve the most suitable effect.
I think in terms of the entire mold design process, the characteristics of UG are more obvious. The characteristics of UG are semi-parametric. Of course, it can also be full-parameter. Remove the parameters to remove the original associated product constraints and references, so that there will be no proe. Due to improper modification, regeneration fails and cannot be modified. If such a situation occurs, it can be used as non-automatic parting. Of course, it can also be fully automatic if feasible.
The advantage of non-automatic is that it is very free to do, and it is convenient to modify. (For example, you can directly perform Boolean operations on parts, and you have to establish associations between components under fully automatic.) It will not affect the whole body like a fully automatic one. (After the mold base parameters are changed, the later loaded standard parts are prone to problems), but they must be made one by one. Everything is counted in one part, and no components are automatically generated, similar to the original modeling method.
