FYI - 2024 SP04 is now available for download

[AlexLachance]

Yes, and apparently they made a hotfix for this issue. Ask your VAR to send it for you as well, I was told it's number is QA00000367153. I'd post it here but I'm not sure if that's allowed :/

Why wouldn't it be?

[laukejas]

Why wouldn't it be?

Because that QA apparently isn't available to everyone... Not sure why they made it this way. Maybe you're right. Whatever, let them sue me, here it is: https://ufile.io/4c3o3umw

[mp3-250]

I just searched the KB for "hole wizard" and the number of BR and malfunction in general is quite a clown show.

Every time is the same story and the devs do not learn. I said and repeat: NX uses the best and most stable approach. If a command changes the way the model behaves they just make a new command(e.g. hole wizard 2024) with a different ID and hide the old one (e.g. hole wizard 2023).
In this way you avoid introducing a new feature that does not work because in some use cases the devs did not test something and it simply explode in your face. When a feature created with the old (hole wizard) command is edited the old command pops up, while the new one will be used for new features only. old commands are never phased out really just hidden.

But at SW they are smarter and they just changed the way hole wizard works and now we have a dozen of BRs with unwanted holes popping up at construction lines intersections, midpoints somewhere and other ridiculous situations.

I am officially scared of updating to 2024. I will do the testing of SP5 once our new server is delivered and I am going to write a post about open bugs, hotfixes and other rants like I did back in 2023 before our update.
That time I had two hot fixes to roll with the admin image and with a ton of testing, the ui going crazy for no reason.

And guess: with 2023 they introduced the transparency in 2d drawings and it came with a lot of troubles.

They simply do not learn. never.

[HercalloY]

Its is a bit of a joke. Just for information's sake... i use NX and SW daily and i haven't had NX crash for... i can't recall. I'd be lucky it crashes critically once or twice a year. SW will $#!+ the bed just doing normal mundane tasks like... opening a dialog or whatever else.

further to what mp3-250 said... in NX they will also allow you to update a feature to the new method as well most of the time.

[bnemec]

Its is a bit of a joke. Just for information's sake... i use NX and SW daily and i haven't had NX crash for... i can't recall. I'd be lucky it crashes critically once or twice a year. SW will $#!+ the bed just doing normal mundane tasks like... opening a dialog or whatever else.

further to what mp3-250 said... in NX they will also allow you to update a feature to the new method as well most of the time.

Considering the price difference between NX and Edge/Solidworks; I wonder if that's what testing and trouble shooting costs.

[AlexLachance]

Considering the price difference between NX and Edge/Solidworks; I wonder if that's what testing and trouble shooting costs.

I'd say it's the cost of professionalism rather then trouble shooting. The way features are introduced in NX is a much more logical way of proceeding then modifying the actual structure of the command that is used on files that can have well over 10 years. The way it is made ensures that nothing that already existed changes up and that everything new created will work as expected, rather then have things change on you because of an update toggling settings. It ensures that the new version will not throw bugs on files that didn't have any issue prior to updating.

[DennisD]

Considering the price difference between NX and Edge/Solidworks; I wonder if that's what testing and trouble shooting costs.

It is worth noting that NX and Solid Edge are both OWNED by Siemens, but Solid Edge is not a defeatured version of NX (as one of my know-it-all colleagues was telling someone the other day), just as Catia and SolidWorks are both owned by DSS. These are all different products, with different heritage and with their own development teams. Sure NX and Solid Edge are evolving to look and act more like each other, with SE starting to look more like a defeatured NX. The same with Catia and SWX.

If you have something you think works very nicely in one package and want to see it in a different one that you most use then tell them. Show them. Pester them to implement it. But it is not as simple as enabling something that had been there but had been disabled; that's not the case.

#BT;DT;Doing It.

[laukejas]

I just searched the KB for "hole wizard" and the number of BR and malfunction in general is quite a clown show.

Every time is the same story and the devs do not learn. I said and repeat: NX uses the best and most stable approach. If a command changes the way the model behaves they just make a new command(e.g. hole wizard 2024) with a different ID and hide the old one (e.g. hole wizard 2023).
In this way you avoid introducing a new feature that does not work because in some use cases the devs did not test something and it simply explode in your face. When a feature created with the old (hole wizard) command is edited the old command pops up, while the new one will be used for new features only. old commands are never phased out really just hidden.

But at SW they are smarter and they just changed the way hole wizard works and now we have a dozen of BRs with unwanted holes popping up at construction lines intersections, midpoints somewhere and other ridiculous situations.

I am officially scared of updating to 2024. I will do the testing of SP5 once our new server is delivered and I am going to write a post about open bugs, hotfixes and other rants like I did back in 2023 before our update.
That time I had two hot fixes to roll with the admin image and with a ton of testing, the ui going crazy for no reason.

And guess: with 2023 they introduced the transparency in 2d drawings and it came with a lot of troubles.

They simply do not learn. never.

Fully agreed. They already have this kind of system implemented with SW API, each API object or call is versioned (OpenDoc, OpenDoc2, OpenDoc3, etc.) specifically for backwards compatibility, so clearly the kernel allows for it... So why not extend the same logic over to the UI...

[HercalloY]

Considering the price difference between NX and Edge/Solidworks; I wonder if that's what testing and trouble shooting costs.

What price difference would that be exactly?

The NX license i have is half the price of the SW one... FYI.

[bnemec]

What price difference would that be exactly?

The NX license i have is half the price of the SW one... FYI.

That's strange. Back when we purchased NX (~10yrs ago maybe) price was something like 3x of Solid Edge Classic purchase and maint. I don't know current prices of NX or which version of SW you're purchase, so your right I shouldn't have said anything about it.

[SPerman]

It was about 5 years ago list time I checked, and NX was significantly more expensive, comparing apples to apples. They might have had a low cost entry point, but if you want assemblies, and sheet metal and basic analysis it got expensive in a hurry. If NX is now half the price of SW I need to start the conversion today.

[ellundo]

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 7:47 am
Why wouldn't it be?

Because that QA apparently isn't available to everyone... Not sure why they made it this way. Maybe you're right. Whatever, let them sue me, here it is: https://ufile.io/4c3o3umw
For what it's worth I asked our IT guy to check on this hotfix and our VAR gave him a link to download SP5 which isn't in general release yet. I just installed it so I will see what happens.

[ellundo]

Looks like the location sketch now stays inside the hole wizard feature in the tree, but doesn't seem to fix that on holes already inserted in the part.

[jcapriotti]

What price difference would that be exactly?

The NX license i have is half the price of the SW one... FYI.

Unless your company has tons of NX licenses to work out a major discount, and only a few SolidWorks with no discount, this is not true. (Unless there is some weird US vs Aus $$ conversion)

Looking at this pricing for NX as a subscription, the base "Standard" is more expensive than the upfront purchase of SolidWorks Standard as a perpetual license for like $5800, then followed by $1600 a year. Over 5 years you would be paying 3x more for NX.

[HercalloY]

Unless your company has tons of NX licenses to work out a major discount, and only a few SolidWorks with no discount, this is not true. ....

Well you lot can say its not true all you like with as many qualifiers as you like.. but i just double checked and the seat of NX was 2/3rds teh cost of the SW seat. The ongoing maint. for SW is also higher then the NX yearly. But both are way to high IMO anyway. NOw another argument can be made for how "the same" those seats are but IMO you can talk your head of all year long about things being not equal between features as you'll never get feature parity anyway let alone price for that feature parity. But i can do just about everything in one i can do in the other. Some things easier in one, some easier in the other but either way... you can get a seat of NX for either the same price or cheaper then you can a seat of SW, and that is a fact. And NX crashes far less, which is also a fact.

[jcapriotti]

Well you lot can say its not true all you like with as many qualifiers as you like.. but i just double checked and the seat of NX was 2/3rds teh cost of the SW seat. The ongoing maint. for SW is also higher then the NX yearly. But both are way to high IMO anyway. NOw another argument can be made for how "the same" those seats are but IMO you can talk your head of all year long about things being not equal between features as you'll never get feature parity anyway let alone price for that feature parity. But i can do just about everything in one i can do in the other. Some things easier in one, some easier in the other but either way... you can get a seat of NX for either the same price or cheaper then you can a seat of SW, and that is a fact. And NX crashes far less, which is also a fact.

I'm not saying that you aren't getting it cheaper. Just that there are reasons that may not make this an apples to apples comparison.

Either:

1. You company has a lot more NX seats and/or negotiated a larger discount compared to your SolidWorks seats.
2. Pricing is very different in Australia for NX vs SolidWorks.

Searching for pricing is difficult and I mostly get the "Subscription" pricing from their website, minus any discounts for volume.

NX X Design Standard (Subscription)

• US = $7371
• Aus = $11,179

SolidWorks Standard (Subscription)

• US = $2820
• Aus = Couldn't find online, maybe subscription isn't available there yet?

For perpetual licensing I just know SolidWorks Standard retails at $4200 plus $1600 annually. Are you saying that you NX Standard perpetual is 2/3rds that at $2772 plus $1056 annually?

Maybe you could share what you pay for both? Discounts for volume are a thing. We have hundreds of SolidWorks users on a floating license and don't pay anywhere near retail for new licenses and annual maintenance.

[HercalloY]

Just that there are reasons that may not make this an apples to apples comparison.

Like i said... it'll never be a perfect comparison. There will always be SOMETHING to make it "not a fair comparison". We can talk all freaking day about a million reasons why they "Can't be compared".

You state its difficult to search for pricing yet you like to quote the only thing you can find, that itself, includes modules a "normal" user that just needs to get actual work done, does not remotely need. Why would a normal user want to pay for Teamcenter?

I've never indicated i have some multi seat GM quantity discount and if i did i would not have said tried to correct the pricing assumptions. This is a single seat pricing in a country that is RENOWENED for gouging the fk out of customers on prices for no justifiable reason (but oh boy do they try to justify it, but ma it has to travel so far | but small population | ad nauseum. gtfo of hear, they are digital 1's and 0's ffs and even if they weren't, they are baseless justifications to 200%+ markups).

But you can, very easily, get a seat of NX with all the main tools required to create mechanical (and not so mechanical) technical designs, assemblies, and detail drawings for the same price or cheaper then SolidWorks and it'll crash far less.

Don't worry, i was surprised as well. But hey... if you want any feature outside of your allotted piece-meal licensing, yeah... you'll soon get to realms of even making SW Premium levels of ridiculousness look like child's play.

PS. It is amazing to me how nice NX's UI is now given where it was. It is so smooth and professional its a pleasure to use and thats coming from someone thats been a SW lover and user since last century.

[jcapriotti]

Like i said... it'll never be a perfect comparison. There will always be SOMETHING to make it "not a fair comparison". We can talk all freaking day about a million reasons why they "Can't be compared".

I just mean apples to apples price comparison of subscription to subscription and perpetual to perpetual costs. Subs I can find online.....perpetual is limited to people comments for NX in various forums.

You state its difficult to search for pricing yet you like to quote the only thing you can find, that itself, includes modules a "normal" user that just needs to get actual work done, does not remotely need. Why would a normal user want to pay for Teamcenter?

I listed the 3 bundles from their site (Standard, Advanced, Premium). I focused on the basic level. There is no Teamcenter involved. It states "It includes base level data management as well as the necessary tools to integrate with Teamcenter". I take this to mean that is some basic Windows file level data management capabilities with integration to an existing TC system if needed. Can't find much on it though.

I've never indicated i have some multi seat GM quantity discount and if i did i would not have said tried to correct the pricing assumptions. This is a single seat pricing in a country that is RENOWENED for gouging the fk out of customers on prices for no justifiable reason.

I did state that maybe this was a pricing issue in Australia. I have no experience with pricing there. I don't think they are comparable in price in the US but I'll defer to @KennyG @zxys001 @SPerman as those guys I think have had some involvement in NX and what it costs. I last used NX 4 and the pricing at the time was extremely high with the licensing broken into so many pieces compared to the bundles today.

[Bradfordzzz]

Thinking we need to steer this ship back to the actual topic?

"FYI - 2024 SP04 is now available for download"

Just a suggestion

[TRKemp]

Thinking we need to steer this ship back to the actual topic?

"FYI - 2024 SP04 is now available for download"

Just a suggestion

Thanks - I will help.

New for 24 was a cylindrical bounding box (finally!). We use a material type BOM and I've wanted to make "smart" pipe segments for years. Well I've finally created a pipe segment that can be configured for any standard pipe size, that updates automatically for length, with a factor included for trim stock. Most importantly, it does this when the extrusion is made up to reference geometry, such as a surface, which would otherwise remove any ability to create a reference to the length.

All of that .. and now my units are locked in as decimals. We use fractions..

I dont see any way to change the unit output for bounding box driven values. All other parts with lengths driven by the models update properly to the template settings.

Any help is appreciated.

[jcapriotti]

@TRKemp Not sure how you are linking your custom properties. I did it in the model.....maybe you are doing it in the drawing BOM?

Here are my settings:

Custom properties in model

[TRKemp]

@TRKemp Not sure how you are linking your custom properties. I did it in the model.....maybe you are doing it in the drawing BOM?

Here are my settings:
image.png

Custom properties in model

image.png

Thanks for your help.

Im linking the custom properties to the model as well, but using the drawing template settings to determine the unit output on the drawing BOM. I've done this for other parts where the length isnt being determined by the bounding box and it works out fine.

I'm using a global variable to drive the property value in the model since I need to add "trim stock" length. If I change the units in my model settings to fractions, the global variable fails.. it seems as though it needs to be a decimal in order to solve properly.

[AlexLachance]

Thanks for your help.

Im linking the custom properties to the model as well, but using the drawing template settings to determine the unit output on the drawing BOM. I've done this for other parts where the length isnt being determined by the bounding box and it works out fine.

image.png

I'm using a global variable to drive the property value in the model since I need to add "trim stock" length. If I change the units in my model settings to fractions, the global variable fails.. it seems as though it needs to be a decimal in order to solve properly.

The units outputted in the BOM are driven by the part, therefor the part requires to have units rounded off if you want fractions, not the drawing.

[TRKemp]

The units outputted in the BOM are driven by the part, therefor the part requires to have units rounded off if you want fractions, not the drawing.

Here is an example where that is not the case.

This part is also a cylinder, constructed to have a blind end condition, and therefore uses a straightforward way of determining the length via the properties. i made its length 15.0625 in the model.

The other part is the pipe that uses the bounding box to determine length. Its end condition would typically be up to a surface. The units in that part are also set to decimal.

I placed these two items in an assembly together, then generated a drawing BOM.

One item is displayed as a fraction, despite the units set as decimal. The other remains a decimal. The drawing template units are set to fractions.

[jcapriotti]

The other part is the pipe that uses the bounding box to determine length. Its end condition would typically be up to a surface. The units in that part are also set to decimal.

image.png

How are you building the description string for the bounding box method?

[AlexLachance]

Here is an example where that is not the case.

This part is also a cylinder, constructed to have a blind end condition, and therefore uses a straightforward way of determining the length via the properties. i made its length 15.0625 in the model.
image.png

The other part is the pipe that uses the bounding box to determine length. Its end condition would typically be up to a surface. The units in that part are also set to decimal.

I placed these two items in an assembly together, then generated a drawing BOM.

One item is displayed as a fraction, despite the units set as decimal. The other remains a decimal. The drawing template units are set to fractions.


image.png

Do you have fractions round-off activated? If not, then it will keep decimals unless it hits directly the decimal number for a fraction, example .125 for 1/8

[TRKemp]

How are you building the description string for the bounding box method?

Im using a global variable.

I have a variable set for the length of "trim stock" I want set at 1.5"
Then a I have a variable set for the bounding box length + the trim stock length

That variable is inserted into the property text string.

The warning says it causes a potential circular reference, but throughout my tests, I havent had any issues with its ability to populate the correct length.

Do you have fractions round-off activated? If not, then it will keep decimals unless it hits directly the decimal number for a fraction, example .125 for 1/8

Yep, I have fraction round-off activated. Just to test this theory, I set the length of the extruded pipe to 15.09. The BOM rounded it down to 15 1/16" correctly.

[TRKemp]

It has something to do with my use of global variables in the property text string. I can't really see another way to add length to the bounding box and still insert it into the text string, however.

Nuts.

[john@layketool.com]

For those with hole wizard features and the unabsorbed position sketch there is now a hot fix available to download. Also it has been fixed in 2024 SP5 that is available however if you have any holes created in 2024 SP4 hole wizard that already have the sketch unabsorbed, editing the hole wizard feature will no longer absorb the positioning sketch in SP5.0 . Those would have to be fixed in 2024 SP4 before opening them in SP5. The link to the hotfix is here

https://trimech.sharefile.com/share/vie ... 3effb66d14

[DLZ_SWX_User]

Just discovered what I believe may be an issue & have contacted my VAR. When you use hole wizard & close the feature the feature tree look like it always has in the past, with it's related sketches absorbed. upon saving the part, closing the part, & then opening the part back up, the hole location sketch appears to be dangling. It is no longer absorbed into the feature. The sketch is also not hidden.

For those with hole wizard features and the unabsorbed position sketch there is now a hot fix available to download. Also it has been fixed in 2024 SP5 that is available however if you have any holes created in 2024 SP4 hole wizard that already have the sketch unabsorbed, editing the hole wizard feature will no longer absorb the positioning sketch in SP5.0 . Those would have to be fixed in 2024 SP4 before opening them in SP5. The link to the hotfix is here

https://trimech.sharefile.com/share/vie ... 3effb66d14

This issue is fixed in SP5.0. If you have any dangling sketches from SP4.0 you will need to delete the feature & recreate it. On fellow on another site thought that deleting the feature & then undoing the delete reaborbs the sketch, and it does but if you save the part & open it again the sketch becomes dangling again.

Happy modeling!

Edited to add; I did not install the hotfix before hand so I am not able to comment on that fix.