I would like to start a discussion on performance with large
assemblies and potential workflows and/or work-arounds you may utilize to
better handle specific scenarios; different industries/processes may promote
different solutions. Some people think the sheer number of components
constitutes a large assembly, but this isn’t always the case (i.e. components
that are very complex and have hundreds of features can quickly add complexity
to a relatively small component count assembly too).

 

What tools/functionality do you currently use and why? What
are your specific pros and/or cons as it relates to your industry or process?
For example, do you utilize any of the following techniques:

 

Opening Components in Lightweight mode

SpeedPak

Large Assembly mode

Large Design Review

Create Simplified Configurations of components
(Suppression/Removal of unnecessary features for top-level assembly)

Save Assemblies as Parts

Defeature

Suspend Automatic Rebuilds

Display States

Feature Freeze

Flexible Subassemblies

Assembly Visualization tool

Detached Drawings

 

Other methods?

 

Quick Tips:

Utilize Subassemblies

Simplify geometry (Simplified Configuration where unnecessary features such as Fillets, Chamfers, Large Patterns, Threads, Extruded Text etc... are suppressed)

Minimize Flexible subassemblies, especially many nested as these mates all have to be solved at the top-level (Use only as needed and then make Rigid if able)

 

There are many different tools available and methods used
and reasons why to be sure, but I would like to hear what methods you use and
why or why not (pro/cons). Is there any preferred method you would like to be
able use but cannot because of a shortcoming or a process/workflow driven
reason? Any other method(s) you wish we supported but do not? Your most
frustrating workflows?  I really want to
try to keep this wide open as possible (it could even encompass drawing
creation of large assemblies) and look forward to having a proactive discussion;
I realize this is a source of frustration for many that wish was there was a
magic button.

 

Any and all feedback is welcome.

 

Thanks,

Don


Categories: Modeling and Assemblies, Assemblies

Comments
Last comment By: Neville Williams   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:25:17 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

In addition, to promote further discussion, how many users would like to create simplified configurations of components such as suppressing unneeded features (i.e. Fillets, Chamfers, large Patterns, threads etc...), but do not due to conflicts with EPDM/Process restrictions, file maintenance concerns, lack of time or frustration with nested subassembly configurations due to layered components, other reasons?

 

SImplified configurations also significantly reduce geometry overhead, even when rebuilding, regenerating graphics, and even producing assembly drawings. However, I often hear different reasoning as to not creating and utilizing them.

By: Don Van Zile  Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:36:44 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

There are two main concerns that prevent me from even wanting to try simplified configurations of components:

1. As you mentioned you would need simplified configurations of every single subassembly leading up to the main assembly. This is just a lot of manual labor to create.

2. Some of the features that I may want to suppress would not necessarily be last in the tree, and if I suppress them it might suppress future features that I want to keep. For example if I filleted an edge early on, and then later I locate a feature of the side of the part, the location reference will be to the fillet edge. So if I want to suppress the fillet it will suppress the later feature too, which might not be desirable. And fixing the order of parent/child relationships is not easy. Ideally I could just drag the new feature before the fillet in the tree, it would have a broken reference, I'd edit the sketch and fix the reference. But it's not even possible to drag it above the fillet in the tree. I'd have to edit the sketch, delete the reference (if I even know which one is causing the dependency) and leave the sketch underdefined, then exit and move the feature before the tree, then edit the sketch again and add a new reference.

By: Jamil Snead  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:47:46 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I try to use Promote but we use also EPDM and Promote is not working in EPDM computed BOM.

We a lot of subassemblies that contains one or two parts and lot of Toolbox parts only to avoid creating too many mates on upper level assembly. These subassemblies does not exist in reality.

So please vote on SPR 583595

By: Faur Arama  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:13:18 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

John, I would like to know how you use so many drawing tabs! I now only ever use one page per drawing, the couple of times I have tried to use multiple page drawings have been a disaster. Takes forever to open the drawing file, save, rebuild etc. I now stick to one page per drawing file.

By: Greg Hynd  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:15:39 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

We'd use SpeedPak if it didn't have all sorts of graphics issues when you section the model;

 

SpeedPak Section.png

By: Dave Laban  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:35:29 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Greg - You're special that's why... lol

 

I have just finished a drawing set with 117 pages in one file which includes ten main assemblies with two tabs per assembly and 39 sheets of sub-assemblies and the rest are parts. 

 

I feel the biggest contributor to this is the parts are simple parts with only a few features and I only show top level BOM's in the assembly drawings, plus I try to eliminate any circular rebuilds and I do that by using a Skeleton Sketch part in every Sub-Assembly and also the main assembly.

 

This particular job is just a simple storage bed that we make here, however there are 10 different configurations per size.  What I did was use one file to accumulate all the configurations and then do a save as 9 times and open each file and delete the other configurations.  My feeling is what kills an assembly drawing rebuild time is; 1. Design Tables  2. Configurations 3. BOM's  4. Circular Rebuilds 5. Patterns - Not necessarily in that order.

 

I have another drawing file where I insert an assembly that includes all of the 10 Beds so I can create a custom indented BOM where I can show all my custom properties, that drawing is one sheet and it takes at least 3 to 5 min to open the drawing and when I export the BOM to excel it takes at least 15 min to save it, so right off the top an indented BOM is a time killer -

 

Here is my indented BOM with the drawing in the upper left hand corner, this gives you an idea how big the BOM really is ;

 

So, just my two cents "keep it simple" - which is really hard when SW has so many great features.

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:52:04 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hello

Thank you that you finally a discussion started.

At Multivac, we fight with the problems for 14 years.

We have assemblies with up to 30000 parts.

We have also the problem that we have parts and assemblies with many configurations.

So as I've read from the discussion so far, there is no strategy.

A way found for everyone, so his case can be solved.

The points are so far OK.

Unfortunately that is the design not taken into account.

What is also true, because first and foremost the technical specifications fulfilled must be.

What is not yet properly discussed so far, is the subject of drawings.

Here in Germany, this is a very important document.

This means that our designers first open the drawing.

Then, the model is opened. For large assemblies, the part is not possible.

We distinguish from SolidWorks following recommendations get.

We try to implement.

 

Best Practices to improve open times

-----------------------------------

Use Large Assembly Mode or Lightweight mode:

Multivac
subassemblies are in an permanent change, eg. konfigurations are added.

Multivac workshop wants zu measure drawings which are absolutely
up to date.

So a high persentage of components/subassemblies is not
possible to load lightweight.

And additionaly there was a risk of wrong display when
loaded lightweight in some cases is the past.

Large Design Review:

is a good
function with growing use at Multivac workfloor for measurement actions.

Very often in use at Multivac.

Mulivac trains his workers to use this more often.

Use simplified versions of models and Speedpak subassemblies:

It is very difficult to implement.

We needed to keep double up the assemblies, or to insert
configurations.

We have already parts with many configurations.

Additional configurations make the files bigger.

Using Speedpak derived configurations :

Uses at Multivac. In the model the benefits are already
there.

But often, our designers work with drawings.

Here, there are limitations such as measure.

Use display states instead of configurations where possible

We have still not closely examined the option.

We need but real configurations for the PDM.

Each configuration has its own material number.

Convert data forward to the latest version:

We have converted our data in the latest version.

Best Practices to improve update times

----------------------------------------------

Limit in-context features

We have almost no context components.

Limit mates by using rigid sub-assemblies

At the end of project flexible subassemblies are switched
back to rigid, before final save.

Limit the use of flexible sub-assemblies:

Turns off at multivac at the end of the design process.

Avoid mating to patterned instances and to assembly geometry:

This constellation is possible in use at Multivac. Can not
be  abselutely avoided because of
function reasons and because of design workflow reasons.

“Suspend Automatic Rebuild” and skip rebuild after editing
components

Is disabled in system options with us.

Reduce the graphical demands of your assembly

These are very well-intentioned advice.

But which designer forgoes the graphic representations at
work?

Use AssemblyXpert to help find bottlenecks

Is used, but like the other tips, it requires a long
learning process, to sensitize the designers.

Best Practices to improve drawing update times in drawing

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Use HLR drawing views

Is for us to set.

Use simplified versions of models (again)

It is very difficult to implement.

We needed to keep double up the assemblies, or to insert
configurations.

We have already parts with many configurations.

Additional configurations make the files bigger.

Limit Section Views

You can not German designers, who want to see every detail
in the cut.

Very difficult to implement.

Turn off “Automatic View Update.”

Is for us to set.

 

Yet the topic links at the highest level.

This is a wishful thinking of SolidWorks.

The design must be structured so that the Assembly and supply of spare parts is possible.

He pretend must conform to the structure in the SolidWorks model.

We could define any pseudo Assembly.

 

Greetings from Bavaria.

Siegfried.

 

PS: Excuse my English. Is not particularly good, but I hope you understand me.

By: Siegfried Grzeschik  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:13:09 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Good English or not - the points are well made and understandable - thank you very much

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:23:07 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Faur,


Thanks for listing that SPR. I'm pushing this to our PDM team to research what if anything is preventing this from being addressed in the future.

By: Don Van Zile  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:12:33 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Dave,

 

In SW 2014 we've added the "Graphics-Only section" option. This was actually added to significantly increase the performance when sectioning assemblies even with thousands of components in mere seconds. This is the result of not actually mimicking creating an actual assembly cut feature behind the scenes to produce the section. This should produce better results when Speedpaks are being utilized as well; please give this a try. However, the limitation with this new option while being very quick for visual interrogation, you cannot use the measure tool on the component geometry which has been sectioned.

By: Don Van Zile  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:21:26 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Assembly Visualization is a great tool for less than 5 or 6 Custom Properties, it would be trump if I could see all of mine at once (over 30), however I would be happy to see 10 or more, then I could block out the ones I use a lot.  To use it now I would need to keep changing my filters and go down the list, change my filters and go down the list again.  Even though all my parts go through the Custom Property Tab Builder selected I still like to see a quick list for comparison, etc...

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:27:21 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Thanks for the tip Don.  Using the graphics-only section view does indeed stop the SpeedPak'd assembly from displaying badly.  However as you point out, we do still lose the measurement capabilities of the "full" section view, which is something of a deal breaker.

By: Dave Laban  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:35:15 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Wow, 117 sheet drawing! That takes me back to my automotive seat adjuster design days. Here the supplies wanted all details of components on a single drawing which actually ended up being a 24' long drawing. Now that was all done using 3D wireframe and pen plotters! A single design changed on any part was an ECO to the entire drawing "set"...and of course you had to create 10-15 different drawing packs for review and approval for every change on only of the components!

 

John, I have to ask how big is that drawing file?

 

Today, I deal with similar issues with 3D solid models and a manufacturing packet that includes up to 30 different drawing sheets, which may contain multiple "parts". We only have raw material parts which are punched & formed, purchased parts and final assembly part numbers. As I mentioned the formed parts are raw material part numbers. Works for us. My issue with SW in not necessarily the assy file, but as someone else brought up the drawings and the egregious file sizes. I have drawing files that are larger than the sum of the all the components in the assembly. Not to mention some of these are only 2 sheet drawings. ( I have user that have to wait 10-15 minutes for SW drawings to load, update and then finally display for a 2-3 minute drawing change (Using EPDM and pulling data through a huge data pipe between buildings.)

 

The tool (SW) is very flexible in what it can do with the configurations and the drawing view's ability to include parts that are not part of the assembly you are detailing. This practice is allowed because the system allows you to control what is being displayed in each and every view on the drawing. This is a double edge sword that can end up either cutting your hands or splitting your head open! You can have a drawing that, in my previous world, should only reference what is in the assembly (using Master Model Concept) but can now reference parts "all over the place" (in actuality it is EPDM) but in most user cases you might be pulling from different servers or different folders- It just becomes a file reference nightmare that is very hard to troubleshoot load times.

 

Add EPDM and you have another headache to deal with. I just wish.. dreamy look on my skyward tilted face..that the enhancement that have been included in the past releases (either 3rd party purchase/integration or SW development project) would have been more thought out and done strategically and not put in place as a "enhancement request" that just provides a quick solution to problem. You can see this from some of the recent comments..many ways to do things to speed up performance but no true best practice can be applied because everyone is using the tools the best way they know how and that will be different from customer to customer. (i.e. Using configurations that show different product configurations in a single file! Now I have multiple "part numbers" controlled by a single file. Great if you don't have a formal change process. Sucks if you do!)

 

I'll jump off my soapbox now and let the next person chime in.

By: Ryan McVay  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:14:00 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

@Dave-

I'm curious if those components have solid body interferences and that is why you are seeing this issue? I've seen this type of results in other CAD packages when you do have interferences. The display functions don't know what to show so they default to entire solid body.

By: Ryan McVay  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:17:24 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I never even thought to check the file sizes here are the two drawings I was talking about "5952Q-000" = 117 pages which opens in like 1/2 minute and the "All Beds" = 1 page takes like 5 or more minutes to open - I would never have guessed there is that much difference see below;

Again the "All Beds" one includes my huge BOM, both of these drawing have exactly the same parts and components in them.

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:37:12 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Now that is a great example. 1/4 file size with BOM takes 10 times longer to open! Makes you wonder what the heck is going on with BOM, configurations and file references.

 

Now take that ~64MB file stick it in EPDM and use versions and revisions and watch your load times (find latest files, store in cache and then start to load) and your disk usage sky rocket! :-)

By: Ryan McVay  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:06:51 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Siegfried,

 

Thanks for the detailed feedback, very much
appreciated.  I realize that a lot of
these tools/functionality have their drawbacks in which often you don’t get
something for nothing without tradeoffs; it would be great to minimize this and
offer enhanced solutions, drawings included to be sure.

 

There seems to be a common theme starting in that part
simplification would be used more often if it didn’t have the burden of more
configurations (nested included), configuration maintenance, learning curves
etc… regardless of wanting to see every detail at times. As mentioned, geometry
simplification is really where you get the most bang for the buck, not only at the
assembly level but drawings as well due to not having to calculate that much
more line geometry to create drawing views.
You bring up another good point about essentially “who would be
responsible for simplified components” as well which often is process driven
for different reasons.

 

Having said that, here’s just a typical example that I often
find of a component that is used many times that can somewhat be easily
simplified greatly reducing assembly and drawing view creation overhead. This
detail might be needed to manufacture the component drawing, but not required
at the top-level assembly.

 

6-10-2015 11-50-20 AM.png

By: Don Van Zile  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:34:59 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Don,

Thanks, I hope that SW team will resolve this issue.

By: Faur Arama  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:31:51 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Don,.

We also have the idea of simplification.

It is also applied to us.

Unfortunately, most of the parts with many configurations are with us.

Now, we must add yet additional configuration for each configuration.

I believe you are aware how big is the file.

Most of the parts we have for example 20-80 configurations.

I have there is a comment to the discussion.

The issue of large assemblies is very extensive. I mean, it was better in certain aspects to bases, to illuminate specific each point.

I've allowed me your list slightly to the expand.

  1. Opening Components in Lightweight mode
  2. SpeedPak
  3. Large Assembly mode
  4. Large Design Review
  5. Create Simplified Configurations of components

          Suppression/Removal of unnecessary Features for top-level assembly)

  1. Save Assemblies as Parts
  2. Defeature
  3. Suspend Automatic Rebuilds
  4. Display States
  5. Feature Freeze
  6. Assembly Visualization” tool.
  7. In-context features
  8. Mates by using rigid sub-assemblies
  9. Flexible sub-assemblies
  10. Mating to patterned instances and to assembly
    geometry
  11. Graphical demands of assembly
  12. AssemblyXpert to help find bottlenecks
  13. Best Practices to improve drawing update times
    in drawing

 

These are all points regarding the subject matter.

If this is addressed in a discussion, the discussion is confusing.

Another one at the end.

It's really harm the subject from the outset not properly was taken seriously by SolidWorks. We have now some complex problem. On the one side the many possibilities to models to generate, but proposals for simplifications in the Assembly.

I see here a "fight against windmills".

 

Greetings from Bavaria.

Siegfried.

By: Siegfried Grzeschik  Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:55 GMT
Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I would like to start a discussion on performance with large
assemblies and potential workflows and/or work-arounds you may utilize to
better handle specific scenarios; different industries/processes may promote
different solutions. Some people think the sheer number of components
constitutes a large assembly, but this isn’t always the case (i.e. components
that are very complex and have hundreds of features can quickly add complexity
to a relatively small component count assembly too).

 

What tools/functionality do you currently use and why? What
are your specific pros and/or cons as it relates to your industry or process?
For example, do you utilize any of the following techniques:

 

Opening Components in Lightweight mode

SpeedPak

Large Assembly mode

Large Design Review

Create Simplified Configurations of components
(Suppression/Removal of unnecessary features for top-level assembly)

Save Assemblies as Parts

Defeature

Suspend Automatic Rebuilds

Display States

Feature Freeze

Flexible Subassemblies

Assembly Visualization tool

Detached Drawings

 

Other methods?

 

Quick Tips:

Utilize Subassemblies

Simplify geometry (Simplified Configuration where unnecessary features such as Fillets, Chamfers, Large Patterns, Threads, Extruded Text etc... are suppressed)

Minimize Flexible subassemblies, especially many nested as these mates all have to be solved at the top-level (Use only as needed and then make Rigid if able)

 

There are many different tools available and methods used
and reasons why to be sure, but I would like to hear what methods you use and
why or why not (pro/cons). Is there any preferred method you would like to be
able use but cannot because of a shortcoming or a process/workflow driven
reason? Any other method(s) you wish we supported but do not? Your most
frustrating workflows?  I really want to
try to keep this wide open as possible (it could even encompass drawing
creation of large assemblies) and look forward to having a proactive discussion;
I realize this is a source of frustration for many that wish was there was a
magic button.

 

Any and all feedback is welcome.

 

Thanks,

Don

By: Don Van Zile  Wed, 03 Jun 2015 21:14:07 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Siegfried,

 

I can assure you, performance is taken very seriously, but it does not go without it's challenges as many have already mentioned; the idea that you don't get something for nothing and it can't necessarily come for free or without tradeoffs. We are always looking to optimize code and algorithms for large assemblies (the free aspect), but we also are always looking for other solutions with minimal drawbacks to users workflows. That's why all of this feedback and workflow discussion is very useful, regardless if it's been repeated even with newer releases.

 

To your points, I've edited my post to include other tools you mentioned as well as Detached Drawings for drawings. I would definitely be interested in what users do as best practices for drawings; I certainly think it's a vital aspect of Large Assembly performance to be sure.

 

Don

By: Don Van Zile  Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:24:57 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Does anybody know if marking a particularly troublesome part as an envelope in an assembly will do anything for performance?  I realize it's not what envelopes are meant for, but I was hoping it might be a quick way to help a large assembly we have easier to work in.  Do envelopes get rebuilt/rendered the same way as other parts?  The rebuild time/graphics triangles states don't change.

By: Elisabeth Daley  Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:47:49 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Elisabeth, that would help but you'd probably be better off if you add SpeedPak configuration to that file.  Envelops also trigger certain BOM and Mass Properties options which my be an issue for other tasks.

By: Adrian Velazquez  Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:52:42 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Yes, Envelope parts/subs have no mass, and they do not show in drawings.  Could still be used in a non-primary configuration - if you find it helps performance, but Envelopes still have all the same mates, so I don't think it will help much. Making more components at the top level into sub assemblies will help.

 

Somewhat related:  Re: Who is and is not using 1 level of sub assembly only?

By: Brian McEwen  Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:03:32 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Thanks, I had considered SpeedPak, but the part in question is still being redesigned frequently, and we're worried that the Speedpak file wouldn't get updated.  I'm not really worried about the mass properties and BOM just yet, and the part is already a couple layers down in sub-assemblies... but it's still driving performance at the top level.  And unfortunately, it does need to be there for clearance issues.  Right now I've got a simplified envelope to substitute for it, but it has the same issue with getting updated as Speedpak.

By: Elisabeth Daley  Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:31:00 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi.

 

Do you mind to link to where I can search for this presentation?

 

 

David

By: David Bo Hansen Cartagena  Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:12:48 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

It's good practice to make sure, every time you create a new part, to always create a simplified part configuration (where fx all features that isnt particulary important to the assembly is suppressed).

 

Its even possible to open this assembly directly with these simplified configurations (call all these configurations on parts by the same name e.g. Simplified) by hitting the advenced button in the open dialog.

 

Anything you can use?

 

Best regards,

Allan

By: Allan Aagaard  Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:27:25 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Allan,

 

Is there anything we could do to help create Simplified Configurations easier or using them?

By: Don Van Zile  Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:07:57 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

+Large Design Review (LDR) is almost useless to me.  You are stuck with whatever config and display state the assembly was saved in.  I imagine there are technical software hurdles, but this is really a big weakness.  Even if it you can't dynamically change the file while in LDR, it would be way more useful if you could select Config and Display State before opening, as you can with other "Modes". 

 

Also with it open in LDR you currently have no visibility on what config or display state the model is in. We have assemblies around 5000 components, they open decently fast with our new computers, but there are times I want to use LDR to quickly open and find something.

 

+I've had crash issues with Defeature.  Has potential tho. (I can see that type of tool being cross functional - to create the no-brainer simplified part configurations mentioned).

 

+Flexible Subassemblies - we use them, but it comes at the cost of cherry bomb mates (mates that should work), and erratic movement behavior.

By: Brian McEwen  Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:11:40 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I'm not really sure if I can think of a faster way then the usual routine, configuration manager, RMB Add new configuration.

Or RMB the earliest feature you would like to suppress in the feature tree and click configure feature?

 

Rgrds,

Allan

By: Allan Aagaard  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:43:26 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Brian, have you tried opening in a selected display state and choose not to load the hidden components? It is a thing of beauty.

By: Alin Vargatu  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:37:51 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Alin, No, I had not tried it.

 

Test Assy: 2218 components, 61 mates, 72 Hidden per display state beta (which hides some significant sub assy and machine covers).

 

I just ran some tests:

Resolved: ~225 sec

Regular (Large Assy Mode): 60 sec

Regular with Do Not Load Hidden: 41 sec

Edrawings: 18 to 22 seconds (nothing hidden)

Large Design Review: 12 to 18 sec! (and nothing hidden due to way it was saved in default display state)

 

So the Do Not Load option helps, and I can see it paying off if you have a big assembly and lots hidden, but it is significantly slower than the LDR open.  The problem with LDR comes when the assy was saved with things hidden that you want to see, you have no way to access them or even know for sure they exist.  eDrawings is a decent option for finding a component when an assembly was saved with components hidden (but it is eDrawings, so other limitations).

 

AssemblyXpert image for Resolved-->

Ran test with a Xeon E5-1620 v2 @3.70GHz, and a Samsung SSD.

 

Thanks for the idea.

By: Brian McEwen  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:12:35 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Then, SpeedPak is the way to go for you. Would combine the best of LDR with fully resolved.

By: Alin Vargatu  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:18:52 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Brian,

 

According to that AssemblyXpert output, it doesn't seem that would really constitute a large assembly (Component count doesn't always justify this to be sure); that 12-18 seconds to open in Large Design Review as well is an issue. Do you happen to have a few very complex models or imported parts with thousands of bodies or surfaces? Would you be able to share that assembly model via FTP for me to interrogate with developers for further future research? Please message me your email if you're able to, it will stay internal and confidential.

 

Anyone else is encouraged as well for problematic assemblies for us to better understand and improve performance in the future.

 

Thanks,

Don Van Zile - Product Definition

By: Don Van Zile  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 17:58:39 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Brian, please post a screenshot of the Assembly Visualization sorted by the Graphic-Triangles column.

By: Alin Vargatu  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:06:11 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Using Pro/E currently, and looking at SW, I am also puzzled by the "rebuild" issue.  WHY????

By: Frank Schiavone  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:21:51 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Here are the top 10 from Assembly Visualization (small percentage after this).  First 4 are sub assy. The 5th was a bit of a surprise, it is an imported part that is apparently overly complex.  6th is another sub. But I've never looked at graphics triangles before so I can only compare numbers.  In general I think our parts are not complex, and you can see the total number of bodies listed: 2442 is not much more than the total components (2218).

I didn't think of it as a problem assembly, it is just one example to illustrate the unrealized potential of LDR for a quick open. Who would not want to save 45 seconds to open a high level assembly and check something?

 

Also 12 seconds seems good, you are telling me that is slow for LDR Don?  (at this point I can't share that particular assembly)

 

I don't think we would go the SpeedPak route.  Doesn't seem worth extra overhead just for this. But it has been a while since I tried Speedpak, I'll consider it.

 

Thanks.

By: Brian McEwen  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:54:50 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Brian,

 

Opening in LDR should "typically" only take a few seconds and very rarely over 10; I say that because there may be very complex geometry. Could you also perhaps add the "Face Count" property as well to that AssemblyViz as another column?

By: Don Van Zile  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:28:55 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

3.1 million triangles? Is that an assembly? What is the maximum number of triangles in one part?

By: Alin Vargatu  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:41:06 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

3.1mil was the main biggest sub assy.

I found the flat view button. So showing only the 29 most triangley parts...

 

 

The biggest is (was) 135806.  And, lol, it is a pipe-T from McMaster... Okay, weird, after I rebuilt and set all to resolved it dropped to 96304. The worst is an imported electronic device (also worst on Face Count). We have some bad springs, a DVI cable...

 

Most of the worst offenders are imported parts.  80% of the parts are under 7000 triangles.

Why doesn't Rebuild Time go along with Triangle count? The worst on rebuild time is actually a fine set screw with threads modeled (which we generally avoid).

By: Brian McEwen  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:20:47 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Imported vendor components, and especially electrical components are very common to be the worst offenders when it comes to generating complex graphics models, which is disappointing really. Often a lot of unnecessary extruded logos, fillets etc...

 

Rebuild Time corresponds to the Rebuilding of actual SW features verses the Triangle Count to display the component body/surface. Thread features are definitely not recommended as you mention you typically avoid, which is good practice for large assemblies.

By: Don Van Zile  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:30:41 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I was working on a rack assy, and by the time I got done with the rack components, shelves and fasteners, I had two to three hundred mates in the assy. I was able to make several sub assy's in the rack assy, but the way it was configured, we still had boucoup mates in it. Unfortunately, when we got to the installation, were we added the avionics that went into the rack, it REALLY bogged down. This needs to be fixed.

 

Al

By: Al Griego  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:44:10 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Reduce the image quality on the offending parts. It will reduce the number of triangles.

By: Alin Vargatu  Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:38:29 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Okay, interesting.  I guess I did not fully understand the behavior of the Document Properties>>Image Quality settings earlier... Not sure I do now either.  Regarding GT (Graphics-Triangles).

 

Changing the setting in an assembly vs the sldprt...

If you close everything and open the sldasm, it will use the sldasm quality settings I think... as long as the parts are lightweight (when lightweight Assembly Visualization has a message that calculations are inaccurate).  If you set to Resolved sometimes it changes the GT number to the part setting, but sometimes it does not.  If you Open the lightweight part instead of Set to Resolved, it will always change to the GT number dictated by the part setting. It seems like Open and Resolve would do the same thing.

 

If "apply to all referenced part documents" is checked changing the sldasm will actually move the slider at the part level, but it won't indicate the part was changed, so you have to deliberately save the part to capture the change at the part level.  If you change the setting at the sldasm while the parts are lightweight it will not take affect - when you open the part the number of GT will go back to whatever it was.

 

Anyway, I found I could reduce the number of triangles for a problem electrical part from 127k to about 24k with this setting.

By: Brian McEwen  Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:14:58 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Brian McEwen wrote:

 

 

 

Anyway, I found I could reduce the number of triangles for a problem electrical part from 127k to about 24k with this setting.

That is huge. Save the files and check the new file set's size.

By: Alin Vargatu  Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:18:15 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

For the pipe-T the file size was cut in half with the Image Quality reduced (starting at 120k GT, 3mb).  Then I took out the triple helical sweep and it dropped further to 3700 GT, and file size 0.5mb .  Rebuild time massively improved.

By: Brian McEwen  Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:52:10 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Brian McEwen wrote:

 

For the pipe-T the file size was cut in half with the Image Quality reduced (starting at 120k GT, 3mb).  Then I took out the triple helical sweep and it dropped further to 3700 GT, and file size 0.5mb .  Rebuild time massively improved.

 

Glad to hear that!

By: Alin Vargatu  Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:37:25 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Please refresh the link to the video and presentation. Interesting topic. Thank you in advance.

By: Andrew Kolonitskiy  Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:17:32 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Please refresh the link to the video and presentation. Interesting topic. Thank you in advance.

By: Andrew Kolonitskiy  Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:18:08 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Here's the updated link:
SOLIDWORKS World :: SOLIDWORKS World Presentations

 

Search the 2014 Proceedings

By: Adrian Velazquez  Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:24:23 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Here you are Don:

 

Opening Components in Lightweight mode

We have found that lightweight mode causes more problems then help in large assemblies. We have completely turned off lightweight and large assembly mode. While using Lightweight mode AND EPDM, it is constant to receive the message telling us that a part is being modified that is not checked out and not being modified at all. This error is in direct relation to Lightweight and Large assembly mode. The downside is that to maintain the integrity of our files I have turned off Lightweight and Large assembly mode.

SpeedPak

Never use it

Large Assembly mode

Turned off for above mentioned reasons

Large Design Review

Never used it

Create Simplified Configurations of components

(Suppression/Removal of unnecessary features for top-level assembly)

I've seen organization do this, but feel that design should be as close to the real process of manufacturing. Add Design Tables,

Save Assemblies as Parts

Unfortunately, because of SW not working well with Part in Part design, see my idea: Part in Part Model Creation to be as Seamless as inserting in an Assembly, and not requiring external part be open for u…)  , I find myself having to do this. Example, a Dowel I buy from a vendor is 5', I want to make a part  5", In order to do this, I have to make an assembly, then save it as a part in order to keep parametric links.

Defeature

Never used it

Suspend Automatic Rebuilds

We don't use this, we prompt

Display States

A necessity for proper portrayal of the assembling of an assembly without making hundred of configurations

Feature Freeze

Never used it

Flexible Subassemblies

Love it, but do not love the variance of user knowledge on how to use it

Assembly Visualization tool

Never used it

Detached Drawings

Never, doesn't make sense to have this

By: S. Casale  Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:17:21 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

In additions to lightweight issues I just sent out an email to all of our engineers that it is in their best interest to uncheck "Large Assembly Mode" in the system options.  We have identified multiple instances where it is causing crashes or hangs opening assemblies, opening parts from within and assembly, replacing parts, etc.  Funny thing is some of the assemblies component thresholds are less then what it is set to in the options but for whatever reason it still causes crashes.  Once the assembly is open they can turn on "Large Assembly Mode" via the Tools pull down if needed for performance reasons and we do not see the issues.

By: Bill Stadler  Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:57:10 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Agree with you Bill, in my experience LAM works better when enabling after the assembly is opened Fully Resolved

By: Adrian Velazquez  Thu, 19 Nov 2015 19:00:13 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Bill and Adrian,

 

Did either of you happen to report these LAM issues to you Var? If not, do you have a repeatable data set that you can upload via an FTP link I can setup for you to better diagnose?

By: Don Van Zile  Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:16:29 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Don,

 

Yes I have a call open with them.  I have many over the years about crashing when opening an assembly in lightweight and LAM mode.  Typically what comes back is open th e assembly fully loaded, Check out All the parts in the assembly save them and Check them back in.  Easy to do when it is a hand full off components, not so easy when it is thousands that are "Released" as well as part of our purchased library.  in EPDM. The next one we run into I will upload to our FTP and send you a link.

 

The problem is it is sporadic. But I can say when ever we run into issues with assembly crashes the majority of the time unchecking the Large Assembly Mode in options resolves it.  In the past I though it was lightweights but now I am heavily leaning towards LAM.  Lightweights have their own issues such as Assembly features (cuts, patterns, etc) that do not update, inconsistent mate errors, sporadic crashes when opening assemblies due to a file not being upgraded to the current release...

 

Thanks for your reply!

By: Bill Stadler  Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:37:15 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Bill,

 

I know you are still very proactive with your VAR on issues which is great to hear, especially for how many users you have to maintain and busy you all are. Did you happen to get any SPR’s assigned regardless if they came back with opening Resolved obviously; I hope they did? You should be getting the FTP email shortly.

 

As always, thanks for your cooperation,

Don

By: Don Van Zile  Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:15:10 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

For speeding up large assembly we create a lot of small sub assemblies that contains a part or two and a lot of fasteners. Unfortunately promote function from SolidWorks does not function in Enterprise PDM. Now these sub assemblies are listed in BOM even in reality these sub assemblies does not exist. I made a lot of request to may VAR and Solidworks support team for make promote function available also in EPDM but no positive response till now.

By: Faur Arama  Sat, 21 Nov 2015 08:39:51 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Guys some great content in here, we are still wrestling with an age old issue .... speed in large assemblies.  One specific question ... in an assembly with 10 parts. Instant deletion of single/multiple components.  In a large assembly (88MB) 978 part/sub-a deletion of single or multiple items in a group takes 8-10 seconds? Why?.

 

Same type of assembly in Inventor deletion of a part in such a large assembly taking 1-2 seconds.  We are a trying to understand why deletion of single parts is taking so long in large assembly?.  Following all standard approaches/parameters/settings and ability to generate drawings and view/rotate around this complex model etc.  Any advice/suggestions. We have tested models in PDM/Saved locally. All same version SW 2017 SP 3.0 etc. 

By: Colin Ross  Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:26:53 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Colin Ross wrote:

 

Guys some great content in here, we are still wrestling with an age old issue .... speed in large assemblies. One specific question ... in an assembly with 10 parts. Instant deletion of single/multiple components. In a large assembly (88MB) 978 part/sub-a deletion of single or multiple items in a group takes 8-10 seconds? Why?.

 

Same type of assembly in Inventor deletion of a part in such a large assembly taking 1-2 seconds. We are a trying to understand why deletion of single parts is taking so long in large assembly?. Following all standard approaches/parameters/settings and ability to generate drawings and view/rotate around this complex model etc. Any advice/suggestions. We have tested models in PDM/Saved locally. All same version SW 2017 SP 3.0 etc.

Would need to see the assembly running on your system in order to assess what's going on.

By: Alin Vargatu  Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:56:55 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

2817 PERFORMANCE EVAL.JPG

 

We use speed pack but found it corrupts virtual parts or assemblies - have SPR with VAR

We use Large assembly mode all the time no problems.

We never use Large Design Review.  If you reviewing a large design you need to measure accurately.

Light weight mode usually will crash SW.

Drawings we would like to use Detached drawing mode but 2nd time opening drawing parts and assemblies missing.  You have to rebuild the drawing witch will load the entire model.  What's the point of a detached drawing if you have to load the model anyways.  SPR with VAR

Detached drawing can not be save out as DWG or DXF unless fully loading.  Enhancement Request.

Drawing with speed pack models works ok but 2nd time opening drawing will load all parts then turn drawing into speed pack.  No time savings.  SPR with VAR

Speed Pack drawing can not be save out as DWG or DXF.  Enhancement Requested.

We will be using Defeatured parts linked to assemblies in the future to reduce part qty.  Extra steps, not sure it will save time but may save model corruption, model load times and drawing load times.

Defeaturing piping assemblies doesn't work out well.  It takes a long time to defeature, sometimes up to an hour for a small piping assembly.

Drawings - Section views of large assemblies take a long time because model must be loaded fully.  Found we loose many dimension next time we open drawing.

Drawings of entire plant layout with all models in speed pack very slow to work with annotating and dimensioning.

Pack & go route assemblies will pack and go entire plant layout.  Enhancement Requested.

2817 PLANT LAYOUT.JPG

By: Aaron Seifert  Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:33:53 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Alin, it was more a general question to users who have assemblies with 500+ parts, how quickly do they see performance in interface terms like deletion of single/multiple parts ..... I think waiting 10s to delete a part in large assemblies is frustrating, esp. in direct competition to a rival system like Inventor where 1s, this is across all of our design team (50+) using SW. We have converted to SW from Inventor for global EPDM gains and system collaboration (and 95% of ex Inventor users prefer the SW interface and functionality so I am not banging the drum of Inventor - it does some things better and vice versa). On the whole we are happy with SW.

 

But clearly large assembly performance in SW is something the company needs to look at.  What I have seen in some respects Inventor is clearly ahead in performance terms.

By: Colin Ross  Wed, 15 Nov 2017 07:57:13 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Just found out that Isolate no longer works in Large Design Review mode in SW 2018 SP1.0.

 

Don Van Zile, please take a look at SR#1-16521691871.

By: Alin Vargatu  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:27:33 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Don Van Zile, another big bug, I just found, is the one reported under SR# 1-16520973201.

 

Imagine that in an assembly, component A is fully defined. If the component (let's call it Ground) to which component A is mated (with grounding mates) is hidden and unloaded, component A is supposed to remain fixed.

 

It actually behaves as expected if the user attempts to drag it. It reports that cannot be moved, since it is fully defined. That is perfect!

 

The problem appears once the user drags any other component mated to component A. In that case, component A moves freely.

 

This bug nullifies the fantastic promise of unloading, or not loading hidden components, for quick revisions in Large Assemblies.

By: Alin Vargatu  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 03:09:36 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

1-JS7W9Y wrote:

 

Just found out that Isolate no longer works in Large Design Review mode in SW 2018 SP1.0.

 

Don Van Zile, please take a look at SR#1-16521691871.

Confirmed bug: SPR 1063598 - 'Isolate does not work correctly in Large Design Review (LDR) mode if the file was last saved in 2018 version'

By: Alin Vargatu  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:30:52 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

What is a center of rotation?

By: Alin Vargatu  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:53:21 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Opening Components in Lightweight mode

SpeedPak because of bugs in drawings

Large Assembly mode

Large Design Review

Create Simplified Configurations of components
(Suppression/Removal of unnecessary features for top-level assembly)

Save Assemblies as Parts (sometimes)

Defeature (manual suppression rounds and chamfers for bolts, nuts and profiles)

Suspend Automatic Rebuilds

Display States

Feature Freeze (not convenient because prevent editing)

Flexible Subassemblies (sometimes but it is valuable tool)

Assembly Visualization tool

Detached Drawings (I print to pdf)

 

Several bugs with mirror component feature prevent it`s using.

Unfortunately there is no center of rotation.

By: Igor Fomenko  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:52:05 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

View center of rotation

By: Igor Fomenko  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:55:07 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Alin Vargatu, I'll be attending World in a few weeks (yea!) and have your Large Assembly Performance presentation on my list.  Is there any discussions with SW employees going on outside of normal watercooler talks that I could attend?  I'd love to be in on the discussions.

 

See you there...

 

Steve C

By: Steve Calvert  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:11:02 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Steve Calvert wrote:

 

Alin Vargatu, I'll be attending World in a few weeks (yea!) and have your Large Assembly Performance presentation on my list. Is there any discussions with SW employees going on outside of normal watercooler talks that I could attend? I'd love to be in on the discussions.

 

See you there...

 

Steve C

Thanks for planning to attend my presentation, Steve. I suggest contacting some SW employees on the forum and see what private sessions are running. I imagine you would very much like to attend a meeting with specific Product Definition Managers.

By: Alin Vargatu  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:45:46 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Don Van Zile wrote:

 

I would like to start a discussion on performance with large
assemblies and potential workflows and/or work-arounds you may utilize to
better handle specific scenarios; different industries/processes may promote
different solutions....
For example, do you utilize any of the following techniques:

 

Opening Components in Lightweight mode: Yes

SpeedPak: Little used

Large Assembly mode: Yes

Large Design Review: Little used

Create Simplified Configurations of components: Yes
(Suppression/Removal of unnecessary features for top-level assembly): Sometimes

Save Assemblies as Parts: Yes

Defeature: No

Suspend Automatic Rebuilds: Little used

Display States: Yes

Feature Freeze: Little used

Flexible Subassemblies: Yes

Assembly Visualization tool: No

Detached Drawings: No

 

Other methods?

 

Quick Tips:

Utilize Subassemblies: Yes

Simplify geometry (Simplified Configuration where unnecessary features such as Fillets, Chamfers, Large Patterns, Threads, Extruded Text etc... are suppressed): Sometimes

Minimize Flexible subassemblies, especially many nested as these mates all have to be solved at the top-level (Use only as needed and then make Rigid if able): Sometimes

 

There are many different tools available and methods used
and reasons why ...
I realize this is a source of frustration for many that wish was there was a
magic button.

 

When I started at this job a source of frustration was trying to track down externally referenced files that gave errors every time you opened an assembly. In some cases I had to pull models out of digital archives, or even create new models without the ex-refs.

 

By: Britt Kessler  Mon, 15 Jan 2018 23:06:16 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

1-JS7W9Y wrote:

 

Don Van Zile, another big bug, I just found, is the one reported under SR# 1-16520973201.

 

Imagine that in an assembly, component A is fully defined. If the component (let's call it Ground) to which component A is mated (with grounding mates) is hidden and unloaded, component A is supposed to remain fixed.

 

It actually behaves as expected if the user attempts to drag it. It reports that cannot be moved, since it is fully defined. That is perfect!

 

The problem appears once the user drags any other component mated to component A. In that case, component A moves freely.

 

This bug nullifies the fantastic promise of unloading, or not loading hidden components, for quick revisions in Large Assemblies.

Confirmed bug: SPR 1063660: Fully Defined Component is Moving when a Component Mated to it is Dragged

By: Alin Vargatu  Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:00:03 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Hi Don,

 

I can work easier in large assembly models then I can work in large assembly drawings. Most of the time I use projected views and only a small amount are iso or similiar views.

SW has the function to hide components behind plane. Now if I were to expand this idea on to large assembly drawings. In large assemblies I naturally want to show the facing components and the components set a distance in behind. After all that's what's important.

The idea is to quickly specify the components I want to show and tell SW to disregard all others. Similar to the section view but doing it before I place a view (why generate a view of all components if I don't need them). For that purpose often time I create broken down configurations only for drawings. The drawback is blown up assemblies with multitude of configurations that I only use for drawings.

Now if I had a drawing configuration. Where I can specify my assembly configuration and then assign views with a certain depth setting.

Now SolidWorks only needs to generate the object lines for a fraction of components. Freezing individual view update would be great as well. Sometimes I only need to change a section of a large assembly. While technically all views would be parametrically linked (and in perfect world update) I can specify which view I want to update. See most large assembly drawings are GA drawings. The bulk of dimensions is usually shown in sub assembly drawings. I

Large assembly drawings are for overall dimensions and references. So if I had to modify a GA that takes a long time to edit, then I would welcome the option to check what views I need to update and resolve. Then I would be able to export the information much quicker that would be BOM's, Pdf's, Dxf's. A flag that indicates frozen views would be great. And if a linked BOM is referencing a frozen view then indicate this as well. Plus allow me to specify when I want the BOM to update (automatically or manually).

Section views would work the same. Let me specify two planes in 3D. Then let SW calculate only the parts affected and create a drawing configuration. The drawing configurations can be accessed by double clicking the view or via feature manager.

 

I think this would boost performance drastically. Since I could use light weight mode and tell SW upfront what is needed and what is not. Additional reduction of computation power since I have less asm configurations and less components flagged for drawing creation.

 

Now how do you address creating projected views. Well instead of projecting off the drawing view, open up the 3D assembly light weight and let me chose the plane and section depth.

 

Thanks,

 

Elmar

By: Elmar Klammer  Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:00:58 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

All of us have the opportunity to help SOLIDWORKS improve the performance of large assemblies.

 

All we need to do is to vote on SPRs like these:

 

 

SPR 712870 Ability to open SOLIDWORKS files in Large Design Review Mode

SPR 633445 Measure tool show incorrect location for circular references, when in Large design review mode.

SPR 723321 Lasso selection is not available in large design review

SPR 1063660 Fully Defined Component is Moving when a Component Mated to it is Dragged’

SPR 1063598 'solate does not work correctly in Large Design Review (LDR) mode if the file was last saved in 2018 version

SPR 932887 Legacy dataset Components that should be hidden in snapshot are shown if assembly is opened in large design review

SPR 1064818 Regression of new functionality SOLIDWORKS is not displaying last opened time

SPR 1066436 Performance Evaluation 'Modified on Open' is missing from the new 2018 Performance Evaluation, even though should be there as per the Help File and What's New document

SPR 1010093 Image quality option Apply to all referenced part documents option at assembly level does not apply quality settings to referenced parts or sub assemblies This is reported as implemented. Will test and report back.

SPR 933480 After using unload hidden components, mate error shows for mate defined by temporary axis and does not solve

SPR 1063660 Fully Defined Component is Moving when a Component Mated to it is Dragged’

SPR 999176 Ability to define route C-points to SpeedPak

SPR 773041 Ability to dimension SpeedPak elements in drawings

SPR 442399 SpeedPak Drawings User would like to be able to create speedpak views in high quality

SPR 567670 Ability to create a detached drawing containing a view of a SpeedPak configuration of an assembly

SPR 556714 A DXF generated from a SpeedPak assembly drawing misses all lines based on ghost geometry

SPR 539720 Detail views cannot be created from section views that have SpeedPak applied

By: Alin Vargatu  Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:57:23 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I only open the big assembly to locate the subassembly then open the subassembly to work with.  Any of the "features" you mentioned I find a waste, extraneous, and overcomplicating things.  I don't use any of them and get annoyed when I am sent an assembly that has those "features" activated.

By: Marcus Dimarco  Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:24:25 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Yawn.  Seems like a lot of work to do Solidworks' job for them.  If they want to keep customers they will take the initiative themselves.

By: Marcus Dimarco  Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:25:56 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Voting

 

SPR 712870 Ability to open SOLIDWORKS files in Large Design Review Mode

Does this not work anymore?

 

SPR 633445 Measure tool show incorrect location for circular references, when in Large design review mode.

This has been problem for long time, on 2015 seems like it measures to to origin?

 

SPR 1064818 Regression of new functionality SOLIDWORKS is not displaying last opened time

This was one feature that i really liked the idea off, but they broke it already,?

 

Things like this make me not want to jump into new verison

 

 

By: Ned Hutchinson  Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:53:35 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Ned Hutchinson wrote:

 

Voting

 

SPR 712870 Ability to open SOLIDWORKS files in Large Design Review Mode

Does this not work anymore?

 

 

The description of this SPR was written by a very superficial person. It is actually about adding functionality for opening an assembly in LDR mode, or a drawing in Quickview mode directly from PDM/ File Explorer or PDM Search. A great time saver for users of large assemblies in a PDM environment.

By: Alin Vargatu  Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:27:36 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Marcus Dimarco wrote:

 

I only open the big assembly to locate the subassembly then open the subassembly to work with. Any of the "features" you mentioned I find a waste, extraneous, and overcomplicating things. I don't use any of them and get annoyed when I am sent an assembly that has those "features" activated.

How are you opening that big assembly? How long it takes you to open it? Do you need to create a drawing for that assembly?

By: Alin Vargatu  Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:28:43 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

How are you opening that big assembly?

Double click

 

How long it takes you to open it?

couple minutes

 

Do you need to create a drawing for that assembly?

yes

By: Marcus Dimarco  Fri, 09 Mar 2018 22:44:59 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Marcus Dimarco wrote:

 

How are you opening that big assembly?

Double click

 

How long it takes you to open it?

couple minutes

 

Do you need to create a drawing for that assembly?

yes

Thank you, Marcus.

By: Alin Vargatu  Sat, 10 Mar 2018 03:58:52 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I got a scare today, working with the Assembly Visualization tool in SOLIDWORKS 2018, SP2.0.

 

I am not sure if it is a regression, or a "bad enhancement", but now the assembly visualization list gets recalculated twice every time you return to the assembly window.

 

Please do the following test and let me know if you can reproduce the problem.

 

1. Open a large assembly. The larger, the better.

2. Turn on Assembly Visualization. Use Total Graphic-Triangles as a criterion for a column (Quantity * Graphics-Triangles)

3. Right-click on an component of the assembly and open it on its own window

4. Switch back to the assembly window (CTRL+TAB)

5. Do you see the Assembly Visualization data being recomputed?

 

How long does it take in your case?

 

Nick BIRKETT-SMITH, if you read, this please take a look at the video I attached to SR#1-17255756661.

 

The other 2018 "enhancement" I can do without is the automatic component painting in the Assembly Visualization. Let the user decide if the components need painting, do not waste our time painting components by default.

By: Alin Vargatu  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:58:51 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Tried this and you are right Alin,

reloads every time you switch back,

 

but even worse, if you edit a part change the image quality to reduce graphic triangles,

switch back to assem, it recalculates but then everything but part you changed says no graphic triangles

and you have to exit assem visualisation and start it again, and recalculate again.

 

2018 Sp 1

By: Ned Hutchinson  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:28:55 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

I really liking the performance evaluation in 2018

lots of good info

would be nice to be able to open files from image quality, show these files to change them,

or have Image quality slider in the evalation tab to set all files in assem

 

ScreenShot_20180328090539.png

 

or add option to set image quality to all referenced assembly documents

ScreenShot_20180328091228.png

By: Ned Hutchinson  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:43:57 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Ned Hutchinson wrote:

 

I really liking the performance evaluation in 2018

lots of good info

would be nice to be able to open files from image quality, show these files to change them,

or have Image quality slider in the evalation tab to set all files in assem

 

ScreenShot_20180328090539.png

 

or add option to set image quality to all referenced assembly documents

ScreenShot_20180328091228.png

Great Enhancement Request. Could you please submit it and post here the ER#?

By: Alin Vargatu  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:48:41 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

ER - 1-17258348326

 

Summary - Change Image Quality From Performance Evaluation Tab

Description - Product Version in Use : SW2018

 

Explanation : Product Version in Use : SW2018

Explanation : Option in performance evaluation tab to set image quality for all documents in assembly.

 

This would be huge time saver.

 

Right now you can get which parts and assems are set to high image quality through

performance evaluation tab and print a list,

be good to open parts from this list or have ability to set image quality from there.

 

Saves a lot of time digging through assems changing image quality to get the performance

gains that are necessary with large assemblys.

By: Ned Hutchinson  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:12:15 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

ER - 1-17258348306

 

Summary - Change Image Quality and Apply to all refrenced assembly documents

Description - Product Version in Use : SW2018

 

Explanation : Product Version in Use : SW2018

Explanation : Change the image quality in top level assem to increase performance, especially working

with large assems this would be a huge time saver.

 

At the moment it only can be done for referenced part documents which means you have go

dig through assembly's to change all image quality's to get the performance gains.

 

Add an option to the image quality tab in options menu to,

 

Apply to all referenced assembly documents.

By: Ned Hutchinson  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:12:22 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Thanks, Ned. Once they give you SPR numbers, please post them here, so we ca vote on them.

By: Alin Vargatu  Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:46:09 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Vote on:

 

SPR 1075096 (Assembly Visualization recalculates every time after switching to assembly from part or drawing).

 

This new 2018 regression destroys the effectiveness of one of the main tools in large assembly slowdown troubleshooting.

By: Alin Vargatu  Mon, 02 Apr 2018 11:41:19 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Thanks Alin, we are investigating that SPR.

By: Nick Birkett-Smith  Wed, 04 Apr 2018 08:04:11 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Many thanks, Nick Birkett-Smith. Please investigate also the regression causing the automated painting when starting Assembly Visualization in 2018. Let the user decide if the components should be painted and when.

By: Alin Vargatu  Wed, 04 Apr 2018 16:35:48 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Got the SPR for apply image quality to all referenced assembly documents

 

SPR 1076726

 

"Document Properties > Image Quality > Shaded and draft quality HLR/HLV resolution: add an option to 'Apply to all referenced assembly documents'".

 

Thanks Nick Birkett-Smith

 

By: Ned Hutchinson  Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:39:09 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

voted for it

By: S. Casale  Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:45:32 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Ned,

I voted for that SPR because this new Performance Evaluation is a big help, but it almost feels like it was released too soon.  When I first used it, I was asking myself, "Why can't I open these files or make changes to the ones I see in this dialog?  Why do I have to copy the list to a file and then manually open them separately to fix them?"  Don't get me wrong, I'm very thankful, but in my opinion they aren't finished until I can get access to make the changes that need to be made, quickly.

Thanks for getting these SPRs and please post the other SPR when you get it, and I'll vote on that one too.

By: Matt Peneguy  Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:42:52 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Matt Peneguy wrote:

 

Ned,

I voted for that SPR because this new Performance Evaluation is a big help, but it almost feels like it was released too soon. When I first used it, I was asking myself, "Why can't I open these files or make changes to the ones I see in this dialog? Why do I have to copy the list to a file and then manually open them separately to fix them?" Don't get me wrong, I'm very thankful, but in my opinion they aren't finished until I can get access to make the changes that need to be made, quickly.

Thanks for getting these SPRs and please post the other SPR when you get it, and I'll vote on that one too.

Thanks for all who are providing feedback here. It's good to see you find the new Performance Evaluation tool useful, and yes I acknowledge there is scope for further enhancements, especially to smooth out some workflows.

 

Besides the usability issues, are there any other assembly metrics you'd like to see in the assembly Performance Evaluation tool?

 

BTW, you might be interested in this enhancement SPR:

 

SPR 1038075 - Enhance ability to identify components listed in the Assembly Performance Evaluation tool (Suggestions: thumbnails, cross-highlight in FM, Isolate, open direct from window)

By: Nick Birkett-Smith  Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:50:22 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Ned Hutchinson wrote:

 

Tried this and you are right Alin,

reloads every time you switch back,

 

but even worse, if you edit a part change the image quality to reduce graphic triangles,

switch back to assem, it recalculates but then everything but part you changed says no graphic triangles

and you have to exit assem visualisation and start it again, and recalculate again.

 

2018 Sp 1

Hi Ned,

This is a bug, did you already report it to your VAR and get an SPR?

By: Nick Birkett-Smith  Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:06:12 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Ned Hutchinson wrote:

 

<snip>

or have Image quality slider in the evaluation tab to set all files in assem

 

<snip>

Hi Ned

I just dealt with your ER by creating this enhancement SPR:

SPR 1076901 - Ability to directly change the image quality of all components listed as having high or very high image quality in the 'Shaded Image Quality' section of the Assembly Performance Evaluation window

By: Nick Birkett-Smith  Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:31:20 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Thanks for the reply.  Unfortunately, I don't have 2018 installed at work and only work with it at home, usually on the weekend. So, it's hard for me to give a fine grained list of how I think it should work.  But, that SPR is terrific.  Specifically "open direct from window" would help immensely.  So, I voted for that SPR.

Just to elaborate for anyone reading this, if you are dealing with large assemblies, the new Performance Evaluation tool is a game changer.  So, much so, that when I get some time we are upgrading here at work for this feature alone.

By: Matt Peneguy  Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:42:39 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

Thank you Nick Birkett-Smith for all your good work

By: Ned Hutchinson  Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:50:41 GMT
Re: Large Assembly Performance Discussion

do you utilize any of the following techniques:

Opening Components in Lightweight mode  only use for a quick look at assembly

SpeedPak very fiddly tool - really a waste of time

Large Assembly mode  - set to kick in at part count specified in options

Large Design Review  - sometimes

Create Simplified Configurations of components  again I do not have time to waste creating more configurations
(Suppression/Removal of unnecessary features for top-level assembly)   ususally kills other items/features & again waste alot of time working around this.

Save Assemblies as Parts  - sometimes. Mostly standard assemblies that are used repeatedly. Assemblies with parts containing  multiple bodies way faster.

Defeature  - rarely. only when sending info to outside contractor.

Suspend Automatic Rebuilds  - always. One of the most frustrating things with SWX - constant rebuilding. Is there a way to freeze all rebuilding in assy??

Display States  - fairly often

Feature Freeze  - often to eliminate rebuilding. If there is a circular reference this seems to quell the rebuilding until i get around to tracking down the issue. How about a tool to track down circular references!!

Flexible Subassemblies   dangerous tool. Often have had items move within flexible sub assemblies that are fully mated in place ???

Assembly Visualization tool  - use it mostly for finding all instances on large assemblies

Detached Drawings  ?? Is there a different file extension. When I tried saving to this it was same drawing extension .slddrw & when opening up drawing it still referenced the model ??

 

Other methods?

 

Weldments.

Use these alot to create multibody body parts instead of dealing with assemblies.

However weldments has its issues and does not work in same consistent manner as assemblies.

e.g. when inserting part into a part why are we presented with a mating/positioning method (Locate part with Move/Copy feature), that is completely different from assemblies method. Why not use the exact same method and workflow that is used when inserting a part into an assembly!!  The Move/Copy feature is like something out of an old version of Autocad - ugly and horrible!

 

There are many different tools available and methods used
and reasons why to be sure, but I would like to hear what methods you use and
why or why not (pro/cons). Is there any preferred method you would like to be
able use but cannot because of a shortcoming or a process/workflow driven
reason?

See Weldment note above.

 

Any other method(s) you wish we supported but do not? Your most frustrating workflows?

 

There are many - one that is a constant source of irritation

- when editing a sketch in a part, split entities works fine, when editing the same sketch in the same part within an assembly it's a real hit an miss affair if the command actually works - it usually doesn't - and have to go back and open the part in a separate edit window - inconsistent behaviour.

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd wager that these and other myriad inconsistencies, are what drives users nuts on a daily basis.

 

Solidworks needs to have Usability & Consistency Manager who is entirely devoted to making sure things work ...... well  & ... consistently!


I realize this is a source of frustration for many that wish was there was a magic button.   SO DO I.

By: Neville Williams  Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:25:17 GMT
You are not authorized to view this page No results found! Suggestions: Check spelling, try a different search, or browse topics below.