Slow regeneration or loading

[Silver92b]

We had decided to migrate from Pro Engineer to Solid works and started implementing the move. We just started using Solid Works and we noticed that complicated solid models with large numbers of features (a hollow cylinder with 240 holes w/c-bores) take an unusually long time to load or regenerate compared to ProE. This is very disturbing and we are wondering if we've made a mistake by changing from ProE. Could there be some solution for this issue?

Thanks

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Perhaps you should have a couple of "Screwdrivers" to correct that disfunction


Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[J-C]

An "Edit Post" button would be better.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[berkshire]

Gildashard (Mechanical)
You have to put in a forum enhancement request to David for that one.
B.E.

 

[Silver92b]

OK, I tried the various settings on each of the patterned features. The results are varied but of course, they are much faster with the "Geometry Pattern" checked. With the unchecked option the regen times were over 100 seconds. With it checked they were about 11 seconds. However, that does not tell the whole story. The actual time that the hourglass is visible and the cursor is not available was 23 seconds when the Feature Statistics window showed 11 seconds.... Also, when I closed the document, it took a long time. I did not time it but it seemed like a minute or more before the solid model closed and the drawing file, which was open already, loaded on the screen and I got my cursor again... Either we have some serious problems or unrealistic expectations from SW. BTW, the "official" software packages were delivered this morning.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

What were you using before the "official" software packages arrived?
When you installed SW, did you disable whatever anti-virus program you use?


Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[Silver92b]

What were you using before the "official" software packages arrived?
When you installed SW, did you disable whatever anti-virus program you use?

We were using an "unofficial" copy of the latest software installed by the reseller until the "official" stuff was received... We wanted to get started ASAP and he was helpful with that. I'm glad we were able to play with it for the 1.5 extra days we had it. Otherwise we would not have found these issues.
The software was installed by the reseller himself. And yes, he disabled the antivirus software before installing it. Previously, he had given us "evaluation" copies of SW, but they were of an earlier version, so we did not work with them very much at all. Particularly since they were not very similar as far as the interface and funtionality as the latest version (which is what we have already).
Anyway, he was very careful to unistall all previous versions of SW and any other associated software such as Edrawings, etc.
I'm 99.9% sure that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the installation or configuration of SW in our machines. Of course, we were 99.9% sure about the performance level of SW vs ProE before we did our A-B comparisons....

 

[J-C]

Yeah...the features statistics only count the actual rebuild time of features. I think there is a graphics refresh going on there at the end that makes it take longer. Your card (Nvidia Quadro4 980 XGL) is fairly old and may be the reason for the delay. I would certainly look into upgrading that...especially if you are running the latest version of Solidworks. That card was probably current around the time of Swx 2004.

What version of Pro/E was you using?

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[Silver92b]

Yeah...the features statistics only count the actual rebuild time of features. I think there is a graphics refresh going on there at the end that makes it take longer. Your card (Nvidia Quadro4 980 XGL) is fairly old and may be the reason for the delay. I would certainly look into upgrading that...especially if you are running the latest version of Solidworks. That card was probably current around the time of Swx 2004.

What version of Pro/E was you using?

The card might not be so new, but it does work pretty well with the ProE Wildfire 3.0 (that's the latest release AFAIK)

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

So (just to confrm) you are running SW06-SP4.1 and Pro/E WF3? Aren't they about the same price now ... or is PTC still ripping the consumer for every add-on module & the subscription fees?

Before you make a final decision on whether SW is a mistake for you, please post the file for us to download, investigate & report back.

From what I've read in these & other forums, I don't believe SW is that much (if any) slower than WF. Patterns, however, are definitely not one of SWs strongest points. It also appears to be more sensitive to video cards & drivers.


Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[J-C]

I beg to differ CBL....Patterns were tested a few years ago and Solidworks regened large patterns faster than Pro/E, Solidedge, Inventor, and UG. Cant' remember where the post was or what forum but I remember it. Of course....that doesn't mean one of the other systems wasn't properly optimized....much like what we're going through now.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[AnnaWood]

I modeled up the same part that Gildashard showed on my home machine.

SW06 SP4.1, core SW with only my spaceball add-in running.
Window XP SP2
AMD Opteron 144 1.81 Ghz
2 Gigs of RAM
Nvidia GeForce 6150 (onboard video)
Nvidia ForceWare 81.98
ASUS A8N-VM CSM Mainboard

With Geometry Pattern On, Feature Statisics shows 1.67 for regen. With Geomery Pattern Off it goes to 18.48 seconds.

There is only a couple second lag from when the regen ends until the hourglass goes away. This is with a non-CAD, onboard video system.

FWIW,





Anna Wood
SW06 SP4.1 x64, WinXP x64
Dell Precision 380, Pentium D940, 4 Gigs RAM, FX3450

http://www.auerprecision.com

 

[Silver92b]

Thanks to all of you for taking time to help us out here. I'm a little reluctant to even bring up the topic and compare SW with WF. Please believe me that I would like nothing better than to make SW work.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but we already have 2 seats of ProE WF 3.0 (we've had ProE for perhaps 6~8 years) the whole reason we looked into SW was to save money. As I explained, the maintenance alone for ProE is 60% of the total cost of SW including training and maintenance. We need training for WF 3.0 because frankly, we don't know the program as well as we could because it's too new. That would only add more money to the cost of operating ProE... From a monetary standpoint it's a no brainer. However, our products are very heavily biased to pattern heavy geometry and we ran into this slow regen issues.

To give you an example, the drawing of this part alone takes something in the neighborhood or 30 seconds to load with SW. The same drawing in ProE loads instantaneously. The solid model regens are not quite so slow in comparison, but the graphics engine of ProE seems to handle these things more efficiently. I've spoken with the reseller again and he assured me that SW can perform at par with WF 3.0 and their resident SW expert will come to our office later this week to show us how to do it. I hope we get the results we want so we can implement the migration.

Thanks again for the input, suggestions and all the time you've spent on this. BTW, how can I post those screen shots of SW? I did a print screen and pasted the pictures in a Word document, but I cannot figure out how to paste them onto a post like this one. I'd like to show you all the exact part that we are dealing with. I'm also concerned about how the performance is going to be with large assemblies... I hope it all turns out OK. I know that I'd love to use that frameing or weldment feature of SW. As far as I can tell WF does not have anything like that....

 

[toffeet]

Why not considering Solid Edge? It rocks!

Solid Edge V18 SP6 on WinXP SP2

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Silver92b ... See faq559-1100 and faq559-1177 for posting images and files.
Please let us know the outcome of the VARs visit. I'm betting that SW is able to match, or beat, WF3.

Gildashard ... that's good to hear, but I've not seen anything to confirm it. I'm just going by what I've read in these threads & personal experience of large patterns slowing things down, but have never seen definitive camparisons. If you (or anyone else) find any, please post.


Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[J-C]

I can't find the post....it might have been another forum. Need Heckler to respond as he has alot of Pro/E and Swx experience.

Basically it was large patterns getting into over a 1000 instances. It brought all the cad programs to their knees.



Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[Anunzio]

It seems that most of the people answering your questions are solely SW users.
I work with both softwares and the truth is very simple.
Performance wise,SW cannot be even compared to ProE.
This is even more true for complex plastic parts (Let alon SW weaknesses in surface area)

If yoy want to continue to work with SW you will have to accept it.
However I would strongely recommend going back to ProE.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Gildashard ... Is this what you remember seeing?

http://www.cadventureinc.com/products/solidworks-white-papers.html

Would be great to have a more recent comparison.


Helpful SW websites FAQ559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions FAQ559-1091

 

[Silver92b]

It seems that most of the people answering your questions are solely SW users.
I work with both softwares and the truth is very simple.
Performance wise,SW cannot be even compared to ProE.
[/qoute]

Well, I thought that might be the case. But I had hoped that it would not be so....

If yoy want to continue to work with SW you will have to accept it.
However I would strongely recommend going back to ProE.[/qoute]
We do not have complex plastic parts (other than parts with many patterned features) and we do not deal with surfaces either. But so far the parts we have created with both softwares present considerable differences so far... We researched this project as well as we could. From all our conversations with the resellers as well as with SW users, we believed that SW would definitely match or surpass ProE WF 3.0 in performance. Alas, that has not been the case so far. I hope that the SW expert who's coming next week can make it happen. Otherwise we'll have to stay with ProE and pay the higher price.....

 

[J-C]

No...I remember that cube assy though. This was just a bunch of users comparing linear patterned holes and rebuild times. You remember that question that pops up from time to time when an Autocad user tries to create perforated wire mesh screens or something and brings his computer to a halt when the patterned holes get into the 1000's.

Welcome Anunzio...As a first time poster....do you care to share some screenshots and rebuild times you've experienced? What kind of features give you trouble? I've done some fairly complex parts with around 500 features...curves and surfaces etc. with not too much trouble. Plus there are some great examples like Mike Wilson's Scooby Doo and Mach 5 models. Be interesting to see those modeled in other cad programs....it would sure give a good comparison of rebuild times.

Mike's site:

http://www.mikejwilson.com/solidworks/solidworks_files.htm

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[Simon205]

Wasn't SW initially started by some ex-PTC employees? Or is this just a rumour?