SolidWorks Sucks...
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: swApp Events and C#
Next: AddControl with bitmaps
From: devlin on 4 Apr 2007 15:14 On Apr 4, 12:55 pm, "jlb...(a)gmail.com" <jlb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Try most of the parts being top level, feature rich parts, weldments, > > sheet metal and so on combined with the fact that the assembly needs > > to be dynamic with moving hydraulic cylinders, splines and gears. It > > doesn't work well and it has nothing to do with my training level. > > Keep your assumptions to yourself. > > Using Cylinders, gears and splines and then expecting them to be > dynamic is amazing. > You got me. > The last machine I designed that was 10000+ components was actually > comprised of 10000 > 1x1x1 blocks. > > I guess instead of "chasing the large assembly issues" I have focused > on finding ways to > work with it instead of against it. obviously the splines and gears aren't dynamic, that would never happen. The machine is dynamic in other ranges of motion driven by hydraulic cylinders. speaking of 10000 blocks there is a benchmark you can use for large assemblies creating a thousand blocks with a hole through the middle and filleted edges. A colleague used this benchmark between SW 06 and ProE and ProE smoked SW. The company he worked for at the time was a manufacturer here that was using SW and had about 30 seats but have since switched to ProE.
From: devlin on 4 Apr 2007 15:26 On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, Dale Dunn <daled...(a)atjamestool.com> wrote: > > Try most of the parts being top level, feature rich parts, weldments, > > sheet metal and so on combined with the fact that the assembly needs > > to be dynamic with moving hydraulic cylinders, splines and gears. It > > doesn't work well and it has nothing to do with my training level. > > Keep your assumptions to yourself. > > I have to agree with Bob Zee's acolyte here. What you're describing says to > me that you're not taking advantage of the best methods for handling large > assemblies. Stuff that VARs may not teach. It certainly seems that SW could > be faster, but it sounds to me that you're not getting all the speed (or > un-slow) out of SW that you could. > > You mention a few things that I might recommend (not necessarily > lightwieght) that your product structure does not allow. How is it that > your product is not compatable with large assembly management techniques? What I'm referring to specifically is that I'm unable to use much in the way of subassemblies. The nature of the part requires that the assembly of parts be top level. The top level BOM needs to call the parts individually, not as subassemblies. A lack of subassemblies leads to an inordinate amount of top level mates. Add to this that many of these parts are resource hogs and the top assembly becomes a bear. This is further complicated by the fact that most of are parts are weldments that are then machined. We want to use the weldment features adn show our fillets because the machine is tightly packed. We then call these parts in a second part where the machining drawing is created. We could use configs but this means one part file for two drawings which creates it's own problems with our document management. So we have a wldmt part called in a mach part that is then called in the top assy. These references seem to start to kill SW in terms of performance. Of course the drawings are where the real pain is. The assemblies are slow but the speed of drawings and the difficulties in getting true high quality ANSI drawings is painful.
From: Bruce Bretschneider on 4 Apr 2007 15:46 devlin(a)semmlerclan.com wrote: > On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, Dale Dunn <daled...(a)atjamestool.com> wrote: > >>>Try most of the parts being top level, feature rich parts, weldments, >>>sheet metal and so on combined with the fact that the assembly needs >>>to be dynamic with moving hydraulic cylinders, splines and gears. It >>>doesn't work well and it has nothing to do with my training level. >>>Keep your assumptions to yourself. >> >>I have to agree with Bob Zee's acolyte here. What you're describing says to >>me that you're not taking advantage of the best methods for handling large >>assemblies. Stuff that VARs may not teach. It certainly seems that SW could >>be faster, but it sounds to me that you're not getting all the speed (or >>un-slow) out of SW that you could. >> >>You mention a few things that I might recommend (not necessarily >>lightwieght) that your product structure does not allow. How is it that >>your product is not compatable with large assembly management techniques? > > > What I'm referring to specifically is that I'm unable to use much in > the way of subassemblies. The nature of the part requires that the > assembly of parts be top level. The top level BOM needs to call the > parts individually, not as subassemblies. A lack of subassemblies > leads to an inordinate amount of top level mates. Add to this that > many of these parts are resource hogs and the top assembly becomes a > bear. > > This is further complicated by the fact that most of are parts are > weldments that are then machined. We want to use the weldment features > adn show our fillets because the machine is tightly packed. We then > call these parts in a second part where the machining drawing is > created. We could use configs but this means one part file for two > drawings which creates it's own problems with our document management. > So we have a wldmt part called in a mach part that is then called in > the top assy. These references seem to start to kill SW in terms of > performance. > > Of course the drawings are where the real pain is. The assemblies are > slow but the speed of drawings and the difficulties in getting true > high quality ANSI drawings is painful. > Why can't you use the "Show parts only" option on the BOM? With that all parts, even those in subassemblies, will be shown in a single BOM. Even if subassemblies did show, you can exclude them from the BOM using the BOM Contents option in the Properties of the BOM. Am I missing something?
From: devlin on 4 Apr 2007 15:51 On Apr 4, 1:46 pm, Bruce Bretschneider <bruce...(a)cox.net> wrote: > dev...(a)semmlerclan.com wrote: > > On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, Dale Dunn <daled...(a)atjamestool.com> wrote: > > >>>Try most of the parts being top level, feature rich parts, weldments, > >>>sheet metal and so on combined with the fact that the assembly needs > >>>to be dynamic with moving hydraulic cylinders, splines and gears. It > >>>doesn't work well and it has nothing to do with my training level. > >>>Keep your assumptions to yourself. > > >>I have to agree with Bob Zee's acolyte here. What you're describing says to > >>me that you're not taking advantage of the best methods for handling large > >>assemblies. Stuff that VARs may not teach. It certainly seems that SW could > >>be faster, but it sounds to me that you're not getting all the speed (or > >>un-slow) out of SW that you could. > > >>You mention a few things that I might recommend (not necessarily > >>lightwieght) that your product structure does not allow. How is it that > >>your product is not compatable with large assembly management techniques? > > > What I'm referring to specifically is that I'm unable to use much in > > the way of subassemblies. The nature of the part requires that the > > assembly of parts be top level. The top level BOM needs to call the > > parts individually, not as subassemblies. A lack of subassemblies > > leads to an inordinate amount of top level mates. Add to this that > > many of these parts are resource hogs and the top assembly becomes a > > bear. > > > This is further complicated by the fact that most of are parts are > > weldments that are then machined. We want to use the weldment features > > adn show our fillets because the machine is tightly packed. We then > > call these parts in a second part where the machining drawing is > > created. We could use configs but this means one part file for two > > drawings which creates it's own problems with our document management. > > So we have a wldmt part called in a mach part that is then called in > > the top assy. These references seem to start to kill SW in terms of > > performance. > > > Of course the drawings are where the real pain is. The assemblies are > > slow but the speed of drawings and the difficulties in getting true > > high quality ANSI drawings is painful. > > Why can't you use the "Show parts only" option on the BOM? With that > all parts, even those in subassemblies, will be shown in a single BOM. > Even if subassemblies did show, you can exclude them from the BOM using > the BOM Contents option in the Properties of the BOM. > > Am I missing something?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I do have some subassemblies too though. I could be wrong but I think if I "show parts only" then I'm showing all parts, no subassemblies even thought there are subs that I want shown as subs. Know what I mean?
From: devlin on 4 Apr 2007 16:00
On Apr 4, 1:46 pm, Bruce Bretschneider <bruce...(a)cox.net> wrote: > dev...(a)semmlerclan.com wrote: > > On Apr 4, 1:14 pm, Dale Dunn <daled...(a)atjamestool.com> wrote: > > >>>Try most of the parts being top level, feature rich parts, weldments, > >>>sheet metal and so on combined with the fact that the assembly needs > >>>to be dynamic with moving hydraulic cylinders, splines and gears. It > >>>doesn't work well and it has nothing to do with my training level. > >>>Keep your assumptions to yourself. > > >>I have to agree with Bob Zee's acolyte here. What you're describing says to > >>me that you're not taking advantage of the best methods for handling large > >>assemblies. Stuff that VARs may not teach. It certainly seems that SW could > >>be faster, but it sounds to me that you're not getting all the speed (or > >>un-slow) out of SW that you could. > > >>You mention a few things that I might recommend (not necessarily > >>lightwieght) that your product structure does not allow. How is it that > >>your product is not compatable with large assembly management techniques? > > > What I'm referring to specifically is that I'm unable to use much in > > the way of subassemblies. The nature of the part requires that the > > assembly of parts be top level. The top level BOM needs to call the > > parts individually, not as subassemblies. A lack of subassemblies > > leads to an inordinate amount of top level mates. Add to this that > > many of these parts are resource hogs and the top assembly becomes a > > bear. > > > This is further complicated by the fact that most of are parts are > > weldments that are then machined. We want to use the weldment features > > adn show our fillets because the machine is tightly packed. We then > > call these parts in a second part where the machining drawing is > > created. We could use configs but this means one part file for two > > drawings which creates it's own problems with our document management. > > So we have a wldmt part called in a mach part that is then called in > > the top assy. These references seem to start to kill SW in terms of > > performance. > > > Of course the drawings are where the real pain is. The assemblies are > > slow but the speed of drawings and the difficulties in getting true > > high quality ANSI drawings is painful. > > Why can't you use the "Show parts only" option on the BOM? With that > all parts, even those in subassemblies, will be shown in a single BOM. > Even if subassemblies did show, you can exclude them from the BOM using > the BOM Contents option in the Properties of the BOM. > > Am I missing something?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I was just testing it out and I don't see any way to show the parts of a sub assembly in the BOM and show the subassemblies that I want to show as subs. Maybe there's a work around I'm not thinking of but I can't see how to do it. If I could it would be helpful, then I could reduce my top level part/mate count and speed things up. |