Well at least you paid attention enough to know they enhanced it… You just missed that it was not completely new.
I have updated my 2D drawing performance thread with my latest experiment with SW.
I had a multibody welding with 1400+ bodies… around 17 seconds rebuild time and its 2D drawing was simply agonizing. I brought down rebuild time to around 10s and it got better, but still very sluggish.
Exported the 3D as parasolid, checked the geometry for errors and tried to make the 2D from scratch: blazing fast. Almost sections generated in real time with little to no lag.
Which brings us to the discussion above. When you hit a critical rebuild time or 500 to 1000 features tree the 3D slows down, the 2D is linked to the 3D performance and it degrades at unworkable levels. The problem is how to keep the dimensions of a 2D drawing with 5-6 sheets and 90+ sections once parameters are removed.
the whole 1400 body approach is “wrong”, that welding is in fact a complex assembly of repeated welding sub assemblies, welded pipes and it should be handled as a master assembly with simpler components imho, but performance wise it is to be seen how faster it could be with that approach and keeping the parameters intact.
Real world Synchronous is not used much as it could be, As there is risk of a user editing something with unintended consequences, especially if there is no PDM system in place.
Had a user move 2 hole with synchronous in a requested revision for several similar parts and move another feature that they shouldn’t have. Thus cause parts not to fit together as intended on the production line.
Only found out about the error after they ordered 150 of the parts which ended up in the scrap bin. Took a another user a week to fix to and check that the parts fitted as we did not have a pdm sytem that would have allowed us to open the old revision of the part and move the hole correctly.
2 Likes
That’s a bummer. You could use the Built-in Data Management to control revisions using an appended revision suffix. You will need to be on a MS Windows File Server to use this though.
There is also feedback in the Status bar when making Sync edits to tell you how many faces are being edited as well as they will be highlighted in the graphics area. Maybe the user was not aware of those tools.
by the time it was found out it was 3 months down the line…
This is pretty much exactly what the decision boiled down to for us as well.
All of our files were on a netapp so no MS Windows indexing => no BiDM. We experimented with adding the Windows File Server layer between clients and CIFS, but as I recall it wasn’t worth it.
They had team center but were very reluctant to move the legacy files on to it or spend time sorting the legacy files out to work with teamcenter, the had a habit of putting a 10 t0 50 sheet metal parts on to one drawing sheet instead of doing 1 part 1 drawing. this also created alot confusion as typically one part would get revised the dxf for that part would be revised but the rest of the dxf wouldn’t be. and the sheet would be up rev one the revision was done.
Hmm .. purchase must have a hard time with many parts under the same filname…