A SolidWorks Performance Story.

We are a medium sized progressive die shop who has been trying to
migrate over
to SolidWorks from Autocad for about a year. The ride has been slow and
frustrating.
We design large highly surfaced stampings with a majority of our data
coming in IGES.
We chose Solidworks over the competitors on a basis of price and what
seemed to be very good functionality through our salespersons demos. We
were promised a 40% increase in productivity from what our current
system was. If you ever take a look at SolidWorks adds they say about
the same. My first few designs were run on Solidworks 2004 with all the
required service packs installed (seems like their were around 100 of
them) with very slow performance. I contacted my AE with my problems:
Slow Assembly performance, slow mate times, slow rotation, extremely
slow 2D Performance. My system requirements were at the top of
SolidWorks recommendations. How could this be? We tried everything.
Large Assembly Mode, Lightweight Components, Detached Drawings. If a
CAD system has to have all these options it should say something about
its performance out of the box. Autocad, the last time I checked,
doesn't have a large drawing dumb down button. By the end of all the
checking and testing they notified me that it must be the way that I
modeled my assembly and it had nothing to do with SW performance. They
hadn't heard of any problems similar to mine.
I must have been dreaming. SW is better. SW is better. SW is better.
That's what their salespeople are trained to force-feed you. I was
still feeling pretty good about the product until our SW salesperson
told myself and a colleague that he wasn't going to waste any more
valuable time diagnosing our problems if were weren't committed to
purchasing the remaining 3 seats we were looking to buy. OUCH!!!!
Strike #1.

Low and behold the introduction of SW2005. They have a new feature. Can
you guess what it is? It's a new slider bar under the PERFORMANCE
settings called Level of Detail. That solved about 30% of my problems
in the 3D performance arena. My other performance increase came by the
way of mate times. When I had my AE do testing with me in SW 2004 I was
having mate times upwards of around 30 seconds. It must have been the
way I modeled my assembly I was told. Wrong! I loaded the same design
into 2005 and tested the same mates. They were instantaneous in 2005.
No waiting. I contacted my AE and told him about it. He tested it and
had the same results. Hmmmmmm, SolidWorks doesn't state anything in the
list of improvements for 2005 regarding increased mate performance. Was
I dreaming again? SW is better. SW is better. SW is better. I would
challenge any SW user to test mating between
2004 and 2005 on a large complex assembly. Have fun! Strke #2.

I think my third and final strike with the software is coming as I
write this. It is something that has plagued me with SolidWorks from
the onset and it regards 2D performance. SW2004 and SW2005 have a bad
case of the "I don't do 2D" syndrome. Our industry still relies
heavily on prints. Our diemakers build from these sheets and rely
heavily on notes and section views. We cut anywhere from 6-12 sections
through a die assembly. We label each component in the section views
and the Autoballoon function
works really well to start. Once you load up that many 2D sheets in
this software your in for the long haul. Expect 10 minute load times
and gathering any information is like pulling teeth. And just wait
until you find a screw up. Reload the model and change. Now wait
another 10-15 minutes for all your 2D sheets to update. I could have
stretched and pulled in 2D in a fraction of the time. The only way this
software can function is if the 2D is translated into a 2D system. I
think Solidworks knows this and that's why they have products like E
drawings and now they have the 2D emulator. Which I might add doesn't
work very well with detail unless you're trying to converse a box. If
any of you SW jocks out their are still brainwashed to the SW is better
thinking take a look at PROE's new document titled: The 10 Ways that
SolidWorks Slows You Down. Check it out. It underlines everything I've
just stated. Don't get me wrong. I can model just about anything in
SolidWorks pretty fast now with the mysterious improvements in SW2005.
The package as a whole however still needs work. Up to this point
utilizing SW for doing everything I am 125% slower over my 2D package.
If you can muster doing 3D in SW and 2D in Autocad I think you'll have
a winning package. The search still continues for us on an all around
solution however.

 

Sorry to hear. I had a professor that I trained back in the day, and
he loved SolidWorks for progressive die design as well as his students.
You can only imagine that their computers were not top notch. They
actually did complicated stuff for their final designs. Wish you
luck. Have you had your VAR bring in the regional technical manager
from SolidWorks? Or try briniging in another VAR to help. They may
have a fresh idea to help.

Ken M.

 

I agree the regional guys need contact, and then maybe the crew @ Swks
Hdqrtrs.

If I were going to design planes or complicated multi-step blanking
dies, I think I would look to the 3D software salesman for each product
to take me to 2 vendors who already do such products, to interview
their CAD or IT guys (not to steal technology).
In other words, I want to see results before I buy the software.

Bo

 

Brian,

The first thing new users should understand is that they don't know
everything. The second thing you need to know is that the application
engineer at the local reseller is not always the best person to diagnose
problems. Even the SW direct guys are just going to tell you when you
have found bugs, and otherwise may try to talk you out of whatever
problem you're complaining about. None of these people are really well
equipped to help you with modeling best practice, although they can
usually criticize things they don't understand pretty well. Some
resellers have someone who is highly experienced in both the software
and real world design, and that's the kind of person you want to find.
Keep in mind that about 20% of people who call themselves experts really
are experts.

100 service packs? Surely you mean something closer to 1? All of the
Service Packs can be installed in a single shot if the people installing
them have any clue what they're doing.

You say you tried "everything", but you didn't mention anything about
working locally instead of on the network, understanding in-context
relations, anti-virus software, wise use of subassemblies for mates or
using multiple drawings instead of multi-page drawings.

I'm curious how your highly productive 2D scheme deals with the "highly
surfaced stampings"?

SolidWorks certainly leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to
drawings, but it could also be that working slightly differently with
this tool would give better results. The first thing you need to
examine is your use of in-context features. This is something that mold
and die designers are particularly susceptible to. It's like a length
of rope, you either use it to pull yourself through or use it to hang
yourself.

There are some other hints on my website,
http://mysite.verizon.net/mjlombard

If you are serious about making this work, I would offer to come to your
site. If I can't help you because the software is really as much of a
disaster as you say, I'll eat all of my expenses and my time, and you
owe me nothing. If I am able to help you more than a little, standard
rates apply. I guess it's kind of a bet.

I apologize if you find this overly critical, but I see it frequently
where a new user comes out criticizing everything that doesn't work like
Autocad or like they imagine it should, and later eats his words because
for better or for worse, using parametric history based modelers is not
something you can approach thoughtlessly. There are a lot of things to
understand which may not be simple, and may not fit your ideas of how
they "should" work. After using the software for 8 years, I'm still
learning things.

Good luck,

Matt

 

Matt,

Can I get an "AMEN" on dat bruthas and sistas !!!!!!


Mark

 

Well writen Matt. I wonder if he is still listening.

Ken M.

 

Matt,

Thank you very much for this post. I couldn't have said it better
myself...

Regards,
Jeremy Jaeger

 

Though what you say is for the most part true that doesn't change the
fact that SolidWorks drawing and large assembly performance is
absolutely horrible. I've been using SWX for 7 years for 3 different
employers and through two different VARs. Greg Jankowski himself met
with us to deal with problems we were having. Do you know how many real
solutions we got? Zero! There are problems with SWX that have been
around for years and haven't been solved.

Personally I think SWX is a waste of money, if you're doing any real
modelling with large assemblies and you want drawings that don't look
like garbage then DO NOT buy SWX. I can't speak for mold makers etc.
but based on my experience I can't honestly say SWX is good for much. I
do know that the original poster should be happy he's not dealing with
assemblies or he'd really know the SolidWorks pain.

I apologize if you find this overly critical, but I see it
f­requently, SWX VARs and consultants heaping on the praise in spite
of obvious and unaddressed shortcomings.

Devlin

 

I agree with Matt, lol,

When I entered the SW world, (2003 office Pro), I admit, I slated SW, (even
after), I had done the training.
I still have problems with it, but with my VAR, (whose receptionist's know
me well!, lol), I can find out if the problem is me or the software.

It is at around 8 to 2, my fault to sw's fault at the moment, with SW2005.

Take a look at matt's and other people's websites, I have learnt a whole lot
from these websites and the posting's here.
If you see a link, grab it and add it to your favourites, you never know
when it will come in handy!

Yes I agree, Sw is still too slow, to do very large assemblies, (500 plus
parts), but I think this is because of all of the junk stored in each file,
running ecosqeeze, drastically reduces the work time and the rebuild times.
If you do not use Edrawings, turn off that save in document feature, this
helps a lot too.

 

wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Hmmm. You know, for the same post where you say I'm "heaping praise", I'll
get an email from someone at SW asking why I keep bashing the software. I
guess you see what you want to see.

If you read what I wrote, you will not see anything positive about the
software at all, I'm sorry you construe it differently. What I advocate is
that expertise and flexibility can trump limitations and closed-mindedness.
This is true regardless of software brand.

Take the u-joint assembly from the SW samples folder that installs with the
software. Make a hidden line isometric drawing view of the assembly. In
the last 5 releases or more, you see extra lines that shouldn't be there.
Should I go on praising the software? If you can't work around that, then
you're just going to complain, maybe rightly so.

The difference I guess is between people who offer excuses and people who
deliver.

Matt

 

Take the U-joint you refer to, why should we have to continually find
workarounds to problems that SolidWorks simply won't fix? It's not that
I can't make good drawings with SolidWorks, I do. The problem lies in
the fact that I have to constantly battle it's shortcomings.
Shortcomings that have been known issues for a LONG time.

SWX continues to release garbage software that gets SLOWER all the
time. The files get bigger and though they add new functionality it's
usually unrefined and at the expense of addressing existing problems.

Anyone can certainly use SWX, my position is that many (most?) users
would be better off looking at some other software packages.

Somebody else posted that assemblies of 500 parts etc. are tough to
work with. I can remember being in a sales demo and being told that
SolidWorks supports assemblies of up to 10,000 parts! HA! That'll be
the day. We currently run assemblies up to 5,000 parts and it's
absolute torture trying to work with them.

Is SWX suitable for this? No. Were we told it was? Yes.

To top it off the support is a joke too. Of all the problems I've sent
to our VAR I don't really think I've ever had them give me a solution.
In fact I usually give them a solution before I hear back from them.
It's to the point that we don't even communicate with our VAR anymore
regarding support/problems.

And when it's referred to SWX you'll be lucky if you hear back in a
month and when you do 9 out of 10 times you only get an SPR No.
I'm done ranting.

Devlin

 

'people who offer excuses and people who deliver'

like SW themselves... who are people who offer no explanations unless
cornered and end up delivering twice,three times or way late. ;o) just
stirring...

 

In response to Matt I would like to say yes to all your questions about
networks, references, and sub-assemblies. We tried it all. The only
thing taking out refernces did was stop the annoying errors. Before
that I had errors up the wazzooo and crappy performance. Now I just
have crappy performance. No errors though. The use of Sub-Assemblies
definitelty helps on the modeling side, but the 2D in SolidWorks is
still the #1 killer of the software. If we were a paperless shop we
probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. I also don't claim
to be a Solidworks expert like yourself, but other than plastic
injection molded plastic parts, have you designed anything over a 5
part assembly? Our assemblies are close to 1,000 parts. In reference to
our 2D package we used all wireframe for our 3d visualization of the
parts and PowerShape for our 3d surfacing for CAM. A typical design
along with included surfacing for CAM generally took 2 weeks with
Autocad and PowerShape. With SolidWorks, around 5 Weeks (give or take a
couple days).

 

Well written RockStar. We were all told the same stuff regarding
assembly size. We were also sold on the fact that a competitor was
using the product and had incorporated 6 seats the first time they ran
it. I contacted that competitor after we started having problems only
to find out that they were migrating to Catia. Still the VAR used their
name in sales tactics.

 

If you believed something a salesman told you without checking it out, then
the joke's on you, sorry. As for the 10,000 part assemblies, well, that's
true, you can work with large assemblies like that in SW, I've made them
and done it. There are a lot of things you should pay attention to when
you do that, though,

- in-context sparingly
- in general, external reference issues are the thing most likely to make
large assemblies hard to deal with
- don't use mates to patterned instances
- don't use mates to assembly features or any time-dependent assembly item
if possible
- don't make hundreds or thousands of parts/mates at the top level
- don't insert/mate hundreds/thousands of parts and mate them instead of
patterning
- don't display lots of tiny detailed geometry in the top level
- avoid wireframe display modes, including shaded with edges
- turn off verification on rebuild
- turn off the back up/autorecover
- turn off the thumbnail graphics
- turn off the edrawings data in SW
- turn off the update mass props
- other stuff... http://mysite.verizon.net/mjlombard/ user groups link,
rules of thumb link

Should you "have to" know all of this to run SW? I don't know, maybe there
really is a moral absolute standard for CAD software, but I haven't seen
it. All I know is that the more I can do, the more valuable I am to people
who pay for help. Complaining about software doesn't pay the mortgage,
competence with tools does.


If you don't like the limitations SW saddles you with, go use Pro/E or UG
or SE or IV or whatever. I guarantee you'll find yourself right back at
the crying table in short order with different complaints, but the same
exact problem. Learn to deal with it, cuz anything that you pick has
salesmen that lie and bugs that don't get fixed.

matt

 

Your large assemblies are definitely the problem, I didn't realize you
were running surch large assemblies. The theme I've noticed on this NG
is that those who make individual parts and small assys think SWX is
great, those that make large assemblies know otherwise.

 

Brian:

You should take Matt up on his offer. NO ONE has solved the large
assembly problems of SolidWorks. If Matt does it he'll have
accomplished what even SWX themselves haven't been able to do.

matt wrote....

"If you are serious about making this work, I would offer to ­come to
your
site. If I can't help you because the software is really as­ much of
a
disaster as you say, I'll eat all of my expenses and my time­, and you

owe me nothing. If I am able to help you more than a little­,
standard
rates apply. I guess it's kind of a bet."


Matt:

As far as your suggestions for assemblies go I've heard them all before
and they've mostly been implemented. We have virtually no in-context or
external reference issues. Everything is subassemblies as much as
possible and we use no fasteners at all (rare exceptions).

If you've actually used assemblies with 10,000 parts then you should
know what I'm talking about. Working in large assy mode is a joke.
Turning off shaded edges helps but it's harder selecting items etc. and
I find you end up toggling back and forth.

SWX tanks on large assys, simple as that.

As for "If you don't like the limitations SW saddles you with, go us­e
Pro/E or UG
or SE or IV or whatever." yes, that's what we're doing.

However we have people here that have worked on SE but most of the guys
have worked with Pro/E. The opinion based on recent real experience
working on real drawings and assemblies (read large) is that SWX is a
pig compared to Pro/E.

"All I know is that the more I can do, the more valuable­ I am to
people
who pay for help. "

Of course, and the more problems with SWX that users have the more they
need the help of people like yourself. You'd be out of business if SWX
worked as promised.

 

It has improved a lot if that's any consolation, but you're right, the 2D is
the weakest link by far. When I had that problem, I used separate drawing
files instead of a multiple sheet single drawing. That will help quite a
bit. I used to be CAD admin at an photonics company and did a lot of wiring
enclosures which had up to 500 parts.

Have you ever designed a part with more than 5 features?

These days I do work mainly on small plastics assemblies (under 50 parts, but
very often over 200 features per part) when I'm doing real design work, but
when I have gone to help other users with the issues you are bringing up, I
have worked with machine and die design. Very large assemblies (I've seen up
to about 15k parts where the assembly was actually usable) are certainly
doable, but you have to be disciplined and know what you're doing. If it was
easy, everybody would be doing it. Believe me, I learn new stuff every
project because I make mistakes and try to understand what went wrong and how
to improve next time.

In my last project, I had to make a dolly to fit a bucket with a bit of a gap
in some areas and face to face contact in others. Immediately I thought of
the 2005 Indent function, but it didn't work because of some funky geometry
in the part. I thought my only recourse was to offset surfaces in context
and then extend/trim them to simplify the model, and rebuild face by face
using surface features. It was absolutely terrible. Every little change to
the bucket meant I was going back through and rebuilding the dolly. Very
frustrating. After a while I thought of a different way (rollback, offset,
insert part) and now it is rock solid through all the changes. Different
type of design, same issue as what you are dealing with.

Well, then it's simple. If this is really the case, your boss should be
pleading with you to go back to Autocad. Or on the other hand he might just
turn around and hire somebody who can get the benefits out of the more
advanced tool, deal with the limitations, and get it done in a week.



matt

 

Matt:

You earlier stated the offer and followed with this statement.

"Well, then it's simple. If this is really the case, your bo­ss
should be
pleading with you to go back to Autocad. Or on the other ha­nd he
might just
turn around and hire somebody who can get the benefits out o­f the
more
advanced tool, deal with the limitations, and get it done in­ a week."

Matt:

I'll gladly send you some files and see if you can get it done in a
week. I'll even send you a reference assembly with the 2D sheets the
way we like them. Just remember Matt that designing a progressive die
is going to be a little bit more difficult than designing a Top Hat.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mjlombard/. When you get it done in a week
with all the sheets needed I'll gladly buy your new book: Matt Lombard
Saves Solidworks.

 

Matt:

You earlier stated the offer and followed with this statement.

"Well, then it's simple. If this is really the case, your bo­ss
should be
pleading with you to go back to Autocad. Or on the other ha­nd he
might just
turn around and hire somebody who can get the benefits out o­f the
more
advanced tool, deal with the limitations, and get it done in­ a week."

Matt:

I'll gladly send you some files and see if you can get it done in a
week. I'll even send you a reference assembly with the 2D sheets the
way we like them. Just remember Matt that designing a progressive die
is going to be a little bit more difficult than designing a Top Hat.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mjlombard/. When you get it done in a week
with all the sheets needed I'll gladly buy your new book: Matt Lombard
Saves Solidworks.