Converted Pro/E user... Whats going on?

[Anonymous]

I have used Pro/E for 8 years and about 3 months ago was given Inventor to use as our company modeling package.

Most of my work is based on creating wheel and brake assemblies, with multiple derived components.

I am becoming more and more frustrated daily by the crashes and lack of performance by Inventor. When editing assembly components and viewing the drawings, the down time is unbarable. Pro/E will regenerate the same models a minimum of 4X faster then Inventor can! Is Autodesk doing anything to improve Inventor performance and catch up to their competition? I sure hope so!
I agree that Pro/E may have a few more picks and the menus may not be as user friendly, but their is no contest when it come to performance! And the picks and menus are only an issue for a new user, not an experienced user!

Autodesk really needs to work on performance and inproving what they have and not worry about adding things that most people don't need! Wire harness, piping and tubing... Mech Soft... Vault....content libraries...Welding...Give me a break! Make it the best modeling package...not an average do everything package! Modeling and performance should be your #1 priority. Work on fixing the softwares blending of rounds, surfacing, performance!

Someone made an uneducated dicision to switch to Inventor and we are already looking to switch back to Pro/E or look at Solidworks! Autodesk gains all these new users and sales go up, because they offer it to all the Autocad users and they are the cheapest in the market. Well, they definitely are the cheapest!!

Sorry to bash the software, but I am just trying to give my point of view as a previous competitor's software user! Hopefully Autodesk listens to these post!

[Anonymous]

Removing the BackAHL.exe for hidden line rendering (and dual processor support) was a big improvement in my opinion. Inventor is much more stable without it than it was with it. It sounds good but unless it was stable I wouldn't want it back. "mattman" wrote in message news:22884634.1111676785872.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > so would I!!! But currently IV doesn't support dual processing... I think in IV6 it was supported for opening/ regenerating drawings but was dropped... This allows a free processor to allow, hhmmm i dunno, perhaps word processing whilst waiting for assy/ dwg to load lol??? Just wondering if ProE did support dual processing, and he has dual processors on board then this would explain the greater performance... just MHO... (PS Talking of multicore processors, a certain company will love that as server software is licensed per processor 😉 )

[Anonymous]

This reply amazes me... If I read Nick's original post, he's not saying he's an expert with Inventor, rather he is saying "crashes and lack of performance by Inventor"

IMO, you learn one cad system you can learn them all.
Some run better than others, fact.

So many of these threads have been posted before.
The saying should go, never talk Politics, Religion or cad software.

I do have one question, what is going thru the minds of the people at autodesk while reading this post? There is no spoon???

[Anonymous]

> Just wondering if ProE did support dual processing, > and he has dual processors on board then this would > explain the greater performance... just MHO... Don't know for sure, but observation has lead me to believe that a second processor is only utilized for generating the model render mesh. I'm assuming that integrated analysis functions will also, since they are set up to use distrubuted computing schemes. I think it's just more efficient, better integrated (almost entirely their own vs. licensed modules) code.

[Anonymous]

I should stay out of this but obviously I'm not. As Gary said Granite One is fast and PTC has some nice tools for dealing with large assemblies. I think IV has some catching up to do.

I can't say Autodesk never listens. Prabakar mentioned "optimized feature pattern compute" as something improved in R9. Well that is because Autodesk asked me what our biggest problem was and my answer was patterns. I get very frustrated sometimes at the software or the corporate policies, and I would like to see more emphasis on bug resolution instead of add on functionality but I have to admit Autodesk does ask and does sssslllllooooowwwwlllllllyyyyyy get a resolution to the problems.

PTC was a heck of a product when I used it. Its downfall was its complexity, some arrogant and slimey sales tactics, and then they started chasing the booming PLM market and nearly forgot about CAD. Who knows the Phoenix may rise again.

If I had to move a group from 2D to 3D machine design I would pick IV over Pro any day. If I were working on my own as a consultant I would pick Pro/E.

[Anonymous]

And note that a kernel change can be made relatively quickly if there is a benefit in doing so 🙂 Solid Edge and Microstation were once ACIS based. They aren't anymore! Ken "Brian Gaither" wrote in message news:4242d858$1_2@newsprd01... > Note that SolidWorks and Catia were long in existance before Dassault > bought > Spacial. > > --Brian > > "PellaKen" wrote in message > news:4241733b_1@newsprd01... >> That's why the ACIS modeling kernel never made it in any of the higher >> end >> CAD apps, and it appears that Autodesk has not been able to improve upon > it >> much as Shape Mangler. Buy a system based on Parasolid instead, such as >> Solid Works or Solid Edge. Even the owners of Acis don't use it in their >> own products (Solid Works and Catia). >> >> Ken >> "nick_k" wrote in message >> news:32764109.1111584671127.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... >> >I have used Pro/E for 8 years and about 3 months ago was given Inventor > to >> >use as our company modeling package. >> > >> > Most of my work is based on creating wheel and brake assemblies, with >> > multiple derived components. >> > >> > I am becoming more and more frustrated daily by the crashes and lack of >> > performance by Inventor. When editing assembly components and viewing > the >> > drawings, the down time is unbarable. Pro/E will regenerate the same >> > models a minimum of 4X faster then Inventor can! Is Autodesk doing >> > anything to improve Inventor performance and catch up to their >> > competition? I sure hope so! >> > I agree that Pro/E may have a few more picks and the menus may not be >> > as >> > user friendly, but their is no contest when it come to performance! >> > And >> > the picks and menus are only an issue for a new user, not an >> > experienced >> > user! >> > >> > Autodesk really needs to work on performance and inproving what they > have >> > and not worry about adding things that most people don't need! Wire >> > harness, piping and tubing... Mech Soft... Vault....content >> > libraries...Welding...Give me a break! Make it the best modeling >> > package...not an average do everything package! Modeling and > performance >> > should be your #1 priority. Work on fixing the softwares blending of >> > rounds, surfacing, performance! >> > >> > Someone made an uneducated dicision to switch to Inventor and we are >> > already looking to switch back to Pro/E or look at Solidworks! >> > Autodesk >> > gains all these new users and sales go up, because they offer it to all >> > the Autocad users and they are the cheapest in the market. Well, they >> > definitely are the cheapest!! >> > >> > Sorry to bash the software, but I am just trying to give my point of > view >> > as a previous competitor's software user! Hopefully Autodesk listens >> > to >> > these post! >> >> > >

[Anonymous]

Nick, You mentioned that your assemblies have lot derived parts in them. When were these derived parts created. Are these Pre-R8 parts. If so, we fixed a memory leak in R8 which might be the root of the problem. One way to find that out is your part file size will be quite substantial. The way you can clean up the files is as follows: Lets say you have the following derived chain. P1 --> DP1--->DDP1 Where P1 is the source, DP1 is derivation of P1 and DDP1 is the derivation of DP1. Using the "rebuild all" command first rebuild DP1 and save it. Then using the same command rebuild DDP1. Basically you have use the "rebuild all" command on the entire derived chain bottom up. This should reduce your file size and well as clean up the memory leak. I hope this helps. Prabakar. "nick_k" wrote in message news:8022263.1111670202691.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... >I was having a really bad day yesterday, because I was having difficulty >getting work done! > > I really appreciate all the posts, especially those from Autodesk. > > I hear all this talk about assemblies with 1000's of parts. Our > assemblies average 50 - 100 parts and we are having problems. The > assemblies may sound small, but most of them are semi-complex geometry > with many rounds (Many machined parts derived from complex forgings & > Castings). The performance hit when editing these assembly models and > drawings is huge. > > I look at the system requirements between Inventor and Pro/E and wonder > why the significant difference. Pro/E is running these same models and > drawings and a much higher performance level. I am not an advicate or > Pro/E, I like Inventor and want to use Inventor, but I find that I am > having difficulty getting things done in the same time frame as I did with > Pro/E. > > Can Autodesk tell me why that is? It just seems that Inventor eats up > much more system resources then other Programs. Is this issue being > looked at? > > Before anyone gets on the Computer spec and setup rampage, that is not the > issue. I am no computer guru, but our IT people and our corporate IT > people have looked into these issues and everything seems to be in order. > I would like to continue working with Inventor, but I need results. > > I wish I could sent you a data set, but it is not possible. I will look > through past projects and see if I have anything that would be appropriete > to send. > > again, I appreciate any and all comments! > > Thanks, > Nick

[Anonymous]

> I do have one question, what is going thru the minds of the > people at autodesk while reading this post? There is no spoon??? Not sure what you mean about the spoon comment. So, what's going through my mind... - We understand there are users who will hit the wall with performance and capacity. Prabakar and I routinely read these discussions. Prabakar "owns" our performance lab. We are constantly looking for real examples that we can use to further pin-point problems. Typically these problems come from any number of sources and often involve the SPECIFICS of how models were created or stored on your system/network. Sometimes it is a hardware issue. - We are often able to help you understand why a particular problem is worse at your site than at another user's site. As has been mentioned, if you are modeling thousands of adaptive patterns of helical parts, expect performance problems. Some features impact things more than others. - Often there are individuals who post here who only want to stir up trouble and who never offer any help. Recognizing these persons as individuals who would like nothing more than to sell you Solid Edge or Solid Works helps understand their motivation. I really wish this forum was password protected and that everyone here was an actual user - it would remove THAT level of mistrust. - We have customers who have been quite successful building really big models - knowing what you are specifically doing differently will allow us to help you get there too. - We also have customers who are working very closely with us on improving our performance and capacity. Despite the fact that I routinely post both my email address and phone number, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of individuals from this forum who have gotten in touch with either Prabakar or myself (more recently Bryan Kelley). -- Autodesk, Inc 7995 SW Mohawk Tualatin, OR 97062 503-692-8339 gary.r.smith@autodesk.com

[Anonymous]

Ken, Please contact me directly - I'd love to know more about your company and your use of Inventor. -- Autodesk, Inc 7995 SW Mohawk Tualatin, OR 97062 503-692-8339 gary.r.smith@autodesk.com

[Anonymous]

Are you deriving in all surfaces (or part _as_ surfaces) from the casting parts into the machined parts? I tried that on one project and I'll never try that again! I had to a.) offset key surfaces to be used in the derive (as opposed to bringing in the whole thing as a surface) for extrusion termination definitions and/or b.) create workfeatures (workplanes/points) at key geometric points to bring into the derived parts or location/definition. Perhaps (and I'd like to know) you are using proven Pro-E methods (which are inarguably more robust) in Inventor and it simply can't keep up to the methods you are used to. QBZ "nick_k" wrote in message news:8022263.1111670202691.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > I hear all this talk about assemblies with 1000's of parts. Our > assemblies average 50 - 100 parts and we are having problems. The > assemblies may sound small, but most of them are semi-complex geometry > with many rounds (Many machined parts derived from complex forgings & > Castings). The performance hit when editing these assembly models and > drawings is huge.

[Anonymous]

Reference to the Matrix movies. Neo could manipulate the "virtual" reality on the premise that since it was virtual (but not all "people" could fathom that concept) the altering of the concieved reality (bending a spoon with mind power) was explained best by the "there is no spoon" theory. QBZ "Gary R. Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message news:4242ff43$1_2@newsprd01... > Not sure what you mean about the spoon comment.

[Anonymous]

> Reference to the Matrix movies. OK, gotcha, saw them, didn't make the connection.

[Anonymous]

Quinn makes some excellent points. Especially I would encourage approach (b) wherever possible since R10 can optimize this case. Also it would help if you can update the assembly first and then regenerate the drawing so that one can see the time each operation takes separately. Nick, if you can share with Gary some more details of your models and workflow it would help us understand your problems better. "Quinn Zander" wrote in message news:4243021a_1@newsprd01... > Are you deriving in all surfaces (or part _as_ surfaces) from the casting > parts into the machined parts? > > I tried that on one project and I'll never try that again! I had to a.) > offset key surfaces to be used in the derive (as opposed to bringing in the > whole thing as a surface) for extrusion termination definitions and/or b.) > create workfeatures (workplanes/points) at key geometric points to bring > into the derived parts or location/definition. > > Perhaps (and I'd like to know) you are using proven Pro-E methods (which are > inarguably more robust) in Inventor and it simply can't keep up to the > methods you are used to. > > QBZ > > > > "nick_k" wrote in message > news:8022263.1111670202691.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > > > I hear all this talk about assemblies with 1000's of parts. Our > > assemblies average 50 - 100 parts and we are having problems. The > > assemblies may sound small, but most of them are semi-complex geometry > > with many rounds (Many machined parts derived from complex forgings & > > Castings). The performance hit when editing these assembly models and > > drawings is huge. > >

[Anonymous]

A very general description on our design and model/drawing process is this.

Say we are designing a new wheel and Brake:

1. First we come up with the general design of the finished (Machined) wheel and brake to meet all spec requirements.

2. Then a forging/casting is created, that the machined part can be machined from. Usually this model is very large in size...many rounds, patterns, etc.

3. Then the forging/casting model is used as a derived part in a new part file. A machined part is created out of the forging/casting (Machine cuts). This is repeated for all parts that are to be forged or cast.

4. Then the preliminary machined parts (Derived from the forging/casting) are assemblied with all other components.

5. A generic drawing is created with section views to assist the design process. Its easier to see some things and measure others on the section views then the models themsleves...especially when there may not be an edge to use to measure from.

6. Then all the fine tuning starts. Taking weight out, adding material here, is there interference with this or that, I'm sure everyone knows what goes on in the design process.

I know many people may not create the drawing during the design process, but we find it very beneficial.

During each edit of the final design stage, the model and drawing take an extremely long time to regenerate.

This is a very vague outline of the design process we use, but it should give you an idea of what we are doing.

I'm in a rush to get out of work today, so I may have missed some important info that would be helpful, so I will check back tomorrow.

Hope this helps!

Thanks again
Nick

[Anonymous]

nick_k,

It does not appear from your work flow that there is anything out of the ordinary or contrary to IV work flow.

1.) How large of a file is the machining and casting? Can you do a screen shot and post the picture?
2.) How many idw views and sections do you have on one sheet?

[Anonymous]

Nick, it wasn't quite clear how the "general design" you created in step 1 was used in the rest of the process. I am curious, is it possible to start with the finished (machined) model and then "add material" in a derived part to create the cast/forged part? This is the opposite of what you do, "removing material" from the cast/forgd part. Since I assume you tweak the finished model this approach would not involve any derived part computes. It's quite possible that this approach may not work for you. "nick_k" wrote in message news:27975676.1111697821687.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com... > A very general description on our design and model/drawing process is this. > > Say we are designing a new wheel and Brake: > > 1. First we come up with the general design of the finished (Machined) wheel and brake to meet all spec requirements. > > 2. Then a forging/casting is created, that the machined part can be machined from. Usually this model is very large in size...many rounds, patterns, etc. > > 3. Then the forging/casting model is used as a derived part in a new part file. A machined part is created out of the forging/casting (Machine cuts). This is repeated for all parts that are to be forged or cast. > > 4. Then the preliminary machined parts (Derived from the forging/casting) are assemblied with all other components. > > 5. A generic drawing is created with section views to assist the design process. Its easier to see some things and measure others on the section views then the models themsleves...especially when there may not be an edge to use to measure from. > > 6. Then all the fine tuning starts. Taking weight out, adding material here, is there interference with this or that, I'm sure everyone knows what goes on in the design process. > > I know many people may not create the drawing during the design process, but we find it very beneficial. > > During each edit of the final design stage, the model and drawing take an extremely long time to regenerate. > > This is a very vague outline of the design process we use, but it should give you an idea of what we are doing. > > I'm in a rush to get out of work today, so I may have missed some important info that would be helpful, so I will check back tomorrow. > > Hope this helps! > > Thanks again > Nick

[Anonymous]

We design and manufacture entire marine vessels over here and are constantly using .idw files. It's very useful to have a drawing complete with a material list to send to estimating and have material ordered, then finish up with the information necessary for fabrication. We almost always have .idw files open. There are just certain things you can't see as well in a model. And I certainly feel your pain while regenerating/updating these files. Occasionally we simply can not produce the drawings.

We were originally working with 1 gig of ram per machine and quickly realized we needed to upgrade. It's unbelievable how much just adding ram will help. I'm currently working with 3 and wish I had 8. Our assemblies consist of many machinery arrangements and sub-assemblies. It's necessary for us to design around these components in large assemblies.

I don't know how similar (in size) our files could be, but if you are really only using 1 gig you should definitely look at adding a bit. I actually hijacked my last 1 gig stick of ram from my bosses cpu. It's so hard to convince the bean counters to spend a few $$$!

[Anonymous]

Good point. Having an idw open while editing a complex part or assembly can absolutely murder performance. I'm fortunate in that I can work usually with the idw closed. Richard jhaik wrote: > We design and manufacture entire marine vessels over here and are constantly using .idw files. It's very useful to have a drawing complete with a material list to send to estimating and have material ordered, then finish up with the information necessary for fabrication. We almost always have .idw files open. There are just certain things you can't see as well in a model. And I certainly feel your pain while regenerating/updating these files. Occasionally we simply can not produce the drawings. > > We were originally working with 1 gig of ram per machine and quickly realized we needed to upgrade. It's unbelievable how much just adding ram will help. I'm currently working with 3 and wish I had 8. Our assemblies consist of many machinery arrangements and sub-assemblies. It's necessary for us to design around these components in large assemblies. > > I don't know how similar (in size) our files could be, but if you are really only using 1 gig you should definitely look at adding a bit. I actually hijacked my last 1 gig stick of ram from my bosses cpu. It's so hard to convince the bean counters to spend a few $$$!

[Anonymous]

Hey, I'm looking forward to Inventor studio... of course, I would like large assembly performance improvements too. Derek "Jim Hagarty" wrote in message news:4241c226_2@newsprd01... >I have 4 GB RAM and still hit a limit with inventor (at around 8,000 >parts). > I've worked in assemblies up to ~12K but forget about trying to get a > drawing of this done. My point is there is NO large assembly management > available for Inventor so regardless of what you have you'll kill Inventor > at some point because there's no way to partially load large assemblies. > But look at the bright side, with R10 you've now got a little needed > rendering package.....something else we REALLY needed! > > Jim > > "Andreas" wrote in message > news:19718434.1111603119530.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... >> I have 1 GB of RAM and I could use alot more 3 GB to really see how well > Inventor is at handling large assemblies, I have to agree though that > anything over 500 parts will slow it down like molasses on a cold canadian > morning. > >

[Anonymous]

Whatever gave you the impression that I use Inventor? Ken "Gary R. Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message news:4243006e$1_3@newsprd01... > Ken, > > Please contact me directly - I'd love to know more about your company and > your use of Inventor. > > -- > Autodesk, Inc > 7995 SW Mohawk > Tualatin, OR 97062 > > 503-692-8339 > > gary.r.smith@autodesk.com > >

[Anonymous]

I'm sure a lot of people are. I'll probably even use it a little since it's there :-). Don't get me wrong, Invetor is a great program and I'm committed to it going forward. We all have our own wish list and with the size of my projects I was definitely leaning toward large assembly management over rendering. While I'm at it, 64-bit compiled code would be nice also! "Derek Burns" wrote in message news:42437ecf_1@newsprd01... > Hey, I'm looking forward to Inventor studio... > of course, I would like large assembly performance improvements too. > > Derek > > "Jim Hagarty" wrote in message > news:4241c226_2@newsprd01... > >I have 4 GB RAM and still hit a limit with inventor (at around 8,000 > >parts). > > I've worked in assemblies up to ~12K but forget about trying to get a > > drawing of this done. My point is there is NO large assembly management > > available for Inventor so regardless of what you have you'll kill Inventor > > at some point because there's no way to partially load large assemblies. > > But look at the bright side, with R10 you've now got a little needed > > rendering package.....something else we REALLY needed! > > > > Jim > > > > "Andreas" wrote in message > > news:19718434.1111603119530.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > >> I have 1 GB of RAM and I could use alot more 3 GB to really see how well > > Inventor is at handling large assemblies, I have to agree though that > > anything over 500 parts will slow it down like molasses on a cold canadian > > morning. > > > > > >