Inventor General Discussion

Reply
Active Contributor
StefanTondl
Posts: 28
Registered: ‎12-01-2003
Message 1 of 6 (78 Views)

IV5.3 Handling of Large Assemblies (derived parts and ifeature) 2nd Try

78 Views, 5 Replies
10-30-2002 04:25 PM
Due to reoganisation of this forum I#m just asking another time.
I did two similiar projects in the past, all parts are rather simple (Extruded Profiles like I beams and C Channels)
Project A
total of 1500 parts made out of 700 files, taking 300 MB RAM to load.
Project B total of 1250 parts made out of 1000 files, taking 390 MB RAM to load.
For both projects I used derived parts for the design (sketches and workplanes in baseparts), for project B I did include ifeatures into to the base parts. Opening Project B is still Possible, once I start to apply any constrains the RAM gets eaten by IV, after a few changes in constrains or a few inserted parts the HD starts to get busy followed by Dr. Watson. (Ram usage is about 1100MB) Working with Project A is still fine.
Do Ifeatures make such a hazzle? What happens if I delete the ifeatures in the base parts?

Thanks for any advice

Stefan Machine Athlon 1200,768 MB Ram,SCSI 8GB/4GB free 15 krpm, Fire GL2 64MB NT4SP6 IV5.3SP2
Distinguished Contributor
mikeh
Posts: 240
Registered: ‎10-01-2003
Message 2 of 6 (78 Views)

Re: IV5.3 Handling of Large Assemblies (derived parts and ifeature) 2nd Try

10-30-2002 08:45 PM in reply to: StefanTondl
Stefan

I'm assuming that you have 2 assemblies. 1 with 1500 parts and 1 with 1250 parts. I have an assembly that is pretty complex with about 1400 parts. I'm running a 1800 with 1.5 gig of RAM and a FireGL 8700. The video card can't handle it and I can't create any views, it eats up my RAM, and the assy is getting slow too. I'm demoing a 2.4 Xeon with 2 gig of RAM, expandable to 4, and a Quadro2EX card. In the iam, this demo machine works much better, but I still can't create a view in the idw with any hidden lines, it kills my machine. I'm getting another demo box with a Quadro 4 550 card to see if that helps, but I think it's going to end up a dual XEON and 4 gig of RAM to be able to make views.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you got this far with the machine you got your doing quite well.

Hope my assumption was right and this helps
Mike
Active Contributor
StefanTondl
Posts: 28
Registered: ‎12-01-2003
Message 3 of 6 (78 Views)

Re:

10-30-2002 09:37 PM in reply to: StefanTondl
Mike,

I'am not sure if it is only down to the hardware, the assy with the 1500 parts handles ok. Trouble makes the one with 1250 parts, in this one contains some ifeatures, obvisly making the trouble.
I don't know what happens if I just delete the ifeature in the base sketches of the derived parts?

Make sure that your OS supports all the RAM you want tu buy, I've heard that there are probably some limitations with NT, with 2000 or XP I don't know.

Stefan
Distinguished Contributor
mikeh
Posts: 240
Registered: ‎10-01-2003
Message 4 of 6 (78 Views)

Re:

10-30-2002 10:29 PM in reply to: StefanTondl
Stefan

I don't use I parts so with that respect I don't know.
As far as RAM I know win 95 and early 98 had limitations on RAM, but right now I'm running 2 gig on win XP, and watching the task manager it shows it all and uses it all.

Thanks and sorry that's all I know
Distinguished Contributor MDB
Distinguished Contributor
MDB
Posts: 326
Registered: ‎12-10-2003
Message 5 of 6 (78 Views)

Re:

10-30-2002 11:17 PM in reply to: StefanTondl
Stefan,

In my job we dont use any of the iFeatures to create our geometry. But I recently ran some benchmark tests for a friend of mine from another company that compared model creation using (1) iFeatures/punch tool, (2)hole point, (3) sketched geometry. The test only addressed (a) opening the assembly, (b) making a change to one piece of the assembly (deleting one of the first 3 options, (c) saving the assembly, (d) recreating the with the original method, (e) then saving assembly again. Doing this with all 3 methods, sketched geometry was the fastest, hole point method was about 20% slower, and iFeature/punch tool method was .....lets just say that the first 2 methods took seconds to update with each change of save and ifeature/punch tool took minutes. Just some info to try on your own test. Mike
Active Contributor
StefanTondl
Posts: 28
Registered: ‎12-01-2003
Message 6 of 6 (78 Views)

Re:

10-31-2002 01:28 AM in reply to: StefanTondl
Mike,
Thanks for the info.
In the meantime I figured out what the bottleneck was:
I used a skeleton part to create a sheetmetal housing for a frame. this skelton was derived from the frame itself. This is very easy for modelling the sheetmetal part, putting 6 of those parts into the main Assy eats your RAM faster than you can look (Ooh I guess this spelling doesn't translate well?).
Breaking up the link of the derived part or just using another sub with no sheet metal in, brings the performance back. Maybe there is ome kind of bug / memoryleak in IV5.3, looking forward how this setup will work with IV6.

Stefan

You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements
Are you familiar with the Autodesk Expert Elites? The Expert Elite program is made up of customers that help other customers by sharing knowledge and exemplifying an engaging style of collaboration. To learn more, please visit our Expert Elite website.

Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.

Ask the Community


Inventor Exchange Apps

Created by the community for the community, Autodesk Exchange Apps for Autodesk Inventor helps you achieve greater speed, accuracy, and automation from concept to manufacturing.

Connect with Inventor

Twitter

Facebook

Blogs

Pinterest

Youtube