Any way to increase memory usage allocation for IV?

[Anonymous]

Hi Everyone,

I'm having some issues with memory allocation to Inventor 2010 right now.  I'm working on an assembly model that has about 65 parts in it, and I keep getting messages that Inventor is using 80% to 90% of it's available memory while I am trying to create my idw technical drawings.  I'm only at 27 pages of those, but it's getting to the point where trying to edit a view on the folder tree is lagging and taking 10-20 seconds to even open up the menu!  To be realistic though, the part I'm trying to do the drawing for is a complex surface with an organic shape so I can see why there would be some aparent lag.

I don't necessarily think my graphics card is the issue, because I am not seeing any lag in rotating the model, fragmented graphics, etc.  I think it has more to do with the memory allocation for Inventor or the speed of the processor, etc.

As for the computer specs:

It's a Dell Workstation PWS360

with a 3.00 GHz Pentinum 4 processor and 3.25 Gb of RAM

I am running XP service pack 3 on it.

So what I'm wondering is, is there any way that I can change the settings for available memory usage for Inventor?

I know it's apples to oranges, but in Photoshop for instance, there are settings you can change to increase the memory allocation for the scratch disk, which is essentually what controls memory for the clip board, etc.  If you have too many large files open, or you've loaded up your clipboard too much with copy and pasting it will eventually say "scratch disk is full."

So is there anything similar on Inventor 2010?

If so is there a way to bump up that allocation without doing a reinstall?

I think it might be time to start considering a computer upgrade regardless, so maybe this is the catalyst for that.  I've been getting occasional "blue screen of death" crashes on this thing, and the hard drive just isn't big enough.  I guess they had to put a second one in just to have enough room for Inventor, so IV is running off a D drive instead of on the C drive with the rest of the software.

Lastly, I am a relatively new IV user and I have yet to use mutlibody parts on my assemblies.  If it is possible to change my assembly to use them without starting from scratch and having to place everything again I will definitely consider changing this to a multibody assembly to make it use less memory.  I'd certainly use multibody assemblies more as  a general practice in the future if it would help.

[Martin_Goodland]

Have you really got a single idw file with 27 drawing sheets in it ? Or have I read the post wrong.

You could use the 3GB switch to give more address space to Inventor but personally I would just make the move to 64bit and load the PC with RAM (8 GB Minimum).

Regards

Martin

[Dennis_Jeffrey]

Way too many pages, especially for Win XP 32. Your drawings contain blocks of every component.

You need to adopt the 1 part = 1 IDW rule.

[Anonymous]

---

@Dennis_Jeffrey wrote:

Way too many pages, especially for Win XP 32. Your drawings contain blocks of every component.

You need to adopt the 1 part = 1 IDW rule.

---

Yeah, I'm going to split these down into smaller groups of sheets or individual files if I have to I'm afraid.  With the largest part drawing taken out of it, I can't even get it to print a PDF!

I suppose it makes sense, 27 pages x 4 views per drawing = 108 blocks!

Up until now most of my idw files have never given me this problem.  I think this one having more complex parts is my issue.

In general we have always kept all drawings for an assembly on one IDW.  it's more convenient to say "see sheet 17" to reference another drawing if they are all listed as part of a series on a single pdf.

Besides that, these are all really one off projects.  There are no standard parts that are made repetitively.  Everything is made from custom carved stone.

I don't think switching to a numbering system with individual idws per part would be that efficient for me as I'd have to come up with an easier reference system for naming parts other then a worded description like "left leg base".

At my old job we had a serial number type descriptor for each part number.  35270125A0 meant it was a 35 = chair back, 270 model chair, part 125, and made from Oak. 

Everything was placed in folders according to the prefix too so you know where to look. 

I just don't think that would be benefitial to naming individual parts for this becaue they are only used for one project.  The opportunity for error would be greater too IMO becuase I'd have to remember to proof EVERY part to look for changes when I finish a project, vs. making sure that I've updated the whole packet.  Forget to reprint one part PDF and it could throw something off. 

[Dennis_Jeffrey]

Actually, it is worse than that... each part is an individual block.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

Yeah, I'm going to split these down into smaller groups of sheets or individual files if I have to I'm afraid.  With the largest part drawing taken out of it, I can't even get it to print a PDF!

I suppose it makes sense, 27 pages x 4 views per drawing = 108 blocks!

[SBix26]

All our projects are one offs.  But each project has a number, and that number is the prefix for every part and assembly file.  Parts and assemblies have four-character serial numbers added to the project number plus a brief description to make up the file  name.  Drawings are one part or assembly per drawing, without exception.  A complex weldment may take three or more E-size sheets, a simple spacer needs only an A-size drawing, with plenty of white space left over.  But file management is simple, and we can refer to drawings by number.  We're also on XP 32-bit, and we only run into difficulties on top-level assembly drawings, where there are many hundreds of parts, some of them pretty complex.

In addition, I think the "entire project on one drawing" method is just plain risky.  Files do get corrupted, for a variety of reasons, and that is far too many eggs in one basket!