Speed of large presentation files (assembly vs. parts)

[mficarra]

I was wondering if anyone has done much work on testing speed of a large assembly vs. a large part modeled to look like an assembly. I need to create a system (for presentation purposes only) and was wondering if I am better off making subassemblies into complex parts instead. Which will I be able to orbit around, pan, & zoom without having the display adapter show parts as "blocks"?

___________
Thanks,

Mike

[Anonymous]

Not sure if I got you right...
When comparing the grafic speed of the exact same geometry, built as an
assembly, vs. built as a featrued solid, the solid was many times faster in
grafic than the assembly, due to my test results.
Don't know where this comes from?

Regards,
---
Leo Laimer
Bad Ischl - Austria

[Anonymous]

Just a guess.... For an assembly there is some number of faces that will be
partially or totally hidden (mating faces, etc.) that must be calculated. For
the same envelope as a single part these faces don't exist, so don't have to
be calc'd. (?) Might be interesting to derive an assembly of cubes
(separated by some distance) into a single multi body part and see if there's
a difference (or have you already done this?).

==============================

"Leo Laimer" wrote in message
news:855848D60C8EDC8C7258A74B6FEEFF90@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Not sure if I got you right...
When comparing the grafic speed of the exact same geometry, built as an
assembly, vs. built as a featrued solid, the solid was many times faster in
grafic than the assembly, due to my test results.
Don't know where this comes from?

Regards,
---
Leo Laimer
Bad Ischl - Austria

[Anonymous]

Jeff,
Leo...cubes...grafic speed... Your' on the right track!

Using the 8000 cubes assembly, I get 2.66Hz display rate.
Using the 8000 features part, I get 52.6Hz.
Other than the display rate, there is no difference when you look at the
screen... bot look exactly the same.

Regards,
---
Leo Laimer
Bad Ischl - Austria

[Anonymous]

When importng large sat files i have found it best to open them in
AutoCAD/MDT and union all the bodies into one part and then import the one
part. I can manage this process with 512MB RAM. This process is much faster
than opening the sat file in iv and saving the assembly before you even get
to combining into a derived part. this took about 1.2GB. I have tried this
process with sat files containing 1200 bodies representing a building
structure done in ProSteel 3D/AutoCAD. (For interest the ProSteel file was
1.9MB, when converted to AutoCAD solids the size went to 23MB and the
performance dropped considerably. When converted to single iv part the files
size was 22MB but it performed well.)
In going through this process i would like to see the traslation improved so
that identical bodies in the sat/dwg file are treated as the same part
rather than seperate parts. e.g in the sat file of the building where all of
the bolted connection details made of of 2 different bolts. nuts and
washers. These represented half of the parts translated by iv.

Hope this helps some.

Matthew


"Leo Laimer" wrote in message
news:46BF5D278BDD0B3827C0EE6F90511C43@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Jeff,
> Leo...cubes...grafic speed... Your' on the right track!
>
> Using the 8000 cubes assembly, I get 2.66Hz display rate.
> Using the 8000 features part, I get 52.6Hz.
> Other than the display rate, there is no difference when you look at the
> screen... bot look exactly the same.
>
> Regards,
> ---
> Leo Laimer
> Bad Ischl - Austria
>
>

[Anonymous]

That's quite a dramatic difference. If there's an air gap between all the
cubes, I guess that means hiding faces isn't the issue, so...? Just different
algorithms for assembly and part mode?

======================

"Leo Laimer" wrote in message
news:46BF5D278BDD0B3827C0EE6F90511C43@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Jeff,
Leo...cubes...grafic speed... Your' on the right track!

Using the 8000 cubes assembly, I get 2.66Hz display rate.
Using the 8000 features part, I get 52.6Hz.
Other than the display rate, there is no difference when you look at the
screen... bot look exactly the same.

Regards,
---
Leo Laimer
Bad Ischl - Austria

[Anonymous]

The display speed has alrady been proven faster as a part than an assy. Something else to consider is how easy your presentation will be to manipulate. Since you're doing this for presentation purposes colors will most likely play an important role and changing part colors of a model as an assy is much faster and easier than changing feature/face colors in a part environment since in the assy environment you can multiple select parts to change colors but you can't multiple select features of a part to change color. You can, however, multiple select faces to change color but then you have to make many more selections than just a single feature or part. If you have any moving parts you want to animate then it will be easier and more flexible to accomplish this in an assembly environment. If you need to show the internals of your model by turning off parts then the assy environment will suit you best since you can turn parts on/off without having feature dependency issues.



So, IMO, while modeling as a part may open faster, view faster, and also be fasater to model you have a greater range of flexibility with the assembly environment.



Personally I've always done it as an assy because you never know when you'll need that flexibility to show what you want to show.



MechMan

[Anonymous]

Jeff,
This is a dramatic difference, and the same difference is between all
midrange CAD packages (they are doing the 8000 cubes assy in 2...3Hz) and
the highend packages (they run it at 60Hz) up to my knowledge. (well,
MDT3.01 was running at even more than 60Hz)
Guess Adesk still has a lot of homework to do regarding grafik speed.

Regards,
---
Leo Laimer
Bad Ischl - Austria

[Anonymous]

I have found that derived parts of large assemblies
move around the screen better however loading times are horrific unless you can
pack an go a completed assemblies and break all links.

As soon as people start working on the files the
update during loading increases the loading time and the memory usage of the
dumb derived file. (unfortunately as we are constantly improving the machine
so I need the live link)

So I am stuck with assemblies.

Dave

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

[Anonymous]

Yes, in your situation you'll have to stay with the assy since you're working with live data. If you haven't already I'd suggest having your own assy file that brings in the top-level assy. That way you don't run a risk of altering the design data and you can create your own Design Views for presentation purposes.



Mike's situation is different in that he's not working with live design data.



MechMan

[mficarra]

Thank you all for your responses. In this instance of creating my presentation, since Inventor still does not have iAssemblies, although it will take more time to create the complex part, overall it will take a lot less time to create similair complex parts by tweaking a couple of key dimensions. My system consists of many similair conveyors and other equipment. I only need to create a few different "animals" to generate my library for this presentation. In the areas where I need greater color control or want to be able to turn things off, I plan on using assemblies.

______________
Thanks again for all your help.

Mike