17 Replies Latest reply on May 13, 2008 1:46 PM by Andy Sanders

    Display states taking over feature manager?

    Andy Sanders
      I'm getting frustrated with the 08 display states section of the feature manager taking over more than half my display.

      I frequently use many configurations, and I'm finding that more often than not the Display States section is all the way up the screen, obscuring my configs.

      I scroll it down to almost gone (it won't let you get rid of it altogether), and next time I open the assembly its back up again, with nothing there.

      I don't use Display states at all, and this to me is a big waste.

      Why can't we turn it off, like the little arrows they give us to close out a section in the dimension feature manager?
        • Display states taking over feature manager?
          I agree with you. SP1.0 added the ability to decrease the amount of space Display States takes up but we still can't get rid of it completely. I've also noted that it doesn't stay minimized and tends to enlarge itself and cover configurations.

          I think Display States can replace the use of Configurations in some applications. At this point I have very little use for Display States, it can't replace my use of configurations and ties up space on my feature manager. I want a check box to get rid of it the 95% of the time I have no use for it.
            • Display states taking over feature manager?
              Nigel Thompson
              I fully agree. Display states will not replace configurations for our purposes.
              More often than not we have the tab for configs open at the top and the feature manager tab open below it. Everytime the view returns to the assembly the display states bar grabs all the room in the configs tab.
              If it cannot be turned off can it at least default to the smallest view possible. If the option for "Link Display states to Configurations" is selected there is only 1 line in it anyway, at least it could compress to this 1 line.
              I think this is just sloppy programming, not an intentional feature.

              XP 32 bit
              Dell Precision 380
              3G Ram
              nvidia Quadro FX3450
            • Display states taking over feature manager?
              John Lhuillier
              There has been a bug in 2008 that's supposed to be fixed in SP4 where the display states manager covers up the configurations. It also seems to help if you toggle OFF the option to link display states to configurations if you don't update SPs regularly
                • Display states taking over feature manager?
                  Rich Osterreicher
                  Please for the love of God...
                  SW, Just get rid of Display States alltogether...
                  Or at least make a setting to completely disable them...
                  Even with that portion of the tree hidden down.. The Display State name makes the Configuration tree soooooo long!!!
                  At a Minimum.. just let User's Hide the display State name that's taking up so much space in the configuration tree...
                    • Display states taking over feature manager?
                      Jason Capriotti
                      Seems like if you have "Link DS to Config" unchecked.....it shouldn't even show it next to the configuration name since its the same for all configs anyway. That setting is really just legacy support for the way Disaply States worked prior to 2008.....when we use Display States, we now uncheck that option.

                      Display states have their use and they are incredibly fast compared to configurations. We have large assembly with many configs that can now use Display States. Only two things are needed to really make it useful. Multiple Exploded views for one config......and the ability to set the display state of an assembly from a parent assembly.
                        • Display states taking over feature manager?
                          Rich Osterreicher
                          On Mine,
                          It doesn't make any difference whether the "Link Display States to Configuration" is Checked or Unchecked.. the Display State name is always in the Configuration name....
                          It just makes the name soo long..
                          The tree would fill half the screen if i moved it out to where the entire "name" was visible.
                            • Display states taking over feature manager?
                              Jason Capriotti
                              Sorry....thats what I meant...it shouldn't show the name but it does. Someone need to tweakt he program so that it doesn't display the name....or provide an option.
                                • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                  Rich Osterreicher
                                  What's the goal of even having Dispay States?
                                  Isn't that what Configurations are for?
                                  Why Both? It's just double the trouble?
                                  Did some Bonehead have a brain fart coming up with this crap?
                                  It's just a Broken pita..

                                    • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                      Eddie Cyganik

                                      I agree with you Rich,

                                      Display States are nothing more than "watered-down" configurations.

                                      SolidWorks please provide a choice for the user. If I do not need/want this simple tool, why are you forcing it on me?
                                      • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                        Jason Capriotti
                                        Display States are lighter than Configs. Its more like a view filtering tool.

                                        We use them for creating different views of the assy with parts hidden to show just a group. Like assembly steps, of course only only one explode per config is a problem but it was on the top ten list so maybe 2009.

                                        I know you can do this with configs as well but its much slower and is messier when you need a lot of configs. For us, configs represent part numbers so its nicer having a separate lighter tool for just filtering views of the model.

                                          • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                            Rich Osterreicher
                                            I mainly use Configs for creating Assembly manuals of applicable assemblies...
                                            Config 1 would be "Setp 1", and so on... And Each Step (Config) has it's own Exp View Sshowing All parts assembled up to the current step.. and All parts in steps forward are hidden... Know what i mean...
                                            Which the actual individual Explode distances, etc.. are the same as the Complete assemblies Explode.. So if Display States could control the explode steps.. i could do the entire thing using a single Explode View.. and just have certain Steps supressed to show partial assembly...
                                            I'd submit an ER for this... but I can't Find Display States anywhere in the ER page...

                                            As far as part visibility in drawings... I control that in the Drawing view directly...
                                              • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                                Jason Capriotti
                                                Yeah, thats the way we've been doing it as well....and we still do in some cases because of the exploded view limitiations. If they add the ability to get multiple explodes going for one config, the Disaply states will really work well.

                                                We do the same for drawings sometimes hiding in the parts in the view but only for cases where we need to hide a small amount of parts. Gets hard to manage otherwise.

                                                Usually what we have are large assemblies where we need to show several drawing views of groups of sub components. We've always used configurations but display states are faster and I'm leaning that way now. Then I don't have to worry about whether the part number and descriptions (and other properties) for all the configs are right which is a problem now. Derived configs can help some with this though.

                                                We also use configs to represent families of parts so display states help distinguish the configs(parts) from DS(view filters).

                                                  • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                                    Rich Osterreicher
                                                    I've always wondered why we can't have more than 1 Explode per config...

                                                    Also, When the assembly i'm working on is larger... I Supress components that are hidden.. rather than just Hiding.... that makes overall operation much faster..
                                                    Switching between Configs is actually Lot faster than switching between display states that are set up to show/hide same items in single config...
                                                      • Display states taking over feature manager?
                                                        Andy Sanders
                                                        Here's my take on Configs vs. Display States:

                                                        I understand how each of them work, but 75% of all my user's I support don't even fully understand how to use configurations correctly (they are scared of them!).

                                                        So, to add Display States on top of what configurations do, is asking for added confusion to the user who just wants to create parts and drawings (i.e. not a power user).

                                                        The simple compromise would be to simply give us a button similar to what they have in the dimension property manager, so that we can minimize it to the point it's almost invisible.

                                                        If later I decide I want to try out display states, then I'll toggle it back on.