Use of SpeedPak

Dan Pihlaja wrote:

 

I have never used SpeedPak. Not because I don't think it is stable or anything.....the reason I don't use it is because I simply haven't had the time to flesh it out and introduce it here. I don't want to try something out on a production run.

Pretty much the same here.  It's unusual for one of my files to take longer than 10 - 15 seconds to open or save, and most less than 5, so I've never seen a need for it.

There is so much to say about SpeedPaks, I wish I would have enough time for that now. Will provide you with my take before the end of the month, if that is acceptable.

This is is another example where SOLIDWORKS came up with a great concept that was implemented about 95% of the way. The missing 5% might look like not much to the developers, but that is the exact reason, most users tried and abandoned this tool. It could not be integrated in their workflow because of a tiny problem or lack of functionality.

I do not know how hard would be for SOLIDWORKS to focus on tying the lose ends in this functionality, but I know the effect of doing that would be huge for anyone who works with large assemblies and drawings.

This is just a short list of the bugs and ERs that need to be implemented in order to push the use SpeedPaks mainstream:

SPR 999176 Ability to define route C-points to SpeedPak

SPR 773041 Ability to dimension SpeedPak elements in drawings

SPR 442399 SpeedPak Drawings User would like to be able to create speedpak views in high quality

SPR 567670 Ability to create a detached drawing containing a view of a SpeedPak configuration of an assembly

SPR 556714 A DXF generated from a SpeedPak assembly drawing misses all lines based on ghost geometry

SPR 539720 Detail views cannot be created from section views that have SpeedPak applied

For example, last week delivering a Large Assembly Service, what was important for my customer was to create high quality PDFs from drawings of huge assemblies. The only way to achieve the desired degree of quality was by using High Quality Drawing Views. Unfortunately, SpeedPaks can be used only in Draft Quality Views. The problem is that the drawing looks fine in SOLIDWORKS, but not so good in PDF.

So, the solution here would be to either find a way to use assemblies containing a SpeedPak subassembly in High Quality Drawing Views, or simply to improve the quality of PDFs created from Draft Quality views.

What about finding a way to create a Mixed Quality view? In a huge assembly of a truck, where only the engine is SpeedPak'ed, why can't SOLIDWORKS superimpose the High Quality view for the assembly minus the engine on the Draft Quality View of the engine???

It is all about thinking different. And that what this forum is for.

We have not even looked at it, mainly because we are a small company - 5 cad users that are engineers that do everything from concept, design, prototype, some machining, assembly, installation and service.  Our systems are small - most less than 200 parts and with all the other tasks we do, we mainly do the primary design as an assembly and then each part has a single drawing (usually) - almost never do any configurations, and almost never get assembly or sub assembly drawings done (drives me crazy) - but management feels the part drawings are enough most of the time since we remember or can easily determine how to assemble and adjust the systems and have pictures and procedures  to follow.  We document the assembly when / where needed and never seem to get the time to do a full & detailed document package (again - this drives me crazy). 

With all this, speed pack would just be another part that would never get used by us.

Ian McLean wrote:

 

When Speedpak first came out I assumed it would work like Pro-e shrinkwrap. Shrinkwrap gives you the entire outside surface of an assembly in a single step. Speedpak requires selection of every single surface that you want to be selectable. It's just not very useful.

You can always get the faces used in mates selected automatic.

Like Alin has said, just mate the part and then create the speedpak based on those mates and you're finished real fast.

Steve C

Adrian Velazquez wrote:

 

I haven't used it in a couple of releases but in my past experience the time spent generated a good usable Speedpack (for mating purposes) was about the same as generating a simplified version of that model. but don't remembewr having stability issues with them

The advantage of the SpeedPak being that can be updated parametrically from the parent configuration.