19 Replies Latest reply on Mar 14, 2018 9:27 PM by Adrian Velazquez

    Use of SpeedPak

    Matt Lombard

      I see that there are some recommendations on the forum to avoid SpeedPak. I'm writing that chapter in the book now, and I'd be interested in knowing how many people use SpeedPak anyway?

       

      The comments I read seem to say that SpeedPak is "unstable". I had the software lock up, or at least take a very long time to do the Quick Include, such that I shut it down. Plus, it seems that editing the SpeedPak turns on your floor reflections for some odd reason.

       

      So any comments you have on SpeedPak, and whether you use it or not for assemblies or drawings would be welcome.

        • Re: Use of SpeedPak
          Don Carter

          Matt,

          Our end product is a drawing, and not a SWx drawing, but an eDrawing or a PDF. SpeedPak does not appear on these. Therefore, it is pointless to use it at all.

          • Re: Use of SpeedPak
            Andy Sanders

            I looked into them.  The conclusion I came to was that just making simplified configs was more straightforward for me.

            I didn't get enough confidence in Speed Pak to be comfortable with using them.

            • Re: Use of SpeedPak
              Dan Pihlaja

              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.

                • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                  Glenn Schroeder

                  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.

                • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                  Matt Lombard

                  Wow, in a way I'm surprised, and in a way I'm not surprised. It's surprising to see SW put a fair bit of effort into a piece of functionality and have users not see much value in it, especially something aimed at large assembly drawing performance. But at the same time it's not surprising because with some of these tools, SW looks like it's desperate to find something innovative that addresses speed, a big weakness.

                   

                  I personally don't use it either, but I don't do many drawings, and when I do drawings, they are either complex parts or small assemblies. The benefit isn't really clear to me.

                   

                  Thanks for the feedback.

                    • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                      Alin Vargatu

                      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.

                      • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                        Rick McDonald

                        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.

                      • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                        Paul Risley

                        Over the last 9 years or so I have used Speedpak on 3 occasions.(Large assemblies 5000 + parts).

                         

                        The biggest issue I had with it was the updating of the speedpak slowed everything down. The next biggest problem I had was issues with transfer of documentation, in this case e-drawings. I know that the Speedpak functionality has changed some since I last used it. When I used it there was limited features you could utilize as functioning features in your top level assembly. Every time you had to change a feature you may need to mate to it would update the whole speedpak.

                         

                        It has been several years since I have tried to use it. I find configurations and display states along with lightweight assemblies/models performs pretty well and have not looked into using speedpak again.

                         

                        If you have to send out customer e-drawings Speedpak does not work very well.

                        • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                          Steven Dod

                          We tried using SpeedPak because we have a lot of large assemblies with some of those being imports from vendors (trucks, engines, etc).  SpeedPak would work well enough until we started using PDM Pro (EPDM).  After the assembly and drawing are approved in PDM the SpeedPak will always show it is out of date and needs to be rebuilt.  This shows as a gold error in the Feature Manager Tree and is VERY annoying to have to drill down to find out why only to find SpeedPak is throwing a hissy fit.  I cannot say if that has been fixed in the last couple of years but that's is why we do not currently use it.

                           

                          Steve

                          • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                            Jim Proctor

                            We were seeing very poor performance with our large assembly drawings so I looked into how SpeedPak might help. I found it can work, but ran into some of the issues listed by Alin  (particularly the non-support of section views and high quality views), and users just didn't feel comfortable with the results.

                             

                            Our best results with came from substituting mature large subassemblies (unlikely to change much) with SpeedPaks. This improved performance working at upper levels of the assembly.

                            • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                              Ian McLean

                              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.

                                • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                  Alin Vargatu

                                  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.

                                    • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                      Ian McLean

                                      For us, ou

                                      Alin Vargatu wrote:

                                       

                                      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.

                                      Our assemblies are quite complex and we need to be able to check things like voltage clearances, cable bend radii, connector alignment, clearance for installation, so we need more than just mating surfaces.

                                        • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                          Alin Vargatu

                                          Ian McLean wrote:

                                           

                                          For us, ou

                                          Alin Vargatu wrote:

                                           

                                          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.

                                          Our assemblies are quite complex and we need to be able to check things like voltage clearances, cable bend radii, connector alignment, clearance for installation, so we need more than just mating surfaces.

                                          So you will most likely like the new functionality that might be introduced in SW2019, based on what was shown in the teaser videos at SWW2018.

                                      • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                        Steve Calvert

                                        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

                                      • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                        Steve Calvert

                                        Matt, I'm still several version behind on SW2015 but I use (we use) speedpaks here.  Mainly it's for larger faceted fuel meter bodies that just take too long to load in upper level assemblies.

                                         

                                        Steve C

                                        • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                          Adrian Velazquez

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

                                            • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                              Alin Vargatu

                                              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.

                                                • Re: Use of SpeedPak
                                                  Adrian Velazquez

                                                  Yes, a lot of times the simplification was just suppressing components and generating a configuration. Also on my experience lot's of occasions you don't need to keep links to the items that worth of simplification i.e. Legacy assemblies of machinery/equipment