AnsweredAssumed Answered

Why is my system so slow on this part?

Question asked by Kevin Andrews on Jun 11, 2018
Latest reply on Jun 12, 2018 by Kevin Andrews

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 14

I have a custom configured computer running SW2017 SP4.1 - we have 2018, but haven't upgraded yet.

Here are my computer specs:

and an Nvidia Quadro K4000 graphics card.

I have Windows automatic updates set to ask before installation - and I haven't installed anything lately.

I am working on a relatively simple part:

The part has a couple of loft sweeps (1 thin feature extrude and one loft cut) - each section of the sweep has a changing profile. It has a few fillets, including some variable size fillets. It also has draft added as this will be a cast part. All of this is par for the course of what I do on any given day. For size reference, this part is roughly 9 3/4" from flange face to flange face and 17 1/4" center of flange to center of flange.

Oh, it also has a little bit os surfacing in there too - just to cut the logo the way I wanted it - offset surface by depth of logo and cut with surface.

Several times now, I have tried to put all of the steps in the design tree in to a folder (since all of this is the cast work) and every time, I crash. It repeatedly goes through a rebuilding process and I end up having to manually exit the program by using task manager because the program is not responding.

Also, whenever I do anything that relates to previously completed tasks (like modifying a sweep or changing the offset depth on a surface), it takes FOREVER.

The file size if 8.45 MB. WHY IS MY COMPUTER RUNNING SO SLOW?

I have already ran Solidworks RX - the only report is that I have a newer version available (2018) and that I have toolbox installed locally (we use a pdm server).

Paul Salvador Jun 12, 2018 1:33 AM

Correct Answer

Hello Kevin,.. well, it seems to be error checking .. something/somewhere...early on it does not like (fillets..and boss extrude 13 and 14?)

So,.. one thing I'd do is move the surface offset (later surface cut) up to it's Loft parent and trim it back.

Then.. move the extrude 13 and 14, surface cut and fillets to the end of the tree. (btw, turn off VOR (verification on rebuild temporarily so it does not do full error checks.. turn back on when finished) (image attached)

For Extrude 13 and 14.. I'd do that extrude differently for sure,.. it should not take that long (45secs)... so.. offset surface(s).. for each and extrude upto.. should reduce it that 45 secs in half (?).

See the reply in context

No one else had this question

Outcomes

J. Mather Jun 11, 2018 3:23 PM

Can you Attach the *.sldprt file here?

One thing I would do is keep the text features under the history roll--up- bar until done.

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ J. Mather on Jun 11, 2018 3:28 PM

I did not use the text feature for the logo. That is an actual line extrusion that was not made using text.

I tried attaching the file, but it says it is too large. It has shot up to over 33 MB now...and it won't zip down any lower

Actions

Richard Bremmer @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 11, 2018 3:31 PM

Create a box that is larger than your part (boss extrude) and reduce image quality. Does that make it smaller?

Actions

J. Mather @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 11, 2018 3:38 PM

How did it go to 8.45 to 33MB?

Drag the roll-up bar to the top of the feature tree hiding all features in the graphics window.

Save the file in this rolled-up state.

Right click on the filename and select Send to Compressed (zipped) folder.

How big is this rolled and zipped file?

Attach it here.

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ J. Mather on Jun 11, 2018 4:36 PM

Now it has dropped back down to 9.1 MB...

Here is the original file

Attachments

509-037.SLDPRT.zip9.1 MB

Actions

Paul Salvador Jun 12, 2018 1:33 AM

Hello Kevin,.. well, it seems to be error checking .. something/somewhere...early on it does not like (fillets..and boss extrude 13 and 14?)

So,.. one thing I'd do is move the surface offset (later surface cut) up to it's Loft parent and trim it back.

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ Paul Salvador on Jun 12, 2018 8:03 AM

Thank you Paul. How did you get your system to show the performance evaluation like that? I can see where this would come in handy on several occasions.

I don't understand why those two extrudes are proving to be so difficult. It was a simple offset extrude back to surface. Then I offset the surface by the depth of the logo and then cut with surface. Maybe I should offset the surface first - extrude up to surface - then cut with the existing surface of the body.

Anyway, now that I know what the problem is, I can work with that. Thank you

Actions

Glenn Schroeder @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 8:19 AM

Kevin Andrews wrote:

Thank you Paul. How did you get your system to show the performance evaluation like that? I can see where this would come in handy on several occasions.

It's the "Performance Evaluation" function on the Evaluate toolbar.

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ Glenn Schroeder on Jun 12, 2018 9:52 AM

OH...

Guess I should explore my toolbars more often huh?..LOL

Thanks Again

Actions

Paul Salvador @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 10:46 AM

Hello Kevin,.. agree, extrude 13 and 14 should not take that long although the font and draft.. maybe.. but something is still not right, imho.. I added surface offsets for each text to extrude up to surface and as expected this does reduce the time about half and also noted the early cut shared with the inside loft cut which seems redundant and has a odd surface... so, I can reduce my time about 36secs.. I still think it maybe a earlier geometry fault, somewhere,.. I just can not find it? (images and file attached)

Attachments

509-037-z.zip7.4 MB

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ Paul Salvador on Jun 12, 2018 11:54 AM

Thank you Paul. After some discussion, I am taking this design in a new direction. I think I know where the error is and I will see if I can correct it in the next rendition.

This layout was just going to be too heavy and had a week moment point that would leave this design susceptible to breaking. Plus, it did not allow ANY flexibility for daily driving conditions (this is a piece used to offload tanker trucks).

Thank you for your efforts, I will post a pic of the new design when complete - hopefully later this afternoon.

Actions

Paul Salvador @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 12:59 PM

Hello Kevin,.. no problemo,.. yes, I think doing it different would help,..for instance, loft cut for the core,.. that could be a shell?... anyhow, good luck!

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ Paul Salvador on Jun 12, 2018 4:21 PM

Holy NuckFuts..I did NOT even think about doing it as a shell....

Actions

Kevin Andrews @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 4:28 PM

For some reason, I could not edit my last post. I wanted to add in what I had reduced the design to:

Yes, I know...it is a major difference from the original design. The good thing is that I do not have enough room to apply the logo, so I am not having to worry about getting the design bogged down.

The moment arm was just too great in the original design. I would have ended up snaping the casting right about where I have the rib in the picture above. Now, I have GREATLY reduced the moment by adding a male cam & groove feature and will connect the rest of the system using a high-temp rubber hose.

Actions

14 Replies

J. Mather Jun 11, 2018 3:23 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Can you Attach the *.sldprt file here?
One thing I would do is keep the text features under the history roll--up- bar until done.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
- Kevin Andrews @ J. Mather on Jun 11, 2018 3:28 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  I did not use the text feature for the logo. That is an actual line extrusion that was not made using text.
  
  I tried attaching the file, but it says it is too large. It has shot up to over 33 MB now...and it won't zip down any lower
  Like • Show 1 Like1
  Actions
  - Richard Bremmer @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 11, 2018 3:31 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Create a box that is larger than your part (boss extrude) and reduce image quality. Does that make it smaller?
    Like • Show 1 Like1
    Actions
  - J. Mather @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 11, 2018 3:38 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    How did it go to 8.45 to 33MB?
    Drag the roll-up bar to the top of the feature tree hiding all features in the graphics window.
    Save the file in this rolled-up state.
    Right click on the filename and select Send to Compressed (zipped) folder.
    How big is this rolled and zipped file?
    Attach it here.
    Like • Show 2 Likes2
    Actions
    - Kevin Andrews @ J. Mather on Jun 11, 2018 4:36 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Now it has dropped back down to 9.1 MB...
      
      Here is the original file
      Attachments
      509-037.SLDPRT.zip9.1 MB
      Like • Show 1 Like1
      Actions
Paul Salvador Jun 12, 2018 1:33 AM
Unmark Correct
Correct Answer
Hello Kevin,.. well, it seems to be error checking .. something/somewhere...early on it does not like (fillets..and boss extrude 13 and 14?)
So,.. one thing I'd do is move the surface offset (later surface cut) up to it's Loft parent and trim it back.
Then.. move the extrude 13 and 14, surface cut and fillets to the end of the tree. (btw, turn off VOR (verification on rebuild temporarily so it does not do full error checks.. turn back on when finished) (image attached)
For Extrude 13 and 14.. I'd do that extrude differently for sure,.. it should not take that long (45secs)... so.. offset surface(s).. for each and extrude upto.. should reduce it that 45 secs in half (?).
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
- Kevin Andrews @ Paul Salvador on Jun 12, 2018 8:03 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Thank you Paul. How did you get your system to show the performance evaluation like that? I can see where this would come in handy on several occasions.
  
  I don't understand why those two extrudes are proving to be so difficult. It was a simple offset extrude back to surface. Then I offset the surface by the depth of the logo and then cut with surface. Maybe I should offset the surface first - extrude up to surface - then cut with the existing surface of the body.
  
  Anyway, now that I know what the problem is, I can work with that. Thank you
  Like • Show 1 Like1
  Actions
  - Glenn Schroeder @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 8:19 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Kevin Andrews wrote:
    
    Thank you Paul. How did you get your system to show the performance evaluation like that? I can see where this would come in handy on several occasions.
    
    It's the "Performance Evaluation" function on the Evaluate toolbar.
    Like • Show 2 Likes2
    Actions
    - Kevin Andrews @ Glenn Schroeder on Jun 12, 2018 9:52 AM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      OH...
      Guess I should explore my toolbars more often huh?..LOL
      
      Thanks Again
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
  - Paul Salvador @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 10:46 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Hello Kevin,.. agree, extrude 13 and 14 should not take that long although the font and draft.. maybe.. but something is still not right, imho.. I added surface offsets for each text to extrude up to surface and as expected this does reduce the time about half and also noted the early cut shared with the inside loft cut which seems redundant and has a odd surface... so, I can reduce my time about 36secs.. I still think it maybe a earlier geometry fault, somewhere,.. I just can not find it? (images and file attached)
    @
    Attachments
    509-037-z.zip7.4 MB
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Kevin Andrews @ Paul Salvador on Jun 12, 2018 11:54 AM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Thank you Paul. After some discussion, I am taking this design in a new direction. I think I know where the error is and I will see if I can correct it in the next rendition.
      This layout was just going to be too heavy and had a week moment point that would leave this design susceptible to breaking. Plus, it did not allow ANY flexibility for daily driving conditions (this is a piece used to offload tanker trucks).
      Thank you for your efforts, I will post a pic of the new design when complete - hopefully later this afternoon.
      Like • Show 1 Like1
      Actions
      - Paul Salvador @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 12:59 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Hello Kevin,.. no problemo,.. yes, I think doing it different would help,..for instance, loft cut for the core,.. that could be a shell?... anyhow, good luck!
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Kevin Andrews @ Paul Salvador on Jun 12, 2018 4:21 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Holy NuckFuts..I did NOT even think about doing it as a shell....
        Like • Show 1 Like1
        Actions
        Kevin Andrews @ Kevin Andrews on Jun 12, 2018 4:28 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        For some reason, I could not edit my last post. I wanted to add in what I had reduced the design to:
        
        Yes, I know...it is a major difference from the original design. The good thing is that I do not have enough room to apply the logo, so I am not having to worry about getting the design bogged down.
        
        The moment arm was just too great in the original design. I would have ended up snaping the casting right about where I have the rib in the picture above. Now, I have GREATLY reduced the moment by adding a male cam & groove feature and will connect the rest of the system using a high-temp rubber hose.
        Like • Show 1 Like1
        Actions

Why is my system so slow on this part?

Outcomes

Attachments

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content