AnsweredAssumed Answered

Toolbox to Receive 10th Anniversary Award for Under Performance

Question asked by Chris Dundorf on Apr 28, 2009
Latest reply on May 17, 2011 by Charles Warren

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 14

We started with SolidWorks in 1999 and purchased this add-on called Toolbox. Kind of a cool way to purchase a library of modeled fasteners - just drag and drop and POOF a fastener of your choosing is now in your assembly and mated to the circular edge of a feature, right?

We recently upgraded to SW2009 and like every year I anxiously wait to see if this is the year Toolbox will not take 30+ seconds to insert a fastener. Since 1999 we've upgraded PCs about 4 times always mid to high-end workstations with plenty of RAM. Currently running XP64 with 8GB RAM, not too shabby. Every year it's the same, I call my VAR they ask lot's of questions, sometimes the support ticket it's upgraded so that a SW engineer or support person is sent to our office (we're in Southern NH). Everyone in support tries to help, screen shots, SW RX files, emails and phone call but the results are always the same, poor performance in the form of excessively slow insertion speed or the occasional "file is read only cannot save..." or Toolbox can't find the edge. It's so bad I now copy and paste fasteners from other models into my assembly and don't worry about the length or fastener type not being correct. I simply do not have time to be waiting to drag a simple part into what is 90% of the time a simple assembly.

So it's 2009 - thank you all for coming, the envelope please...

It's the same no change in 2009. Congratulations on the 10th year.

So that I'm not accused of whining without offering a solution, why doesn't a company develop a software product that consists of a library of fasteners that the user can quickly drag and drop a fastener into a model. Let's say the user waits no more than 5 seconds less would be better.

Cheers,
Chris

No one else has this question

Outcomes

14 Replies

Anna Wood Apr 28, 2009 2:36 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Why haven't you stopped using Toolbox? Much easier to develop your own fastener library then to use Toolbox. I wouldn't hold your breath on Toolbox ever changing.

We have never used Toolbox and probably never will.

FWIW,
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- John Summers @ Anna Wood on Apr 28, 2009 3:04 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  I agree with Anna- I have tried using the Toolbox fasteners and have had multiple problems getting it figured out (setup custom properties, part file locations, problems with release upgrades, etc)- more time than I am willing to spend to manage something so simple as a bolt.
  
  I opted to set up our own fasteners with multiple configurations and our custom configurations- when we decide to change a bolt size or length, we just change the configuration in the assembly and all updates accordingly- bom, mates, etc. without issue.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Jay Andrews @ John Summers on Apr 28, 2009 3:39 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Well I'm pretty sure I know the why on this situation. And don't feel too bad, inventor's equivalent to toolbox is unusably slow too.
    
    After some thought on the subject some time ago, I determined that these companies offer toolbox so they can claim built in fastener functionality, so a complete design software package. But the truth is that there are way too many variations on styles, sizes, materials, etc. for fasteners, so they all end up with this huge database to work with, just to insert a few simple shaped fasteners.
    
    So the moral of the story? Hit the snooze on your sales force bs alarm, pretend the toolbox feature doesn't even exist, and build a fastener library as you go. If you need a new size, open an old size, save as copy, and adjust the dimensions. Soon you have an efficient fastener library containing exactly the fasteners you need, and as a bonus, they show up in your BOMs described exactly as you like.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Chris Dundorf @ Jay Andrews on May 1, 2009 6:31 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      These have been interesting responses. I was surprised by the first 3 comments and I just never really considered not using TB as an option but I think that it's probably the best way to go.
      
      Incidently, SW is concerned with the problem and have offered support which is encouraging.
      
      Chris
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Matt Lombard @ Chris Dundorf on May 1, 2009 6:45 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        I gave up complaining about toolbox. SW kept coming up with clever little bandaids to solve small problems, and never addressed the big issue items. That's why its such a complicated thing to install correctly and administer.
        
        Also I think SW put too much emphasis on 3D Content Central. It might be ok for seldom used items, but for commonly used stuff, I'd never use it.
        
        Anyway, there actually are other library type products available. Logopress has one that looks neat, although I have not yet done a review of it. Making your own is usually the best bet, as the others have mentioned. You can start with Toolbox parts, but remove the "intelligence" of Toolbox.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Devon Sowell @ Matt Lombard on May 1, 2009 7:01 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        In my office, I use a home grown, not revision managed, mostly McMaster-Carr hardware library in my Vault. I use their part numbers and materials and their free SolidWorks models. I also have projects for other suppliers like AMP/Tyco, Carr-Lane...
        
        I'd say that over 80% of my 30+ clients use McMaster-Carr for fasteners. I've pointed this out to SolidWorks, but it falls on deaf ears.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jay Andrews @ Devon Sowell on May 1, 2009 7:05 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        
        Devon Sowell wrote:
        
        In my office, I use a home grown, not revision managed, mostly McMaster-Carr hardware library in my Vault. I use their part numbers and materials and their free SolidWorks models. I also have projects for other suppliers like AMP/Tyco, Carr-Lane...
        
        I'd say that over 80% of my 30+ clients use McMaster-Carr for fasteners. I've pointed this out to SolidWorks, but it falls on deaf ears.
        
        My problem with mcmaster's fastener models is that they model the threads. I do however get all my fastener dimensions from mcmaster, but I simplify the geometry greatly, leaving out all chamfers and threads.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Devon Sowell @ Jay Andrews on May 1, 2009 7:16 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Good point, Jay.
        
        It's easy to Supress or Delete the threads.
        
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Alessandro Frattini @ Matt Lombard on May 1, 2009 8:21 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        
        Matt Lombard wrote:
        
        Also I think SW put too much emphasis on 3D Content Central. It might be ok for seldom used items, but for commonly used stuff, I'd never use it.
        
        The design is actually very broad.
        I believe that the 3DCC should be used even more, which both users and suppliers.
        Many companies designed automatic machines and means that have to mount commercial components in their project.
        Often I need motors, gears, actuators and etc.. in my project and 3DCC it was really helpful.
        The SolidWorks Corp. must go straight on this area and increase suppliers in 3DCC.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Karen Brunke @ Alessandro Frattini on May 4, 2009 11:47 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        We used Toolbox for a couple years here and liked it well enough with significant legal and "illegal" customizations. We chose to abandon it, though, because of the incredible slow-down on 64-bit SWX in 2008. (For those who will ask, yes, we turned it in as a bug, and it was marked for fix in 2008 sp4. When SP4 came out, it was in the list of SPRs fixed, but there was no change in the behavior. We held out for 2009, but it wasn't any better there, so we built our own.) We used the Property Manager to build back in some of the nice features of toolbox like being able to pick size then length. It takes a little imagination since the property manager only works off things that can be driven with a design table. We have a COARSE-FINE TOGGLE sketch that we suppress/unsuppress to select coarse or fine threads, and a PROP We have a PROP MGR SKETCH we populate with lines driven by angles that we can set to any value for settings we need more that two options for and for situations like a #10 or a #5 size selection. The prop mgr isn't 100% either. It intermittently shows up next the the change configuration icon under RMB, but when it isn't there, you are in the right place to use change configuration which is consistent.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
    - Charles Warren @ Jay Andrews on May 17, 2011 1:32 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Does turning off all the unused toolbox stuff speed things up? I never use 90% of what's in there, and was hoping if I turned it all off it would speed up when I just use my ANSI inch fasteners...a more snappy toolbox would really help me propagate 100's of fasteners onto my mouting boards.
      Optimization tricks, anyone?
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
Deepak Gupta Apr 29, 2009 2:41 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I remember at one of company they had some kind of similar problems. The solution they adopted was to lock all unused tool box parts and create all the configuration of other parts that were to be used again and again. Then kept all the data at the server. Though it was bit time taking but yes it gave them good control over the toolbox.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Alessandro Frattini Apr 29, 2009 5:45 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hi,
sorry if I go against trends, but I really like Toolbox.
The problem is reading the database, which is very large.
Suffice that SolidWorks Corp. connect the database via ODBC and if we want, to transfer to SQL Lite, MySQL or MSDE, which are very efficient and gratis.
I would like an opinion from Toolbox developers.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Jesse Seger @ Alessandro Frattini on May 17, 2011 11:28 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  I was against Toolbox usage for a very long time. I have recently overhauled a Toolbox database to fit the companies needs.
  
  Notice the Configuration Name matches the part number. Hmmmm........ How did I do that I wonder? hehehe.... Hours of looking through database tables.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions

Toolbox to Receive 10th Anniversary Award for Under Performance

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content