AnsweredAssumed Answered

Deleting Configurations using Design Table

Question asked by Christopher Buckley on May 6, 2020
Latest reply on May 12, 2020 by Christopher Buckley

Like • Show 1 Like1
Comment • 14

According to the [docs](2019 SOLIDWORKS Help - Deleting a Configuration Within a Design Table ) I am supposed to be able to delete a configuration by deleting the row associated with said config in the design table. When I click outside the design table, nothings is updated as claimed in the docs, nor is it updated upon saving, or closing the Design Table. When I open the Design Table again, Solidworks asks me if I want to add this configuration (the one I deleted from the Design Table previously) to the Design Table.

How can I remove configurations while using a design table? How can I make sure my configurations and design table stay in sync?

Christopher Buckley May 12, 2020 1:42 AM

Correct Answer

After countless hours I tracked down the source of the error! Thanks everyone for your tips along the way. They've helped me narrow down the possible issues to finally arrive at this long fought for solution.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR Version:
At least on my system (Solidworks 2019 SP5.0) you cannot group your Assembly mates By Status without causing all kinds of chaos with configurations. Note this is the top-level mates folder in the Design Tree, not any part or sub-assembly mates folder. Removing both groupings (By Status and Separate Fasteners) allowed for checkmarks on all configurations after switching through them, making swapping between configs significantly faster. I can recreate the original question problem (not being able to delete configs via a DT and all the other issues I was seeing) simply by grouping the top-level Assembly mates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Version:
I started by saving a Pack and Go Version of my assembly as a restarting point to come back to after doing some heavy modifications.

I then started removing parts and subassemblies group by group until I got down to a completely bare assembly other than the leftover missing suppressed mates. I removed all mates so I figured it was one or a few particular mates that were corrupted somehow. I reopened the Pack and Go assembly without saving, and just deleted all mates. I tried creating another config from this state, and Solidworks said my file was corrupted and crashed. Tried this several times again with the same result.

Then I tried deleting groups of mates (fasteners first, then all tangent mates, all parallel mates, all coincident mates, etc.) trying to narrow down which mates could be the source of the problem. I got down to just the parallel mates (10 out of 127 mates or something) and turned off the mate grouping so I could see the remainder in alphabetical order. I then deleted the first one called parallel20. Went back and the configs saved with a checkmark. So I though parallel20 was the culprit.

I then went back to the Pack and Go assembly original state, and deleted just this parallel20 mate. Nothing fixed. Ugh... I tried to think what else I could have done, and the mate grouping was the only thing. So I went back to the Pack and Go assembly and just ungrouped the mates. It was fixed! I repeated this two more times because I had to prove it to myself that this was actually the things fixing this.

Not sure if this a bug or what, but it might stem from some inability for configs to track mates when grouped?

The reason I could get the checkmarks if I dropped this assembly into another new assembly as a subassembly was because the default on my system is to not group the mates.

To see if this was causing the original issue with the Design Tables not syncing with the Assembly configs, I created a new blank assembly and just put in two simple rectangles mated on three sides. I've attached the Pack and Go version of this to this post, but you should be able to recreate this issue by doing the following on ANY existing assembly (though take care and make a copy prior to trying this because if caused me hours of work trying to recover from):

1.) Ensure your top-level Assembly mates folder is not grouped by either status or fasteners.
2.) Create multiple configs if you don't already have them
3.) Switch between configs and note the check marks beside the configurations you have manually loaded
4.) Turn on the top-level Mate folder grouping by status.
5.) Return to the configs view and note the "-" icons beside what were previously checkmarks.
6.) If you try to create a Design Table at this point you will run into all the errors I have mentioned in this thread...so don't do it on anything you want to keep working with...it will mess it up pretty well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Comments:

Jeremiah Feist Thanks, but this doesn't seem to speed things up when switching between configs. Also neither of these options appear to be the same as the check mark according to the [docs](2019 SOLIDWORKS Help - Managing Configuration Data ). Rebuilding on Save Marks do not remove the necessity to rebuild every time I switch configs (which the checkmark does).

I understand what Rebuild on Save Marks are doing as Rebuilding is something I commonly do, but I am not familiar with the term "Display Lists", which the "Add Display Data Mark" is supposed to generate. I couldn't find anything in the docs about this either other than "you can generate them". Any reference you know of that better defines what a "display list" is and how this is different from a "full, up-to-date data set"?

As a past workaround, I had just done a few things to reduce my overall rebuild time. That way I could just bite my lip and rebuild everytime I need to swap between configs without a 30s hold. I created simplified models of all my parts to drastically reduce the number of graphics triangles (identified via the Performance Evaluation tool), and Pack and Go'ed saving all but toolbox components and made sure all my assembly parts and subassemblies were located in the same directory. The latter step removed all external references (i.e. I had parts stored in different directories around my harddrive, and thus the disk read/writes were causing my disk to jump around a lot during every rebuild which cost a lot of time). With such a setup I still had to rebuild everytime I switched configs, but swapping only took about 5-6 seconds compared to the 25-30s it took before. Now that this is fixed by removing the mate groupings, it takes 1-2 seconds.

See the reply in context

No one else had this question

Outcomes

Dennis Dohogne May 6, 2020 12:49 PM

Deleting the row from the Design Table removes control of that configuration from the DT, but is does not actually delete the configuration itself. The configuration becomes "manually controlled" and it has a different icon as shown here:

So long as the configuration is not being used in an open file, such as an assembly, then you can delete it.

Hope this helps.

Actions

Dan Pihlaja @ Dennis Dohogne on May 6, 2020 12:58 PM

I never knew this!! Thanks Dennis!

Edit:

Clarification: I knew that deleting a line in the design table didn't delete the actual configuration, and that now the config is manually controlled. But I never knew how to quickly tell the difference between a manually controlled config from a DT controlled one.

Actions

Christopher Buckley @ Dennis Dohogne on May 6, 2020 11:44 PM

That is a good thing to know! So I just tried to recreate my issue from scratch. I have a fairly complicated assembly, with 9 "manually controlled" configs. I inserted a new Design Table (had previously deleted it) and auto-created it. I added one new config called "trash" and copied the states/values/etc from the config above it. I click in the Solidworks window and nothing updates. I save the Design Table in Excel, nothing updates. I close the Design Table and return to Solidworks, still nothing updates. From your hint about the icons, I see only 1 of 9 configs is Design Table controlled. Any thoughts as to why the newly auto-created Design Table would not control the remaining 8?

Actions

Jeremiah Feist May 6, 2020 12:55 PM

There is a dialog box that will come up asking to confirm the delete option. something is blocking it for you. maybe that configuration is in use in a file you have open.

what happens when you try to delete the config manually after closing the design table?

Actions

Josh Brady May 6, 2020 1:56 PM

You should get this box:

Unless it is the active configuration. If you've deleted multiple rows, but one of them is the active configuration, SW will offer to delete those configs that are not the active config:

Actions

Christopher Buckley @ Josh Brady on May 6, 2020 11:48 PM

Thank you for the explicit configs . Unfortunately, I am not getting these dialogs, but maybe this has something to do with the "manually controlled" and "design table controlled" variations I am seeing as pointed out by Dennis Dohogne. I.e. maybe these dialogs are only generated when a config controlled by the Design Table is edited.

All of your configs appear to be correctly controlled by the Design Table, whereas only 1 out 9 are controlled by my newly created Design Table for some reason. I'll add further info after I figure out why these remaining 8 are not being controlled by the Design Table.

Actions

Dennis Dohogne @ Christopher Buckley on May 7, 2020 10:21 AM

For additional help please share your file so we can see what is going on.

Actions

Jeremiah Feist @ Christopher Buckley on May 7, 2020 10:22 AM

start by auto-creating the design table. then immediately exiting the design table. post a screenshot of the config tree after these two steps.

Actions

Christopher Buckley @ Jeremiah Feist on May 8, 2020 7:17 AM

Too Long Didn't Read (TLDR) Version:

I simplified my assembly greatly, which resolved several errors, but generated a few related ones. My only remaining unresolved error only seems to be the inability to keep the various configs in memory (checkmark rather than "-" mark to the left of each config). As I'm not manually purging this data nor is the "Purge cached configuration data" option in System Options -> Performance checked, so how can I allow these to remain in memory (or the cache)?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Explanation:
For those interested in how I resolved several of the above errors (though mostly by chance) see walkthrough below.

After trying to reopen a few of those 8 manually controlled configs, I noticed I had rebuild issues in several of them. To simplify things and remove as many variables as possible, I removed all but one config and tried to recreate the issues.

Step 1: Removed all configurations and DT

Step 2: Added new config named Config2 (automatically added Display State regardless of me having them unlinked)

Step 3: Removed unnecessary Display State.

Step 4: Auto-created DT

Step 5: Here is the auto-generated DT opened (Note the difference in State in Col G) and seemingly low number of parameters for such a complicated assembly (128 components)

Step 6: Here is the configs pane while the DT is still open

Step 7: Here is the configs pane after DT has been closed.

It looks like they are both linked to the DT as hoped, but the errors shown above looks to be caused from some suppressed mates becoming unsuppressed after closing the DT.

Any reason the DT (which doesn't even look to include the problematic mates) would modify the suppression state of things automatically? I am 100% certain these mates were suppressed prior to generating the DT and I force rebuilt all configs before generating the DT. I've done this process two times through, so I'm certain of the above to be repeatable. Furthermore, when I open up the DT right after this last step (without touching anything else) Solidworks tells me there are a LOT of new parameters that have been added to the model since you last edited the DT. (I made ZERO changes). I wonder if the initial DT did not include all the parameters it should have upon auto-generating?

A few other curiosities associated with this assembly that I've noticed while debugging (that may give hints to others).
- The Configs will not remain in memory regardless if they are controlled by the DT or manually (i.e. no check mark, only "-" signs"). I am not purging any data. I want these to remain in memory for speed purposes.
- When I create a new assembly and drop this problem assembly into it as a subassembly, I can create configs and DT as expected (none of these issues).
- When I Pack and Go (in prep for linking to this forum) I opened the assembly from this zip file, and the DT auto-generated with MANY more parameters (127 vs the 13 I got from the original Assembly location) and had no rebuild issues, but the inability to keep in memory still persists. I can even delete configurations via the DT! Weirder still, is I no longer have these issues after reopening the original assembly after opening the Pack and Go version...

In conclusion something seems to have been wrong with some settings in Solidworks that has been reset after loading the Pack and Go version. So unfortunately, even if I attached that ZIP file here, you won't be able to recreate the issues I'm seeing...puzzling. Short of creating a new assembly file and inserting all previous components, any ideas as to what could be causing the? I guess this would be the fastest fix, but I don't want to resort to recreating my assemblies every time this happens. I'd like to understand the core issue so I can avoid it in the future.

Bonus points if you can explain why I cannot keep multiple configs in memory? Is there some limitation on the number of triangles in an assembly or something that disables this functionality? I guess this since I can do this with a new assembly and just a single box feature or something simple. I've got 32 GB of RAM and the whole unzipped Pack and Go assembly is only 86.6 MB, so I don't think its a limitation of my PC.

Actions

Dennis Dohogne @ Christopher Buckley on May 8, 2020 1:10 PM

Chris (or do you prefer Christopher?),

We don't have your files and right now I don't the time to thoroughly go through them if we did, but let me clarify a small point, the green check mark isn't so much an indicator of the configuration "being active in the computer memory" to paraphrase. All the configuration check mark really means is that the configuration has been successfully rebuilt and SWX knows it. Seeing a dash instead of the check mark does not mean there is a problem. Seeing an "X" means there is a problem. I wouldn't worry about the presence/absence of the check marks, just the "X" indicators.

The assembly DT should pick up any differences between the configurations you have. You indicate some surprise there aren't more columns to indicate all the differences. Perhaps a lot of these big differences are actually contained within the subassemblies and are not actually controlled at the top level assembly, assuming you are using subassemblies. If there are more differences at the top level assembly than are showing up in your DT then perhaps you have inadvertently told SWX to not include some of those parameters. Each time you go to edit the DT it should show you a list of configured items and ask you to select those you want to add to the DT. Also be aware that sometimes the "Do not show me this again" is selected so you won't see those unless you re-enable their visibility.

If you are just trying to figure all this out then you can always delete the DT and then recreate it. SWX should recognize everything that is different between your configs and add them to the DT.

Actions

Josh Brady @ Christopher Buckley on May 8, 2020 1:28 PM

Additionally... Auto-generate does NOT attempt to add all parameters that can be changed in the model. That would be a HUGE list. All it does is try to analyze what is different between the configurations that exist and list those parameters.

Actions

Christopher Buckley @ Josh Brady on May 11, 2020 4:13 AM

Dennis Dohogne
I prefer Christopher, thank you for asking.

Alright, after reading the [docs]([2019 SOLIDWORKS Help - Managing Configuration Data](http://help.solidworks.com/2019/english/SolidWorks/sldworks/c_Managing_Configuration_Data_Help.htm "http://help.solidworks.com/2019/english/SolidWorks/sldworks/c_Managing_Configuration_Data_Help.htm") ) I agree that it is not 100% correct to say the check mark indicates being active in memory, though the docs state, "You can purge cached configuration data every time you save the model.", which would imply that prior to being purged it remains in the cache (a type of memory).

Semantics aside, I didn't mean to imply the "-" indicated a problem per se, but it does cause the associated configuration to rebuild prior to opening (which causes a 20-30s delay for this particular assembly on my machine). If I just insert that same assembly into a new assembly as a sub-assembly, then the check marks are generated and I can switch between configurations within 2-3s (10x difference). This makes sense with what the docs say, "Having the full data set available for a configuration can save a significant amount of time when switching configurations."

So I'm still curious what prevents this assembly from maintaining multiple "full, up-to-date data set[s]" (i.e. check marked configurations).

Thanks for your tips regarding the low parameter count. I don't think I fell victim to any of the ones you mentioned, but I think Josh Brady may have had a more accurate reason for what I saw. Though that explanation still doesn't explain why I would have any parameters in the DT at all (i.e. I would expect a fresh copy of a config followed by an Auto-Generate new DT to result in an empty DT). As you can see from Step 5 of my previous post, this is not the case. Now, I can't even recreate this error when trying the same steps on the Pack and Go Version of the assembly, so I guess it's not worth further discussion unless I can recreate the error to further investigate.

Regardless, I appreciate your insight and will continue trying to find out how to keep all my configs as "full, up-to-date data set[s]" (i.e. check marked configurations). Also, I attempted to attach the Pack and Go assembly zip file, but the forum indicated that the file was "too large". So here is a dropbox link if you are so inclined (Dropbox - TroublesomeAssembly.zip - Simplify your life ). Note this is in the state with a single config prior to creating the DT or any alternate configs.

Actions

Jeremiah Feist @ Christopher Buckley on May 11, 2020 9:51 AM

one or both of these options (right click on the file name in the config tab) will get the data saved in the file - note that this will make the file quite large on the disk

Actions

Christopher Buckley @ Jeremiah Feist on May 12, 2020 1:42 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Version:
I started by saving a Pack and Go Version of my assembly as a restarting point to come back to after doing some heavy modifications.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Comments:

Attachments

Assem1.zip2.5 MB

Actions

14 Replies

Dennis Dohogne May 6, 2020 12:49 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Deleting the row from the Design Table removes control of that configuration from the DT, but is does not actually delete the configuration itself. The configuration becomes "manually controlled" and it has a different icon as shown here:

So long as the configuration is not being used in an open file, such as an assembly, then you can delete it.

Hope this helps.
Like • Show 5 Likes5
Actions
- Dan Pihlaja @ Dennis Dohogne on May 6, 2020 12:58 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  I never knew this!! Thanks Dennis!
  
  Edit:
  Clarification: I knew that deleting a line in the design table didn't delete the actual configuration, and that now the config is manually controlled. But I never knew how to quickly tell the difference between a manually controlled config from a DT controlled one.
  Like • Show 3 Likes3
  Actions
- Christopher Buckley @ Dennis Dohogne on May 6, 2020 11:44 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  That is a good thing to know! So I just tried to recreate my issue from scratch. I have a fairly complicated assembly, with 9 "manually controlled" configs. I inserted a new Design Table (had previously deleted it) and auto-created it. I added one new config called "trash" and copied the states/values/etc from the config above it. I click in the Solidworks window and nothing updates. I save the Design Table in Excel, nothing updates. I close the Design Table and return to Solidworks, still nothing updates. From your hint about the icons, I see only 1 of 9 configs is Design Table controlled. Any thoughts as to why the newly auto-created Design Table would not control the remaining 8?
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
Jeremiah Feist May 6, 2020 12:55 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
There is a dialog box that will come up asking to confirm the delete option. something is blocking it for you. maybe that configuration is in use in a file you have open.

what happens when you try to delete the config manually after closing the design table?
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Josh Brady May 6, 2020 1:56 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
You should get this box:

Unless it is the active configuration. If you've deleted multiple rows, but one of them is the active configuration, SW will offer to delete those configs that are not the active config:
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
- Christopher Buckley @ Josh Brady on May 6, 2020 11:48 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Thank you for the explicit configs . Unfortunately, I am not getting these dialogs, but maybe this has something to do with the "manually controlled" and "design table controlled" variations I am seeing as pointed out by Dennis Dohogne. I.e. maybe these dialogs are only generated when a config controlled by the Design Table is edited.
  
  All of your configs appear to be correctly controlled by the Design Table, whereas only 1 out 9 are controlled by my newly created Design Table for some reason. I'll add further info after I figure out why these remaining 8 are not being controlled by the Design Table.
  Like • Show 1 Like1
  Actions
  - Dennis Dohogne @ Christopher Buckley on May 7, 2020 10:21 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    For additional help please share your file so we can see what is going on.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
  - Jeremiah Feist @ Christopher Buckley on May 7, 2020 10:22 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    start by auto-creating the design table. then immediately exiting the design table. post a screenshot of the config tree after these two steps.
    Like • Show 1 Like1
    Actions
    - Christopher Buckley @ Jeremiah Feist on May 8, 2020 7:17 AM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Too Long Didn't Read (TLDR) Version:
      
      I simplified my assembly greatly, which resolved several errors, but generated a few related ones. My only remaining unresolved error only seems to be the inability to keep the various configs in memory (checkmark rather than "-" mark to the left of each config). As I'm not manually purging this data nor is the "Purge cached configuration data" option in System Options -> Performance checked, so how can I allow these to remain in memory (or the cache)?
      
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Full Explanation:
      For those interested in how I resolved several of the above errors (though mostly by chance) see walkthrough below.
      
      After trying to reopen a few of those 8 manually controlled configs, I noticed I had rebuild issues in several of them. To simplify things and remove as many variables as possible, I removed all but one config and tried to recreate the issues.
      
      Step 1: Removed all configurations and DT
      Step 2: Added new config named Config2 (automatically added Display State regardless of me having them unlinked)
      Step 3: Removed unnecessary Display State.
      Step 4: Auto-created DT
      Step 5: Here is the auto-generated DT opened (Note the difference in State in Col G) and seemingly low number of parameters for such a complicated assembly (128 components)
      Step 6: Here is the configs pane while the DT is still open
      Step 7: Here is the configs pane after DT has been closed.
      It looks like they are both linked to the DT as hoped, but the errors shown above looks to be caused from some suppressed mates becoming unsuppressed after closing the DT.
      
      Any reason the DT (which doesn't even look to include the problematic mates) would modify the suppression state of things automatically? I am 100% certain these mates were suppressed prior to generating the DT and I force rebuilt all configs before generating the DT. I've done this process two times through, so I'm certain of the above to be repeatable. Furthermore, when I open up the DT right after this last step (without touching anything else) Solidworks tells me there are a LOT of new parameters that have been added to the model since you last edited the DT. (I made ZERO changes). I wonder if the initial DT did not include all the parameters it should have upon auto-generating?
      
      A few other curiosities associated with this assembly that I've noticed while debugging (that may give hints to others).
      - The Configs will not remain in memory regardless if they are controlled by the DT or manually (i.e. no check mark, only "-" signs"). I am not purging any data. I want these to remain in memory for speed purposes.
      - When I create a new assembly and drop this problem assembly into it as a subassembly, I can create configs and DT as expected (none of these issues).
      - When I Pack and Go (in prep for linking to this forum) I opened the assembly from this zip file, and the DT auto-generated with MANY more parameters (127 vs the 13 I got from the original Assembly location) and had no rebuild issues, but the inability to keep in memory still persists. I can even delete configurations via the DT! Weirder still, is I no longer have these issues after reopening the original assembly after opening the Pack and Go version...
      
      In conclusion something seems to have been wrong with some settings in Solidworks that has been reset after loading the Pack and Go version. So unfortunately, even if I attached that ZIP file here, you won't be able to recreate the issues I'm seeing...puzzling. Short of creating a new assembly file and inserting all previous components, any ideas as to what could be causing the? I guess this would be the fastest fix, but I don't want to resort to recreating my assemblies every time this happens. I'd like to understand the core issue so I can avoid it in the future.
      
      Bonus points if you can explain why I cannot keep multiple configs in memory? Is there some limitation on the number of triangles in an assembly or something that disables this functionality? I guess this since I can do this with a new assembly and just a single box feature or something simple. I've got 32 GB of RAM and the whole unzipped Pack and Go assembly is only 86.6 MB, so I don't think its a limitation of my PC.
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Dennis Dohogne @ Christopher Buckley on May 8, 2020 1:10 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Chris (or do you prefer Christopher?),
        We don't have your files and right now I don't the time to thoroughly go through them if we did, but let me clarify a small point, the green check mark isn't so much an indicator of the configuration "being active in the computer memory" to paraphrase. All the configuration check mark really means is that the configuration has been successfully rebuilt and SWX knows it. Seeing a dash instead of the check mark does not mean there is a problem. Seeing an "X" means there is a problem. I wouldn't worry about the presence/absence of the check marks, just the "X" indicators.
        
        The assembly DT should pick up any differences between the configurations you have. You indicate some surprise there aren't more columns to indicate all the differences. Perhaps a lot of these big differences are actually contained within the subassemblies and are not actually controlled at the top level assembly, assuming you are using subassemblies. If there are more differences at the top level assembly than are showing up in your DT then perhaps you have inadvertently told SWX to not include some of those parameters. Each time you go to edit the DT it should show you a list of configured items and ask you to select those you want to add to the DT. Also be aware that sometimes the "Do not show me this again" is selected so you won't see those unless you re-enable their visibility.
        
        If you are just trying to figure all this out then you can always delete the DT and then recreate it. SWX should recognize everything that is different between your configs and add them to the DT.
        Like • Show 1 Like1
        Actions
      - Josh Brady @ Christopher Buckley on May 8, 2020 1:28 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Additionally... Auto-generate does NOT attempt to add all parameters that can be changed in the model. That would be a HUGE list. All it does is try to analyze what is different between the configurations that exist and list those parameters.
        Like • Show 2 Likes2
        Actions
        Christopher Buckley @ Josh Brady on May 11, 2020 4:13 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        
        Dennis Dohogne
        I prefer Christopher, thank you for asking.
        
        Alright, after reading the [docs]([2019 SOLIDWORKS Help - Managing Configuration Data](http://help.solidworks.com/2019/english/SolidWorks/sldworks/c_Managing_Configuration_Data_Help.htm "http://help.solidworks.com/2019/english/SolidWorks/sldworks/c_Managing_Configuration_Data_Help.htm") ) I agree that it is not 100% correct to say the check mark indicates being active in memory, though the docs state, "You can purge cached configuration data every time you save the model.", which would imply that prior to being purged it remains in the cache (a type of memory).
        
        Semantics aside, I didn't mean to imply the "-" indicated a problem per se, but it does cause the associated configuration to rebuild prior to opening (which causes a 20-30s delay for this particular assembly on my machine). If I just insert that same assembly into a new assembly as a sub-assembly, then the check marks are generated and I can switch between configurations within 2-3s (10x difference). This makes sense with what the docs say, "Having the full data set available for a configuration can save a significant amount of time when switching configurations."
        
        So I'm still curious what prevents this assembly from maintaining multiple "full, up-to-date data set[s]" (i.e. check marked configurations).
        
        Thanks for your tips regarding the low parameter count. I don't think I fell victim to any of the ones you mentioned, but I think Josh Brady may have had a more accurate reason for what I saw. Though that explanation still doesn't explain why I would have any parameters in the DT at all (i.e. I would expect a fresh copy of a config followed by an Auto-Generate new DT to result in an empty DT). As you can see from Step 5 of my previous post, this is not the case. Now, I can't even recreate this error when trying the same steps on the Pack and Go Version of the assembly, so I guess it's not worth further discussion unless I can recreate the error to further investigate.
        
        Regardless, I appreciate your insight and will continue trying to find out how to keep all my configs as "full, up-to-date data set[s]" (i.e. check marked configurations). Also, I attempted to attach the Pack and Go assembly zip file, but the forum indicated that the file was "too large". So here is a dropbox link if you are so inclined (Dropbox - TroublesomeAssembly.zip - Simplify your life ). Note this is in the state with a single config prior to creating the DT or any alternate configs.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jeremiah Feist @ Christopher Buckley on May 11, 2020 9:51 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        one or both of these options (right click on the file name in the config tab) will get the data saved in the file - note that this will make the file quite large on the disk
        Like • Show 1 Like1
        Actions
        Christopher Buckley @ Jeremiah Feist on May 12, 2020 1:42 AM
        Unmark Correct
        Correct Answer
        After countless hours I tracked down the source of the error! Thanks everyone for your tips along the way. They've helped me narrow down the possible issues to finally arrive at this long fought for solution.
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TLDR Version:
        At least on my system (Solidworks 2019 SP5.0) you cannot group your Assembly mates By Status without causing all kinds of chaos with configurations. Note this is the top-level mates folder in the Design Tree, not any part or sub-assembly mates folder. Removing both groupings (By Status and Separate Fasteners) allowed for checkmarks on all configurations after switching through them, making swapping between configs significantly faster. I can recreate the original question problem (not being able to delete configs via a DT and all the other issues I was seeing) simply by grouping the top-level Assembly mates.
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Full Version:
        I started by saving a Pack and Go Version of my assembly as a restarting point to come back to after doing some heavy modifications.
        
        I then started removing parts and subassemblies group by group until I got down to a completely bare assembly other than the leftover missing suppressed mates. I removed all mates so I figured it was one or a few particular mates that were corrupted somehow. I reopened the Pack and Go assembly without saving, and just deleted all mates. I tried creating another config from this state, and Solidworks said my file was corrupted and crashed. Tried this several times again with the same result.
        
        Then I tried deleting groups of mates (fasteners first, then all tangent mates, all parallel mates, all coincident mates, etc.) trying to narrow down which mates could be the source of the problem. I got down to just the parallel mates (10 out of 127 mates or something) and turned off the mate grouping so I could see the remainder in alphabetical order. I then deleted the first one called parallel20. Went back and the configs saved with a checkmark. So I though parallel20 was the culprit.
        
        I then went back to the Pack and Go assembly original state, and deleted just this parallel20 mate. Nothing fixed. Ugh... I tried to think what else I could have done, and the mate grouping was the only thing. So I went back to the Pack and Go assembly and just ungrouped the mates. It was fixed! I repeated this two more times because I had to prove it to myself that this was actually the things fixing this.
        
        Not sure if this a bug or what, but it might stem from some inability for configs to track mates when grouped?
        
        The reason I could get the checkmarks if I dropped this assembly into another new assembly as a subassembly was because the default on my system is to not group the mates.
        
        To see if this was causing the original issue with the Design Tables not syncing with the Assembly configs, I created a new blank assembly and just put in two simple rectangles mated on three sides. I've attached the Pack and Go version of this to this post, but you should be able to recreate this issue by doing the following on ANY existing assembly (though take care and make a copy prior to trying this because if caused me hours of work trying to recover from):
        
        1.) Ensure your top-level Assembly mates folder is not grouped by either status or fasteners.
        2.) Create multiple configs if you don't already have them
        3.) Switch between configs and note the check marks beside the configurations you have manually loaded
        4.) Turn on the top-level Mate folder grouping by status.
        5.) Return to the configs view and note the "-" icons beside what were previously checkmarks.
        6.) If you try to create a Design Table at this point you will run into all the errors I have mentioned in this thread...so don't do it on anything you want to keep working with...it will mess it up pretty well.
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
        Additional Comments:
        Jeremiah Feist Thanks, but this doesn't seem to speed things up when switching between configs. Also neither of these options appear to be the same as the check mark according to the [docs](2019 SOLIDWORKS Help - Managing Configuration Data ). Rebuilding on Save Marks do not remove the necessity to rebuild every time I switch configs (which the checkmark does).
        
        I understand what Rebuild on Save Marks are doing as Rebuilding is something I commonly do, but I am not familiar with the term "Display Lists", which the "Add Display Data Mark" is supposed to generate. I couldn't find anything in the docs about this either other than "you can generate them". Any reference you know of that better defines what a "display list" is and how this is different from a "full, up-to-date data set"?
        
        As a past workaround, I had just done a few things to reduce my overall rebuild time. That way I could just bite my lip and rebuild everytime I need to swap between configs without a 30s hold. I created simplified models of all my parts to drastically reduce the number of graphics triangles (identified via the Performance Evaluation tool), and Pack and Go'ed saving all but toolbox components and made sure all my assembly parts and subassemblies were located in the same directory. The latter step removed all external references (i.e. I had parts stored in different directories around my harddrive, and thus the disk read/writes were causing my disk to jump around a lot during every rebuild which cost a lot of time). With such a setup I still had to rebuild everytime I switched configs, but swapping only took about 5-6 seconds compared to the 25-30s it took before. Now that this is fixed by removing the mate groupings, it takes 1-2 seconds.
        Attachments
        Assem1.zip2.5 MB
        Like • Show 1 Like1
        Actions

Deleting Configurations using Design Table

Outcomes

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content