1. Home
  2. Solidworks CAD Design software
  3. How much is SW capable of...?

How much is SW capable of...?

I am in search of information from people here who are pushing the limits of design with SW. I am undertaking a project where I will be working on a comprehensive vehicle powerplant packaging design. I will begin with models of OEM engine components and repackage them according to my own design for a racing application. The examples of components may be an engine block casting, a cylinder head, misc castings, and sheetmetal stampings (to represent engine compartment). These would all be conversions from the system in use at the OEM. With these models, I could be modifying and/or moving them as well as adding my own unique components. I expect the total model size at completion will be several GB.

Has anyone here worked with data like that. Is SW large assembly (lightweight) mode useful for this kind of work?

A new workstation may be in order for the project. What should I be asking for? 64 bit? >3 GB RAM? QuadroFX3000? SCSI? RAID? Basically, what are the bottlenecks when working with extremely complex surface models in solidworks. I say surface models because my experience so far has been that SW does not typically solidify complex imported models, even though they started as such in Catia or UG or Pro/e.

Would it make sense to get a seat of whatever the files were natively designed in so that I can avoid translation issues al together. I believe the native files are Catia. I believe this software can be leased. What kind of hardware does it require...*nix? If so, thats probably not an option.

I am looking at this right now as a money is no object problem. this is of course not entirely accurate, but I want to know what people with experience with these types of design problems feel is the ultimate solution. My guess is that working on the same program that the files were created in would be best, but there are issues of learing how to use the software that will come into play.

Is there anyone in this group that has this sort of experience?

MHill

Please cc: replies to email (remove obvious items that don't belong)

Reply to
MHill
Loading thread data ...

MHill,

What version of Catia V4 (Nix) or V5 (Win) ? There's a huge difference.

V4 uses bizarre surface and curve descriptions and a very loose internal system tolerance. It also has the worst IGES and STEP translators of any CAD software on the planet. Data from this system requires a special 3rd party translator, or a service bureau to convert. I don't think you can get a license of V4 anymore, and you wouldn't want to0.

V5 is an "exact" brep modeler, and is based on standard NURBS definitions. The STEP translator is pretty good. V5 requires an "extreme" PC (fastest processor, lots of RAM, best Video) to be happy. It's also very vertically integrated. Everything is a module. About all you can do with the base package is model a block with holes in it. They've even split surfacing up into at least three seperate modules. By the time you have enough to do intake manifolds, you'll probably spend 30Kor more.

SW can do everything necessary for complete engine design (I've done it). The hardware requirements are about the same with the exception of the video card. You can get away with a mid range Nvidia quadro.

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark M

CPU power!

Get the fastest CPU you can buy (there is no word from SW that they will be porting to 64bit any time soon). Maybe others can say whether going to Athlon64 is a wise investment.

Pack it with as much RAM as possible.

You can most likely skip purchasing the bleeding edge Quadro and go with one under $300.00.

Hey, once you get the engine done, you can drop it in the Mach Five...

formatting link
Mike Wilson

Reply to
Mike J. Wilson

It's interesting, this 64 bit version. Way back when, there was a 64bit version of SolidWorks that ran on the Compaq/DEC Alpha workstations....

Reply to
SBC

Are you sure you're not thinking about some other CAD software? I don't believe SolidWorks was ever compiled for other than Windoze.

'Sporky'

SBC wrote:

Reply to
Sporkman

SBC,

We had a bunch o Alpha's. The Alpha version of NT was actually 32bit, even though it was a 64bit processor. All the marketing benchmarks were run in

64bit DEC Unix. The truth was that running 32bit NT, the Alpha was significantly slower, mhz for mhz, than the Intel. Buying them was a very expensive mistake. They ended up in the dumpster.

Regards

Mark

Reply to
Mark M

Well, I worked on a few Dec Alpha's, running Pro/e, and imho, very nice.

It was a sad time (still is in retrospect) when the mech market was denied!. Like many technologies which get held back or denied, the Alpha's were ahead of their time.

So... we sit and wait for M$ to get their act together after all of these years....???

..

Mark M wrote:

Reply to
Paul Salvador

No. he's right, back in 95/96 (not exactly sure when it was withdrawn) there was an Alpha option

Reply to
Andrew Troup

"Andrew Troup" a écrit dans le message de news: tmFTb.32364$ snipped-for-privacy@news.xtra.co.nz...

Maybe even 97, I recall

Reply to
Jean Marc BRUN

We had one. It was TRULY a screamer. Significantly faster than the fastest Intel box of the day. And then Compaq buys DEC, reneges on all the licenses that DEC had signed with the clone manufactures, and puts the Alpha system out to pasture.

Idiots. I have to figure Intel had some input into this as DEC was making them look bad.

Reply to
Chris Dubea

The Alpha version was available when we signed on in 99. BUT, was it 64bit? I don't think that it was. I don't actually know.

Reply to
Dale Dunn

I actually still have the machine, but it is no longer running windows. I am using it as a File/Print/Web/Mail server running Debian. It's a great machine. We had done some benchmarks with it compared to a 1Ghz machine (mine is 500Mhz). For FEA the alpha blew the doors off the intel machine running twice as fast....

Reply to
SBC

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.