Lightweight vs. Adaptive Data Engine

Can anyone that has evaluated at both SolidWorks and Inventor
specifically with regards to handling large assemblies please tell me
what you discovered about hardware configuration and memory
consumption. Our machines can exceed 10000+ parts. I have heard the
arguements Inventor uses against lightweight parts, but wonder what
limitations exist with Inventor's Adaptive Data Engine?
Reply to
SR
Loading thread data ...
I have had bad luck using SW for large assemblies (7,500+ to 10,000+ parts) and had even worse luck with them when we were evaluating Inventor. Are you going to be creating cropped and section views with the large assembly? If so, I would look at a more advanced CAD program or at least get a 60-day evaluation of SolidWorks and really push it. If you do end up with SolidWorks feel free to contact me for my horror stories as well as positive experiences.
Reply to
Jeff N
I had a customer using SW with a 15,000 part assembly and didn't have any problems running the file. He could get the file open lightweight in around a minute and fully resolve it, in 3 minutes. On top of that the file was in-contexted with Equations and Design Table.
So just because one person has problems running large assemblies doesn't mean everyone is. The machine he had was hoss (3 gig of memory) but the video card I didn't recognize as a preferred card by SW. To bad he's not at that job anymore I wish I could remember what it was.
Regards, Scott
Reply to
Scott
I would take a look at Solid Edge. It has been known to work well with large assemblies, with some customers having assemblies of 100,000 parts or more.
Ken
Reply to
Ken
It is very vague to suggest that a system can or can't run with a large number of parts. They key here is how many of these 10 or 100 thousand parts are unique parts. To me, you could almost count out most commonly used fasterners that used over and over in a large assembly. It's also based on how complex the feature tree is on some parts such as sweeps, lofts, feature patterns, etc... I bet there is a lot of people that have 20 part assemblies that can challege the most powerfull systems around.
Well, that being said, I would really like to see just how many of these 100,000 part assemblies are unique and complex parts.
Reply to
dvanzile
Correct.And the mates and other constraints might play a dramatic role too.
Have a look at
formatting link
for a small assembly of simple parts, but complex mates. It was one of the first models I did, back to SW 2000, and I was amazed to see how smooth it went, and still is with a "flat" structure. The same with 2 levels, patterned flexible subassemblies is practically unworkable with SW 2003 and later... I never reached to constrain this structure in Inventor (5) so that it moves correctly.
Reply to
Philippe Guglielmetti

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.