Magic Numbers in Parametric Software

From my experience it appears that as an assembly gets bigger there

comes a time, (ie. a "magic" number of constraints) where the program doesn't seem to be able to handle minor changes anymore. One of the solutions for this is to stuff parts into sub assemblies. This appears to drastically reduce, (usually) the number of constraints that SW needs to calculate and this seems to resolve the problems.

From the way that these assemblies have acted it seems like there is a

little round off error and when these errors get too large the whole model seems to shatter like a piece of glass.

Has anyone else ran into this? Are there any rules of thumbs for this?

Also from my experience, it seems like SW is about 3 times more tolerant then Inventor because it doesn't take very many parts at all in Inventor before it turns to garbage. Where as SW seems to be able to handle a fairly good size assembly befor problems start to be created.

Thanks,

EdT

Reply to
Ed
Loading thread data ...

Inventor doesn't have as good a Beta testing program.

TOP

One trick that utilizes this is to put your BIG assembly into another assembly, then mate whatever parts/subs to it and then drag those parts/subs into the BIG assembly, save the big assembly and then just shut down the dummy assembly.

Reply to
TOP

I think everyone has seen something like it, but there is no magic number. The mate solve time probably increases approximately exponentially with the number of mates, with different increases for each mate because of different situations for each mate. Stictly speaking, it probably should blow up sooner, but the mate solver allows for a lot redundancy in the constraints as long as each redundant constraint solves the same geometrically. That is, more than one mate con constrain the same degree of freedom. The solver has to figure out that this conflict is actually ok and not blow up. When it does blow up, it usually has to do with the solver algorithm not being able to figure out what to do with all the redundancies.

The only way to combat this is to limit the number of mates and redundant constraints. Use the subassemblies (they have other advantages too), and try to constrain only the degrees of freedom that you need to. One other thing to look out for is mating to less robust entities, such as edges. Esprecially if there are in-context relations involved. That is a no-no, and causes blow-ups and other entertaining behavior very quickly. Proper skeleton modeling techniques also help. You can look that up on the subscription site.

Why is it so complicated? Because SW gives you a lot of rope to hang yourself with.

Reply to
Dale Dunn

Doesn't that eventually end up in nightmware rebuild times for the BIG assembly and any drawing views that show it?

Reply to
Dale Dunn

Yup. I never tried dummy assembly with a drawing. Might be something to try.

TOP

This would wreak havoc on PDM. Supposedly a detached drawing would stop the rebuilding and solving too.

Reply to
TOP

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.