What is SolidWorks 2004 doing with system resources???

I'm running 2003 for production work and 2004 only experimentally.

Just finished modeling a relatively simple part with a single loft (between one circular and one square profile) sitting on top of a circular extruded base.

With the same part modeled natively in both 2003 and 2004 (programs running side by side simultaneously) and shelling each, I then asked the respective programs to simply edit the loft feature (with no changes) and then rebuild.

In 2003 I can open the feature for editing and rebuild in a flash compared to performing the same operations in 2004. In fact, I can repeat the edit/rebuild in 2003 MULTILPE times while still waiting for

2004 to complete the rebuild for the FIRST time.

Verification on Rebuild is NOT checked ON in either version and I can't think of any system settings which are set differently to any degree that would account for the "ball and chain" performance in


Even with 2003 shut down to free up memory, 2004 is doggedly slow in the edit/rebuild of the simple loft.

Switching (temporarily) to the use of Software OpenGL reduces the delay, but I can't work this way on a regular basis.

But the plot thickens! - If the part created natively in 2003 is opened in 2004, its features can be edited and rebuilt rather speedily

- Just as if it was still being worked on in 2003. Even after saving the 2003 version part (converted to 2004 format), the "imported" component retains a major performance advantage.

Apparently, modeling from scratch in 2004 adds some mysterious "baggage". For reference, the file sizes are:

2003 native - 192kb 2003 converted to 2004 - 537kb 2004 native 755kb

SolidWorks should try to capitalize upon a marketing campaign that focuses upon delivering the FASTEST and most ROCK SOLID performance possible and ease up on rolling out new functionality, if it can't be added without overall burden!

I'm eager to use 2004's new capabilities day in and day out; however, the current program environment is just not ready for prime time.

Per O. Hoel

Reply to
Per O. Hoel
Loading thread data ...

We have pointed out this huge increase in file size on our surface intensive models to our VAR, they reviewed our models and agreed, they say they have submitted it to Solidworks, but now we get no replies when asking what the status of the problem is. Our models are huge in comparison to the 2001Plus models we originally created.

This is not the only forum I have seen this problem posted in but Solidworks is refusing to give an answer.

Reply to
Phil Evans

I would gather that the 2003 loft algorithm is being utilized in 2004, that's why it is faster. So, the 2004 is slower.

Maybe we need a choice of algorithms?? Such as,.. a drop down list and a option or choice to retain, maintain or utilize certain algorithms per feature?

loft algorithm 1 loft algorithm 2 loft algorithm 3 .. .

sweep algorithm 1 sweep algorithm 2 sweep algorithm 3 .. .

fill algorithm 1 fill algorithm 2 fill algorithm 3 .. .

"Per O. Hoel" wrote:

Reply to
Paul Salvador

Thanks for that info, I totally agree with all of your comments. I am still on sw2003 sp5 .

regards bram

Re "Per O. Hoel" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com...

Reply to
B. van Welzenis

(In my best evil corporate decision maker impersonation) We're fixing that for 2005. Just stay on subscription. You'll get it. (after hanging up phone) MUWAHAHAHAHA! That idiot thinks we're gonna get it right next time and get this! He's gonna pay us more money! MUWAHAHAHAHA! Hey wait, we found something totally unrelated and obscure. Crap. The newsgroup'll be on fire if we don't get that one band-aided ASAP. Oh wait. That's right. Who gives a crap about a newsgroup? Just tell'em that'll be fixed in 2004+. No wait. An even better idea. We'll put out SP1 again saying we fixed it, then pull it right away and act like there was really something wrong with the SP. At least that will buy us more time.

Have a laugh people! Don't be so uptight!

Reply to
Jeff N

Oh, that really IS too funny! ROTFL Thanks for a good laugh.

Reply to


formatting link
.. 8^)

Sporkman wrote:

Reply to
Paul Salvador

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.