verification in reconstruction ctrl + q

[dedoitalia]

I would like to know what the ctrl+q reconstruction test is, I usually used the normal reconstruction of the ctrl+b lighthouse.
I swirled it in the help while looking for a solution to the problem of solidworks in reopening saved assemblies, that is, save all the assemblies in the evening and the morning after appear errors from nothing especially in the mirrors of assemblies... .

 

[Mike1967]

I would like to know what the ctrl+q reconstruction test is, I usually used the normal reconstruction of the ctrl+b lighthouse.
I swirled it in the help while looking for a solution to the problem of solidworks in reopening saved assemblies, that is, save all the assemblies in the evening and the morning after appear errors from nothing especially in the mirrors of assemblies... .

ctrl+b reconstructs the last functions created by the last recalculation, while q reconstructs all functions,
including mating mirrors and what else.

 

[dedoitalia]

thank you but you know why solidworks once you have saved a set and reopen it after a few days appear errors from nothing I assure you that before you unslave against always if there are mistakes or not... .

 

[Mike1967]

thank you but you know why solidworks once you have saved a set and reopen it after a few days appear errors from nothing I assure you that before you unslave against always if there are mistakes or not... .

Sometimes some redundant references can make you crazy. (see guide http://help.solidworks.com/2011/ita...sldworks/assem_1/design_errors_and_mating.htm)
What mistakes brings you back: on sketches, functions or couplings?
is it not that some components use them in other assemblies and, perhaps, modify them?

Remember to solve the light weight of the components before saving.

 

[dedoitalia]

we always work with light weight solved cmq many times are the couplings especially concentrics and coicides in the mirrors of assemblies

 

[Mike1967]

we always work with light weight solved cmq many times are the couplings especially concentrics and coicides in the mirrors of assemblies

then you have too many couplings that overlook the set or go into conflict.
make sure you have the minimum of couplings, take care not to make
that some couplings repeat or maybe they resemble .
uses couplings that leave a certain freedom so that adding
other components you have a slight margin to insert back others
fixing.
I know it's not easy at first, but over time you'll have a better vision.

 

[dedoitalia]

according to me moneyworks 2010 does not open the assemblings correctly sometimes I reload the groups and disperse the errors from nothing because (it happened right now)

 

[Mike1967]

according to me moneyworks 2010 does not open the assemblings correctly sometimes I reload the groups and disperse the errors from nothing because (it happened right now)

It can be, that worked a year and never happened to me... :biggrin:

 

[dedoitalia]

then maybe you didn't work on big assemblies 300 mb together

 

[michele81]

according to me moneyworks 2010 does not open the assemblings correctly sometimes I reload the groups and disperse the errors from nothing because (it happened right now)

sometimes it happens to me and not with huge assemblies. If I'm sure the axieme has no errors, I close sw and reopen, there are often no problems. sometimes I have the impression that in mixed assemblies i.e. with parts built in the context and other inserted, the software has problems to find all the times the same history of reconstruction; when it takes a different road from that made then the constraints are overflowing and goes in confusion.

 

[Mike1967]

then maybe you didn't work on big assemblies 300 mb together

Yes, perhaps, but I'll handle them as well as I overtake them abundantly
i 200/250 mb.
I am convinced that the use of couplings is very important.
also the way it sketches to create new parts, connected sketches
to walls, holes and edges can become very dangerous if you are not sure
that particular will not be modified.
then that some gabola software occasionally pulls it out, okay, but often
is our method of work that does not fall within the philosophy of the program.

 

[marcof]

then maybe you didn't work on big assemblies 300 mb together

I'm guessing you're referring to the open-ended ram, right? I finished working recently with 2010 on a light-weighted set that occupies 400 mb of ram and everything solved occupies 750mb.
never had that kind of problem, and I don't remember having had it in the past (sgrats, sgrats!!... )

if you were referring to a file I give up at 300 mb but I would be curious to know how many components there are and how much ram it requires when it is open...
(speaking of files my is from 18 mb, the bigger subasime is from 24 mb and the bigger part is from 30 mb)

 

[SolidUser]

I'm guessing you're referring to the open-ended ram, right? I finished working recently with 2010 on a light-weighted set that occupies 400 mb of ram and everything solved occupies 750mb.
never had that kind of problem, and I don't remember having had it in the past (sgrats, sgrats!!... )

if you were referring to a file I give up at 300 mb but I would be curious to know how many components there are and how much ram it requires when it is open...
(speaking of files my is from 18 mb, the bigger subasime is from 24 mb and the bigger part is from 30 mb)

I confirm marco.
I never had a problem.
I'm sure the problem is who uses solidworks.
just see how they build models some of this forum to realize how you work.
even after years of use there are people working with cad with feet.
the cad is a tool and as such should be known.
solidworks is a very user friendly cad.
It allows you to model and create assemblies.
This leads you to think that you are already independent and do not document and grow.

 

[re_solidworks]

often happens to me. always with big asses. if I launch the analysis together there are no circulatory references or similar things and swx from everything ok.
Sometimes I find myself a mistake in a repetition and I realize that inexplicably lost the line on which the repetition worked and this line is still present and has not been touched by anyone.
Others have errors on axes or plans created in the context of a set, I open the axieme, published the plan or axis and the error disappears from itself without doing anything.
in my opinion are problems related to light weight, when swx "cuts" the info to lighten the model sometimes from some trouble.
so much to give a comparison term of the size of together, I checked a pack & go and is just over 1gb (size on disk). open occupies about 4 gb of ram.

 

[SolidUser]

often happens to me. always with big asses. if I launch the analysis together there are no circulatory references or similar things and swx from everything ok.
Sometimes I find myself a mistake in a repetition and I realize that inexplicably lost the line on which the repetition worked and this line is still present and has not been touched by anyone.
Others have errors on axes or plans created in the context of a set, I open the axieme, published the plan or axis and the error disappears from itself without doing anything.
in my opinion are problems related to light weight, when swx "cuts" the info to lighten the model sometimes from some trouble.
so much to give a comparison term of the size of together, I checked a pack & go and is just over 1gb (size on disk). open occupies about 4 gb of ram.

everything is related to how you work and options.
it is known that working in the context of assemblies with light weight is not possible.
you need to enable options and if you do not do it you risk creating errors.

I am 100% sure that the problems are user.
I bet a hand that many times the pieces are badly coupled and surely is the case of these situations.

to make you only an example inherent to your modeling of the right and symmetric rail, you did it in a way that you need additional functions, weighting a simple file unnecessarily.
and you are an expert... let's set a lower level what can produce.
the environment together, and in the case of couplings, the working method must be even more standard.

 

[re_solidworks]

everything is related to how you work and options.
it is known that working in the context of assemblies with light weight is not possible.
you need to enable options and if you do not do it you risk creating errors.

I am 100% sure that the problems are user.
I bet a hand that many times the pieces are badly coupled and surely is the case of these situations.

to make you only an example inherent to your modeling of the right and symmetric rail, you did it in a way that you need additional functions, weighting a simple file unnecessarily.
and you are an expert... let's set a lower level what can produce.
the environment together, and in the case of couplings, the working method must be even more standard.

see, some systems serve to manage huge orders in acceptable times not to go out of budget, the best system I found is what I use and often intervened in projects left half by colleagues who were no longer able to complete them.
the top down is essential to keep control of a model, otherwise the control is lost and in production a blood bath happens.
the light weight is obligatory when the models are huge, if you have to draw a plant and extract details from the axieme you must have it all, without too much simplifications.
if you do not use light weight the size of manageable models decreases fearfully and (if so) I should conclude that swx is not a cad suitable for managing large assemblies.
I put the discussion my way of working and shaping every day and if I see a better method I do not hesitate to change the way.
Would you please tell me how I should have done to get a better result from that parapet?

Thank you.

 

[SolidUser]

see, some systems serve to manage huge orders in acceptable times not to go out of budget, the best system I found is what I use and often intervened in projects left half by colleagues who were no longer able to complete them.
the top down is essential to keep control of a model, otherwise the control is lost and in production a blood bath happens.
the light weight is obligatory when the models are huge, if you have to draw a plant and extract details from the axieme you must have it all, without too much simplifications.
if you do not use light weight the size of manageable models decreases fearfully and (if so) I should conclude that swx is not a cad suitable for managing large assemblies.
I put the discussion my way of working and shaping every day and if I see a better method I do not hesitate to change the way.
Would you please tell me how I should have done to get a better result from that parapet?

Thank you.

I wasn't clear.
light weight assemblies should be used, even in the context of assemblies if the axieme is large.
However, there are some options to use them both.
by default the installation of solidworks does not enable the use of light weight.
if you enable it, you must also enable the full upload option in case of references in the context.
say that solidworks is not suitable for large assemblies is absolutely incorrect.
You'll be shocked, but it's just your opinion.
There are so many ways to work with great assemblies.
solidedge does not have the same strategies and for large assemblies loses against solidworks.
inventor, we don't talk about it.
remain pro/e, catià and nx.
from what I read of nx, he uses jt as a fast loading form... is another solution, but the result is the same.
catià has a tide of options, but a real comparison, you can give it stef_design.
pro/e you also use it...so you will have to tell us your real opinion, even if I see from your answers in other arguments...that while having them both... stay on sw, and that says all.

for the parapet speech, I go to memory...but I would change the sequence of creation of the extruded and I would have saved 2 cutting functions.
the project was very simple.
I deduce from this that I cannot believe you 100% reliable on the claims of axiom problems.
if your method of modeling on simple objects has gaps, it can surely have them in the environment together and when the axioms become great, the strategies must be correct, otherwise it comes into errors attributable to the program, while the real reason is that there was a method error.

I've seen so many. ..very many and I keep seeing so many. .. especially in this forum.
I am not a guru, but of assemblies of 2000 components I made them myself, in the context of assemblies and never had problems.
the only problems I have had together is between the passage of versions, from 2001 to 2006.

 

[re_solidworks]

I wasn't clear.
light weight assemblies should be used, even in the context of assemblies if the axieme is large.
However, there are some options to use them both.
by default the installation of solidworks does not enable the use of light weight.
if you enable it, you must also enable the full upload option in case of references in the context.
say that solidworks is not suitable for large assemblies is absolutely incorrect.
You'll be shocked, but it's just your opinion.
There are so many ways to work with great assemblies.
solidedge does not have the same strategies and for large assemblies loses against solidworks.
inventor, we don't talk about it.
remain pro/e, catià and nx.
from what I read of nx, he uses jt as a fast loading form... is another solution, but the result is the same.
catià has a tide of options, but a real comparison, you can give it stef_design.
pro/e you also use it...so you will have to tell us your real opinion, even if I see from your answers in other arguments...that while having them both... stay on sw, and that says all.

for the parapet speech, I go to memory...but I would change the sequence of creation of the extruded and I would have saved 2 cutting functions.
the project was very simple.
I deduce from this that I cannot believe you 100% reliable on the claims of axiom problems.
if your method of modeling on simple objects has gaps, it can surely have them in the environment together and when the axioms become great, the strategies must be correct, otherwise it comes into errors attributable to the program, while the real reason is that there was a method error.

I've seen so many. ..very many and I keep seeing so many. .. especially in this forum.
I am not a guru, but of assemblies of 2000 components I made them myself, in the context of assemblies and never had problems.
the only problems I have had together is between the passage of versions, from 2001 to 2006.

the assemblies of 2000 components for me are the base of departure, our standard is from 5000 to 10,000, in exceptional cases (2-3 projects per year) arrive at 20,000 - 50,000. in one case we have passed the 100,000 abundantly.
if I open a set of 100,000 components and enable the document loading option in reference... You can understand that nothing opens.
the reference with proe in the management of the great assemblies is in favor of proe, I simply can not use it more than much as many of my customers ask me the natives of swx and because the greater experience on swx added to the pdm (which only turns on swx) and to the historian greater give me a remarkable advantage.
the strategy of the topdown of ptc seems better (with the aax package) and the management of the big assemblies seems more stable.
I say it seems to me why I use proe only for smaller things, I have seen projects made by others but never of the dimesions of those I realize with swx.
inventor and if I don't know them and I don't know.

 

[SolidUser]

the assemblies of 2000 components for me are the base of departure, our standard is from 5000 to 10,000, in exceptional cases (2-3 projects per year) arrive at 20,000 - 50,000. in one case we have passed the 100,000 abundantly.
if I open a set of 100,000 components and enable the document loading option in reference... You can understand that nothing opens.
the reference with proe in the management of the great assemblies is in favor of proe, I simply can not use it more than much as many of my customers ask me the natives of swx and because the greater experience on swx added to the pdm (which only turns on swx) and to the historian greater give me a remarkable advantage.
the strategy of the topdown of ptc seems better (with the aax package) and the management of the big assemblies seems more stable.
I say it seems to me why I use proe only for smaller things, I have seen projects made by others but never of the dimesions of those I realize with swx.
inventor and if I don't know them and I don't know.

I talk about unique parts, not total.
If for you then it also comes to 100,000 unique parts, I can't imagine totals and therefore strategies go far beyond light weight.
you have to have many under groups and use speedpack.
There are also many other options to set... which you may not set them.
I don't talk about uploading references....that's not the option I'm talking about.
However... malfunction is objective if it is repetitive and demonstrable.
if it happens on some assemblies and sometimes.. I believe that behind there is a bad management of the assemblies or parts.

 

[re_solidworks]

speedpack is useless, it is not exportable in dwg (necessary) it is not quotable at the table (necessary) you do nothing except an image. is one thing made in half that can not be used if not pre create figures.
regarding management.. I don't agree with what you say. if I open a set 10 times without touching and saving anything you should open 10 times in the same way and not with random errors.
I understand what you're referring to because when I started using swx I happened to make circular references or poorly stable models. an analysis of the model clarifies what the problem is and avoids it in the future.
all I've been taught in the various courses I put it into practice, but as I have already said once you exceed a number of components.... the stability shoulder.
I don't think it's a modeling technique, it's a cad limit in its management.
all cads sit at some point and from what I saw swx before sitting completely has these somewhat strange behaviors.