Solved Grid performance in Cad

[KitaYama]

To prevent the following thread going off track and possibly highjacked I will ask my question here:

What pc hardware/software to speed up Microsoft Access?

What PC hardware/software is needed to run Microsoft Access quickly? Suppose Access is the only application running on a computer What hardware, operating system, and configuration is recommended to maximize the performance of the running application?

www.access-programmers.co.uk

With a change in modeling methods, processing was instant.

@RonPaii
Can you share the method? And possibly the CAD software in use?

Thanks

 

[RonPaii]

To prevent the following thread going off track and possibly highjacked I will ask my question here:

What pc hardware/software to speed up Microsoft Access?

What PC hardware/software is needed to run Microsoft Access quickly? Suppose Access is the only application running on a computer What hardware, operating system, and configuration is recommended to maximize the performance of the running application?

www.access-programmers.co.uk

@RonPaii
Can you share the method? And possibly the CAD software in use?

Thanks

About 12 years ago Solidworks. The hole pattern was inserted on a grid of points with some of the holes removed. To fix it the hole pattern was inserted using a pattern with some of the holes removed in the command. So the 1st method created thousands of individual hole objects, the 2nd method created 1 hole objects patterned into thousands of references. All 3D modeling coded is serial, requiring each object in the model to be calculated in the order created using only a single processor.

I would characterize the 1st method as opening a large record set and editing each record one at a time. The 2nd method would be a update query.

 

[KitaYama]

To fix it the hole pattern was inserted using a pattern with some of the holes removed in the command.

Sorry for being dense. But I can't understand what "was inserted using a pattern" means.
You mean, instead of having a sketch full of dots and put holes on each point (using hole wizard tool), you add a hole, and then create a pattern out of the hole?

If you mean something else, do you have a link to a page that explains your method, a youtube or anything that can show how you were able to speed up the rebuild?

Thanks.

 

[RonPaii]

Sorry for being dense. But I can't understand what "was inserted using a pattern" means.
You mean, instead of having a sketch full of dots and put holes on each point (using hole wizard tool), you add a hole, and then create a pattern out of the hole?

If you mean something else, do you have a link to a page that explains your method, a youtube or anything that can show how you were able to speed up the rebuild?

Thanks.

Yes, the hole wizard adds the 1st hole that does most of the calculations to place a hole. The pattern tool puts a grid of holes X,Y across the sheet. The pattern tool has an option to exclude some of the holes. This is more efficient because the complex calculations are only done once for the 1st hole. 3d modeling tools can show you the recalculation time showing which ones take the most time.

 

[KitaYama]

I don't know it's a bad news or a good one.
Recent versions of SoidwWorks seems to behave the same for both methods. Either they have changed the hole wizard to speed up the rebuilt time, or they have ruined pattern tool to bring it down to the level of hole wizard. There was a very lengthy discussion in cadforum.net with a lot of speed tests to compare both.

Million thanks for your time and explaining.

 

[BlueSpruce]

About 12 years ago Solidworks. The hole pattern was inserted on a grid of points with some of the holes removed. To fix it the hole pattern was inserted using a pattern with some of the holes removed in the command. So the 1st method created thousands of individual hole objects, the 2nd method created 1 hole objects patterned into thousands of references. All 3D modeling coded is serial, requiring each object in the model to be calculated in the order created using only a single processor.

Was the modeling of the patterned holes with skipped instances being done for CNC progamming to fabricate custom sheet metal at a machine shop?

 

[BlueSpruce]

Sorry for being dense. But I can't understand what "was inserted using a pattern" means.
You mean, instead of having a sketch full of dots and put holes on each point (using hole wizard tool), you add a hole, and then create a pattern out of the hole?

What you describe is related to how the software handles individual features versus patterned features:

1. The slow way: Inserting many individual holes creates a separate entry in the model's feature tree for every single hole. Each of these features must be processed sequentially. Most 3D modeling calculations are serial, meaning the total rebuild time scales linearly (or worse) with the sheer number of individual features, causing significant slowdowns.
2. The efficient way: By using a pattern feature (like a "sketch-driven pattern" or a "feature pattern with instances removed"), the software defines the location of the holes mathematically as references to a single "seed" feature. The CAD system stores one main feature object and a list of transformation matrices (coordinates) for its instances. This method is vastly more efficient because the software only has to perform the detailed geometry calculation for the single seed hole and then replicate its geometry or effect across the specified locations, drastically reducing the feature count in the tree and the overall processing time.

If SolidWorks performance on your computer is slo in handling your project, consider using a cloud based tool, like Autodesk Fusion 360 that offers extreme performance for complex projects.

 

[KitaYama]

Inserting many individual holes creates a separate entry in the model's feature tree for every single hole.

It's not inserting a single hole for every hole. Both methods uses a pattern feature.
The first method, you create a sketch, in a sketch and add a point, then you create a pattern out of the single point, and ask the software to add holes to the given sketch pattern.
The second method (which RonPaii explained is faster), you create a hole and pattern the hole. Both methods uses pattern. The difference is the pattern is used in a sketch, or the pattern is used on a feature.

But in either case, there are ways to prevent a fall in the performance when you have a lot of holes.
A very effective way is to lock the feature and ask the software not to render or rebuilt the feature. It means that once the grid is added, the software doesn't care about it and will not use its resources to validate it.

In the above tree, I've locked the features I don't want to be rebuilt again, by dragging down the yellow line. The software will bypass them and pretend there are not there at all. I have all several thousands of holes in my 3D, but the software doesn't care about it.

As I said, I don't know about previous versions, but recent versions of CAD software proves that both methods are the same less or more. It's been proved that "Fill pattern" performs much faster than both above methods. In Fill Pattern, you don't even add a hole to pattern it. Solidworks creates one feature which contains both the seed and the pattern.
Here I have 2530 holes, and still the decrease in performance is very low. And if I lock the Fill Pattern feature to prevent future rebuilds, still the performance get better.

If SolidWorks performance on your computer is slo in handling your project, consider using a cloud based tool, like Autodesk Fusion 360 that offers extreme performance for complex projects.

I've never used Fusion, but according to all I read on CAD forums, everyone says Fusion is faster than Solidworks. It's not because of it being cloud base, but the way it manage things. Also most people I know, believe that in exchange to the speed, Fusion is much harder to work with (comparing to Solidworks) and has more short comings, specially when it comes to working with surface tools.
We've been forced to use cloud based Solidworks for a while, And I wish we could cancel it and go back to desktop.

 

[KitaYama]

Was the modeling of the patterned holes with skipped instances being done for CNC progamming to fabricate custom sheet metal at a machine shop?

I believe RonPii will answer for himself, but in our case, yes. We fabricate the holes.
We use Amada Tallet punch machines for this purpose.
Here's two video of the same machine in our shop floor if you're interested.

 

[RonPaii]

Was the modeling of the patterned holes with skipped instances being done for CNC progamming to fabricate custom sheet metal at a machine shop?

I don't know what was producing that part. It could have been a punch or laser.

 

[RonPaii]

My previous example was in training.

Another one, I was modeling a vertical structural element for a gripper elevator. It was an "C" shaped part with multiple hole patterns that I mirrored across a 45degree plain of a 90 degree bend. It would take 20 to 30 seconds to go between flat and formed. By modeling the patterns on both sides of the bend at the same time; the translon between flat and formed was instant.

Design methods in 3d or database or any other coding can make a huge difference with out any changes to the hardware.

 

[BlueSpruce]

It's not inserting a single hole for every hole. Both methods uses a pattern feature.
The first method, you create a sketch, in a sketch and add a point, then you create a pattern out of the single point, and ask the software to add holes to the given sketch pattern.
The second method (which RonPaii explained is faster), you create a hole and pattern the hole. Both methods uses pattern. The difference is the pattern is used in a sketch, or the pattern is used on a feature.

But in either case, there are ways to prevent a fall in the performance when you have a lot of holes.
A very effective way is to lock the feature and ask the software not to render or rebuilt the feature. It means that once the grid is added, the software doesn't care about it and will not use its resources to validate it.

View attachment 122457
In the above tree, I've locked the features I don't want to be rebuilt again, by dragging down the yellow line. The software will bypass them and pretend there are not there at all. I have all several thousands of holes in my 3D, but the software doesn't care about it.

As I said, I don't know about previous versions, but recent versions of CAD software proves that both methods are the same less or more. It's been proved that "Fill pattern" performs much faster than both above methods. In Fill Pattern, you don't even add a hole to pattern it. Solidworks creates one feature which contains both the seed and the pattern.
Here I have 2530 holes, and still the decrease in performance is very low. And if I lock the Fill Pattern feature to prevent future rebuilds, still the performance get better.

View attachment 122460



I've never used Fusion, but according to all I read on CAD forums, everyone says Fusion is faster than Solidworks. It's not because of it being cloud base, but the way it manage things. Also most people I know, believe that in exchange to the speed, Fusion is much harder to work with (comparing to Solidworks) and has more short comings, specially when it comes to working with surface tools.
We've been forced to use cloud based Solidworks for a while, And I wish we could cancel it and go back to desktop.


View attachment 122461

I thought feature patterns usually performed better than sketch pattern for rebuild times, especially with large numbers of cuts, because the tool handles the underlying geometry more efficiently. Sketch patterns force the tool to recalculate every individual sketch cut, which can be cpu intensive. However, as you mentioned, fill pattern is the most efficient because it is a single operation. You define the area and the type/spacing of the cuts, and the tool creates the result in one go, rather than calculating a seed and then managing many instances of that seed.

 

[BlueSpruce]

I don't know what was producing that part. It could have been a punch or laser.

Most likely a punch machine. We use it for sheet metal, and the Water Jet for thicker stuff. I recently used it for cutting holes through ½ inch thick steel. The beauty of that machine is the heat generated by the cut doesn't warp the part because the water cools it down.

 

[RonPaii]

I spent some time tooling a Trumpf 2d CNC punch using Tecsoft ProCAD. Planning moves, tool loading, tool type made huge differences. For example cutting a 20 x 30 rectangle hole with a choice between nibbling with 1/2 inch round punch and 1" inch long parting tool. The easy choice is nibbling, but the parting tool would make the cut 2 to 3 times faster. Now if the edge was to be welded, the welders would prefer the nibble with large spacing between hits making the seam welding easer with a better finish because of the course edge.

 

[KitaYama]

Most likely a punch machine. We use it for sheet metal, and the Water Jet for thicker stuff. I recently used it for cutting holes through ½ inch thick steel. The beauty of that machine is the heat generated by the cut doesn't warp the part because the water cools it down.

I've always wished I had a chance to use a water jet machine like that, but it never came and I'm a few step before being retired.
I mostly use Laser and turret punch machines.
Here's a Mitsubishi laser, one of the same type we have in our shop floor.

 

[KitaYama]

@BlueSpruce and @RonPaii Just wanted to say, I'd imagined you as a PC guy all this time. Never pictured you guys as a CAD guru and never imagined to meet someone from this side of the world in an Access forum, specially as an Expert.
Seems that you've had a vast activity in different fields.

 

[RonPaii]

@BlueSpruce and @RonPaii Just wanted to say, I'd imagined you as a PC guy all this time. Never pictured you guys as a CAD guru and never imagined to meet someone from this side of the world in an Access forum, specially as an Expert.
Seems that you've had a vast activity in different fields.

I was lucky to work with a shop full of very good sheet metal fabicators.

 

[BlueSpruce]

@BlueSpruce and @RonPaii Just wanted to say, I'd imagined you as a PC guy all this time. Never pictured you guys as a CAD guru and never imagined to meet someone from this side of the world in an Access forum, specially as an Expert.
Seems that you've had a vast activity in different fields.

Thanks for the compliments. I'm a bit rusty since I havent worked until recently with CAD, CNC and the MachineShopPOS Access app I built in 2006, but it's like dancing, you never forget how to dance. In the mean time, I have to migrate the app from mdb to accdb and redesign several forms, reports, queries.

 

[BlueSpruce]

I just got a request from another machine shop. I think I can fulfill their needs by integrating my document management Access app with the MachineShop POS app.

 

[KitaYama]

When we search we would upload the 3D file to return a result to geometric matches and an indication and how close each result matches

I'm not as clever as you, and it seems I have some problems understanding it.
They want to upload a 3D file and your program find a file that previously has been quoted and is close to uploaded file in shape and size?