SolidWorks 2012 SP4 X32 MULTI Serial Key Keygen
Austin Vermont
Hi All,
I am working on a project to export Solidworks parts into dxf files using This API . I should activate part configuration prior to exporting the document using IModelDoc2.ShowConfiguration2("configurationName"); . Consequently I should process parts one by one! Is there a way to somehow process a batch of items in parallel?
This Article From Javeline suggest multi threading is possible in Solidworks but I found many questions on solidworks forum that suggest otherwise.
Not possible. All of your API calls will execute on the main thread of SOLIDWORKS with the possible exception of event handling code that might be triggered for a background thread started by SOLIDWORKS when opening large assemblies (ie concurrent loading of multiple documents).
First of all, in a multi-user environment, SOLIDWORKS PDM is the best solution to work together with the same files. And it offers a lot of extra useful functionalities. But when you own a small organisation, or when your organisation is starting to grow, then SOLIDWORKS PDM might not be on your priority list. So, to bridge the gap to PDM, I want to use this tech blog to explain an option in SOLIDWORKS to optimize the workflow to work with the same files at the same time.
A small example to clarify this: when an engineer opens an assembly, then he gets write access to the assembly and all the part files in the assembly. When another engineer opens one of the parts of that same assembly, he cannot edit it because of the read-only state.
I run a small product design business, focussing on many different sectors. We have a couple of licences of SolidWorks and Rhino, with various add ons. I subscribed to Creo in the spring this year, with ISDX, as we needed a more robust approach to certain modelling tasks that required using sub d type modelling (Freestyle in Creo, Power Surfacing in SolidWorks and TSplines in Rhino). Due to workload we have really on started to get into using Creo and already come up with what I consider to be a serious workflow killer.
I've read other forum posts on this but I don't think many actually understand the true implications of this. From our perspective, modelling in SolidWorks, Rhino, Fusion360 etc, multi body part modelling is a core workflow. From creating master models to working with complex patterns or even simple modelling procedures. Fact is, we cannot, efficiently, model some parts without utilising multi body modelling techniques.
As a follow up to this, and reading further posts on this matter, it appears many Creo users have issues with this as they fear it might affect how Creo handles bodies in Windchill. Can I suggest, that from a part modelling perspective, this is an irrelevance. I cannot emphasise how critical this is to our (and others like us) workflows. I can think of many modelling tasks that are simple in SolidWorks or Fusion, using multi bodies, that would require ridiculous workarounds to achieve using feature only modelling.
I added a comment to that one Stephen. Discussing with my designers this morning we see this as a critical issue for long term Creo use. More than happy for PTC to visit us to see how we do things so they really understand why it is such a big issue.
In general, PTC doesn't publicize the direction it is taking it's software (does your company tell their competitors what they are going in a year or 5 years?). Occasionally, such as on the linked idea, you will get a clue as to what they are researching. I wouldn't hold my breath for any future enhancement to happen.
Have you investigated the top down design tools available in Creo? They probably support a workflow that could work for you resolving this issue. Not knowing details of your issues, I can't address it directly.
I use ISDX/surfacing to create complex surface geometry that is propagated to multiple dependent parts routinely. It is possible to have a single master model in Creo control derivative parts using the Top Down functionality such as merge, copy geometry, inheritance, Pro/Notebook etc.
Thanks Stephen. I have plenty of experience with the whims of CAD vendors or all sizes over the last 25 years or so, and my company has invested in plenty of systems over the years, used them for some time then moved onto systems that work better for us. We don't just use one platform - that is a recipe for stagnation and inefficiency for what we do. Honestly, I'm ambivalent about Creo. The only reason we even contemplated it was the fact that we could subscribe and that Freestyle was a core , so we will treat this year as a test and if after 10 months we find it is not doing what we had hoped it would we will just drop it. lessons learned.
In the meantime though, we will test it thoroughly on real projects and feedback to PTC with any suggestions. In my experience of CAD vendors (ALL CAD vendors), it is the little guys who actually push the envelope on workflow and geometry. The big companies tend to focus on file management issues and to them it really doesn't matter if an engineer takes all day to model a part. For us, the reverse is true. We design as we use the system. File management is simple as every project is different. But if we cannot model something efficiently then that platform will get dropped like a brick.
Creo is not the High-End product advertised. They are an ancient, decrepit excuse for CAD. This is only one of hundreds, maybe thousands of good examples of how the software hasn't evolved and why their market share is embarrassing. If it weren't for legacy customers in defense and government, would PTC even exist? I mean, really, we remember when Pro came on the scene and there was no stopping them. But it looks like they stopped themselves. Archaic interface, poor integration with Windows, horrifying usability, and so on.
Multi-body functionality is an advanced feature that, once learned, enables the user to much more powerful modeling workflow in many instances. I figured this out in the early 2000's when I had just started using SolidWorks. Our division at Northrop was using SolidWorks and we were very close to some of the top brass there. They would come see what we were up to quite often and used our massive assemblies to improve the product. At that time, assemblies in the 40k component range.
I had come from solid modeling in AutoCAD where Boolean was a very useful tool. I quickly found out that SolidWorks at the time did not have this capability so I requested it. Shortly thereafter SolidWorks created the multi-body capability. Now it is one of my favorite features. Using it doesn't necessarily come instinctively, but once you "get it" you can't go back. It's an awful thought that I will not be able to use it in Creo despite Creo being billed as "high-end" and SolidWorks only a midrange product. So far, from what I've seen, except for ZTG and direct editing, I would put SolidWorks up against Creo any day of the week.
One example of the power of multi-body functionality is a weldment my team was working on years ago, around 2013. The weldment had roughly 1000 parts consisting of 250 drawings (sub-weldments and unique parts). No one would ever update the weldment whenever a new machine was designed because of the complexity of the drawing package and all the work to change it.
Using SolidWorks weldments feature, which leverages the multi-body functionality, we reduced the drawing package to about 35 drawings! If you consider that in a 1000 part assembly you need at least 3000 mates (or what Creo calls "placements") to fully constrain the assembly and then in the new assembly you would need about 35 x 3 = 105 mates, which one would you rather manage??
One weldment I designed had about 200 members in it and about 90 were unique. I did this in a single part. One part...One part number...One description...One drawing with 90 details. This versus 90 parts, 90 part numbers, 90 descriptions, 90 drawings. I find the thought of doing it the "old" way hilarious.
1. Makes it extremely fast to model complex, welded parts. For instance, I had a team of myself, one engineer and one to two designers and we could model complex oil drilling equipment with tens of thousands of parts in a matter of months. I don't see this ever happening in Creo.
2. Makes the model more accurate as the relationships between bodies stay in the part and not at a higher level in the assembly where things can quickly go wrong. This gives more accurate geometry that has less gaps or interferences. This is extra-helpful when moving the model into an FEA program.
3. Makes it extremely fast to modify the model. The frame weldment mentioned above with 200 parts may have taken days to make major changes, but in reality only took hours when I did have to modify it.
4. Makes documentation infinitely faster. I don't want to make a drawing for every piece of cut structural steel when a cut list is sufficient. More complex welded members can have a drawing detail, but why make a new part number and new drawing for each part in a weldment? Some say that each part needs a unique number for manufacturing. That is easily resolved with a dash number for each cutlist item.
5. GREATLY improves performance. Now a fraction of the mates (placements) need to be evaluated compared to the old way of doing it, and SolidWorks has the ability at the part level to "LOCK" the drawing tree. This in effect forces the part to only rebuild when loaded and then never again in session!! The performance gains due to this are phenomenal. If SolidWorks users understood properly how to utilize the software, then this wives-tale about Creo being better on large assembly performance would be in the CAD museum where it belongs.
Right now I came across this thread because I have imported a simple assembly from a vendor into a part (has to be a part) to save as a COTS item. The problem is that the vendor had threads in their assembly and our policy is to remove these threads, which are interfering in the model between the hardware and the model's main body. I never had to remove threads in SolidWorks, but I guess for Creo you need to. So, in SolidWorks to do this you simply make the cut and tell it which solids the cut effects. I can pick the screw. I can pick the body. I can pick both. Whatever. SUPER FRICKEN SIMPLE. I can not figure out how to get this to work in Creo. Granted I'm new to it and have found that often you can get something done in a roundabout way, but really? Do I really have to start this over as an assembly, modify it, save it, and then re-import it in as a part? Wow, really efficient!
7fc3f7cf58