Display State vs. Configuration
Display State vs. Configuration
(OP)
I was wondering why someone would add a display state rather than a configuration. Seems like adding a configuration would give you the same functionality as adding a display state plus the extra benefits that go along with configurations. If someone out there has chosen a display state over a config, what was the reason?
Just curious and thanks for your thoughts on this,
Bloodclot
Just curious and thanks for your thoughts on this,
Bloodclot
***** Fear not those who argue but those who dodge *****
Dell Precision 670
3.0 Ghz Xeon Processor
Nvidia FX3450
3 gig of RAM
Dual 19" Viewsonics






RE: Display State vs. Configuration
One of the benefits of configurations over display states is that if you suppress items on some configurations, they do not show up on your BOM.
SW06 SP5.0
Flores
RE: Display State vs. Configuration
If configs already existed in a component, I would probably use the DS's inside of them. In effect they would be similar to a derived config but reserved for the visual appearance only.
RE: Display State vs. Configuration
Best Regards,
Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 5.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.
RE: Display State vs. Configuration
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
RE: Display State vs. Configuration
1. detailed assemblies (where I am going to make the drawings)
2. Next Higher Assemblies (where I have components such as fastners supressed)
3. There are other special case situations where I use configurations, but I don't want to go into that now.
I use display states for:
1. being able to turn on an off quickly, major areas of structure.
2. making certain areas display for drawing views, while not showing (hiding) other areas.
I tend to use display states like some kind of quirky layer system. Most of my assemblies with have 10 or more display states and 2 configurations.
Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
RE: Display State vs. Configuration
DS groups parts within a config for display. I like to think of them as visual assemblies. They turn on and off instantly for doing what I like to call "close combat" work. you know...fine tuning, quick changes... actually getting work done instead of setting up to do work.
Autocad has 2 ways to control layer display… On/Off and Freeze/Thaw. On/Off layer changes happen instantly. F/T forces a regen, similar to SWx rebuild. In the early days of acad, my 3rd party software used F/T and any layer change took from 1-10 minutes to regen (386 computers). I programmed my own layer controls to use On/Off method and instantly gained a time advantage over my competitors with no down sides. I think of SWx configs/DS similar to Acads layer methods. Big differences sure, but similarities too.
For me, designing a single tool, with 200-500 parts and lots of references, I would like a to work with one main config and about 20 Display States. But until SW provides a way to lock DS so I can define the DS and it will always display what I defined… DS is pretty useless.