Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
(OP)
I have been discussing this issue with my colleges and there seems to be a diversity of opinion. Does anyone have the formal SolidWorks position on this, or know and can share.
Does using large family table of parts (fasteners) require more resources because the tables may be large or is it somehow more efficient?
Thanks, Frank
Does using large family table of parts (fasteners) require more resources because the tables may be large or is it somehow more efficient?
Thanks, Frank






RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
That all being said, depending on your computer's power, as well as the manner in which you're utilizing said file(s), may render the whole issue moot.
Jeff Mirisola, CSWE
My Blog
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
Since you are talking specifically about fasteners if you were to have a file with a Design Table (the correct SolidWorks term) it would be very easy to populate the file with all the different configurations and descriptions of the fasteners for a given type. It would also be very easy to change the use of a fastener in an assembly. For instance, say you have an M4x20 SHCS and you later decide it should be 25mm. it is a very simple matter to change that fastener from the 20mm to the 25mm configuration with a configured file. On the down side, if you are using only one or two different fasteners in an assembly you are now accessing what could be a large file.
Like anything there are trade-offs. For fasteners I would recommend the configured file because the benefits you'll love while the slightly slower access of a large file you'll hardly notice. Just think of how much more difficult it would be to change fasteners as in the example given if the two were separate files.
With all that said, however, we use Toolbox for our fasteners. Once you learn how to properly set it up it is a real benefit to use.
- - -Updraft
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
Just my 2 cents, having used 1000+ configuration design table parts in the past (where only a couple are ever used).
-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Pretty good with SolidWorks
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
A bit off topic but you just inspired me to search and there is actually a way (at least in SW2013+) to purge the cached configuration data to reduce the file size of configured parts further. This is interesting to know since that has often been a hang-up of mine when it would have been much more efficient to send a smart SW model rather than many dumb ones. Here's a link for the curious: Managing Configuration Data
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
For example.
I deal with pipe in my assembly's. everything from 1/2" to 36" in every schedule possible. And also different materials for some.
I can have drop downs on "Od", Sch" and Material. My design table will pull Od, thk, material, description, part number and anything else i want it to determine from lookups and such.
it all feeds in to one configuration. If i know that i am using 5 or 6 different pipes in an assembly then i generally set it up with 10 possible configuration that auto fill as i make my selections.
Michael McMillan, CSWP
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-mcmillan/53/37...
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?
Al
RE: Use of Family Tables, good or bad for computer resource requirements?