Toolbox Usage Survey 2

[EEnd]

I would like to hear if and how people are using the SolidWorks toolbox and how happy they are with their setup.

Our toolbox is configured following the instructions for a multi-user shared toolbox on a network location, where configurations are created. We also use PDMWorks which is set up so that toolbox parts are not under revision control. I also went through and added custom properties to the toolbox so that we can have different part numbers for different material types.

We have run into some problems with the fastener type that we use most frequently. Sometime last week, assemblies that had instances of that fastener were slow to open, and work with. One of these assemblies was small, with 3 or 4 simple parts. Basic things like right-clicking on the parts in the feature tree to bring up the context menu often had 10 to 20 second lags. Suppressing the fasteners made the problems go away. I was able to get things running smoothly again by running EcoSqueeze on the part file in the toolbox.

My suspicion is that as we have added more configurations for sizes and material type, the system is getting overwhelmed. I checked and there are roughly 100 configurations in the part file, and I can see that number growing substantially as we are just starting to add material specific configurations with part numbers. I am worried that the current setup is going to collapse under its own weight soon.

I have read: thread559-88584, thread559-89494, thread559-155120, thread559-154904 (including Matt Lombard’s excellent PracticalUsageIssuesToolbox.pdf referenced therein), and the more recent: thread559-176921 and thread559-179982.

I am considering switching to a system similar what was described by pdybeck in thread559-88584 and PhilMcCavity in thread559-176921 where the toolbox is used to generate individual part files for each fastener, and then using folders a custom design library to organize those parts for easy retrieval. I also remember reading where someone used the toolbox to seed a fastener of a given size, and then used configurations for the lengths, but I am unable to find the thread.

The multiple parts seem like a good idea to me. Our assemblies could reference a hand full of small 200K is files rather than one or two 10M files. It also seems like it will be easier to manage material types and part numbers as well as know which fasteners we have part numbers assigned to.

Before I go through the trouble and grief of making such a change, I am curious to hear other peoples experience with the different ways of working with the toolbox.

Thanks in advance for any input,
Eric

 

[Theophilus]

I work alone (no group or network/server stuff to worry about), so my methods may not be compatible with yours. However, when I use a fastener from Toolbox, I always disconnect that fastener from its default location and save it within the directory I'm using. I don't want any connections to possible edits, etc. in the future--I normally just want a pan-head 6-32 screw (or whatever it is)--something off the shelf to fill a need in an assembly.

I know Toolbox has lots of other features with the configs, etc., but unless we're running analysis, I don't use any configurations. (For analysis, we simplify the fastener in a configuration, so I don't have to go repopulate my assembly with fasteners--thanks to a good tip from an analysis friend.)

Each revision I do on an assembly I store in a new dated directory (such as "070302 Widget") with a descriptive name, within the directory of the project name--so I don't lose track of things, but have a history of development along the way. This method works well with pulling all my parts into a single directory and keeps things portable for on-site work (no lost parts in an assembly).



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.

 

[Standing]

Eric,
Because we only had one seat of ToolBox when we started with several engineers using SolidWorks we used ToolBox to create several Screws. Those screw when replacing any other screw would loose its mates. I sat down for 3 weeks and created every screw, flat washer, lock washer, and star washer all from its first model. Now while replacing a ¼-20 x 1 cap with a 10-32 x ½ cap the mates hold. Never could get flat heads to replace cap screws. Different mating system.


Bradley
SolidWorks Professional x64 2007 SP2.2
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 3.93 GB of RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3400

 

[meintsi]

We have one part file controlled by a design table for each type of screw. Each copied from the next so the mating sufaces remained named/ID'd the same. We have no mate erros switching between fasteners. (One concentirc and coincident each. - Specific rotation is left to the case by case basis.)


Bradley .....
it can be done if you do it right.

We took the cap screw profile and its design table and resaved it as a flat head. Editing the base profile, we took the "bottom of the head" surface and moved it at an angle.

If we choose to replace a cap screw with a flat head screw, once the mating hole wizard profile is updated, all mates reattach correctly.

Remember...
[navy]"If you don't use your head,[/navy]
[navy]your going to have to use your feet."[/navy]

 

[Standing]

meintsi,
That goes to show me and any others that will listen. I should have learned as much about SolidWorks that I can before an issue comes up. I was under pressure everyday to compete the screws. So I could go onto real work. A star for your idea.


Bradley
SolidWorks Professional x64 2007 SP2.2
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU
3.00 GHz, 3.93 GB of RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3400