SolidWorks 2010 Premium Multi Crack 1 [2021]

I used to have a different configuration for each step and I'd suppress the components that would appear in later steps. This caused headaches managing so many configurations so I recently started making multiple exploded views of the default config. Instead of suppressing the components from later steps I'd explode them off into the distance and then crop them out of the view on the drawing. It's a big improvement to my method but I'm wondering now if there are even better ways to do this?

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.

SolidWorks 2010 Premium Multi Crack 1

Download 🔥 https://urluss.com/2xZogY 🔥

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 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.

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??

All of the ex-SolidWorks users I'm running into that are having to use Creo due to program requirements ARE NOT HAPPY. This should tell you clueless exec's something. I'm guessing your programmers have already mentioned much of this to you but the decision makers probably can't even open the program and draw a line (although I bet they could figure it out in SolidWorks). Kudos on buying Onshape, though. Please tell us some of this innovation will make it into future versions of Creo! And do please explain to us why multi-body functionality shouldn't be part of your program!

The fact is they BOTH have a LOT of room for improvement. From what I read on another post, Creo will incorporate multi-body functionality, so kudos to them!!! I can't wait. We're just transitioning to 4 so I'm bummed it will be years before we see it!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it'd be interesting to have multi-body functionality, sure, but to be honest, I've never needed it. If I need to do something like that, I'll do it with surfaces. I spent almost a year on NX 8.5 (working for Sierra Nevada on the Dreamchaser) before I got back on Creo and became an expert in that, and that has multi-bodies, but it also caused problems as well.

You might want to reread my original post, though, my complaint is not the lack of advanced, esoteric functionality, but rather the lack of basic usability and missing (what I would call more mainstream) features such as multi-body, Windows integration, modern GUI, and so on.

I understand some people like multi-bodies, and after using them in NX, meh, I've always been able to do exactly what I want without them. I can't see a scenario where I couldn't make what I wanted. In some cases I'll make a family table where all the instances are driven by "skeleton" curves inside the generic. So, essentially I can make a "multi-body" part. Also, in Creo, you CAN have multiple solids that are not connected to one another, it just treats them as one part. You could easily cut them out and make instances of the different "bodies".

This doesn't take into account the differences between CPU architectures, but in an ideal world a CPU that has the same frequency but twice the number of cores would be exactly twice as fast. Unfortunately, making software utilize multiple cores (and do so effectively) is difficult in most situations and almost impossible in others. Add in the fact that higher core count CPUs tend to have lower operating frequencies and it becomes even more difficult to ensure that you are choosing the best possible CPU for your software.

For most tasks in Solidworks, the answer as to whether you want a high core count or higher operating frequency is very straight-forward. Simply put, most modeling tasks (including rotating and viewing models) and even launching Solidworks itself are single threaded so core count is largely irrelevant. However, there are a number of tasks within Solidworks that are often reported to be multi-threaded and thus should benefit from having a higher core count. What we want to explore in this article is whether having more CPU cores increases performance for these tasks to the point that it may make sense for some users to sacrifice some single-threaded performance in order to increase their total number of CPU cores. Alternatively, our testing will also help answer the question of whether it is worth purchasing a dedicated machine for one or more of these multi-threaded tasks.

This is not a complete list of everything that is multi-threaded in Solidworks, but it does hit most of the popular and/or time consuming tasks. If you want to skip over our individual benchmark results and simply view our conclusions, feel free to jump ahead to the conclusion section.

Our test platform is built around a pair of Xeon E5 2687W CPUs which will allow us to test with up to 20 physical CPU cores. To see how well Solidworks utilizes multiple CPU cores we will be testing with various numbers of cores made available to Solidworks by adjusting the number of active cores in the BIOS. This way we can accurately benchmark Solidworks with anywhere from a single core to the full twenty cores possible with this setup. To make sure our results are as consistent as possible we used a combination of Solidworks macros and a custom script using AutoIt to start Solidworks, load the relevant test file, then time how long it takes to perform whatever task we are interested in.

To start things off, we are going to look at something every Solidworks user does multiple times a day: opening and saving files. We tested how long it took to open and save both assembly and drawing files using between a single CPU core and 20 CPU cores:

Simulation work can be incredibly important depending on the type of modeling you are doing and often needs to be performed multiple times as changes are made. Simulation (alongside rendering) is often touted as the main reason to have a higher core count CPU in Solidworks but there has been very little testing to see if it is able to actually take advantage of more cores.

The results for airflow simulation (which requires the "Flow Simulation" package) is a bit better than FEA simulation, but not by much. The first CPU only has a 74% multi-core efficiency and while there is not the steady decrease in performance with a second CPU, there is definitely a small drop in performance followed by absolutely no increase in performance. Once again, this means that dual Xeon systems are not ideal for this type of simulation.

All-in-all, we are fairly disappointed in the multi core efficiency when running simulations in Solidworks. Even in the best case we saw an efficiency of only 75% and in all three of our benchmarks we saw at least some drop in performance with multiple CPUs.

For most simulations, you are first going to need to create a mesh for the 3D model. This usually doesn't take very long compared to the time it takes to complete a simulation, but this is supposed to be multi-threaded so we wanted to make sure we tested it.

Creating a mesh for our airflow simulation model was very interesting. We saw a small 55% multi-core efficiency for the first 4 cores, then no increase for the remainder of the first CPU. When we started using the second CPU, we saw a small but steady -28% efficiency.

In our experience, rendering is the type of task that is ideal for higher core count systems. Whether is rendering a video, a 2D image, or a 3D image, the way rendering works simply lends itself to multi-threading. In Solidworks, rendering is actually divided up into two steps: a irradiance pre-pass and the final render. The irradiance pre-pass typically only takes between 15-30% of the total render time, but for large renders that can still be a significant amount of time. Because of this we wanted to time both steps individually in case they had a significant difference in multi core efificiency. be457b7860