logo
NOTICE:  This is the new PunchCAD forum. You should have received an email with your new password around August 27, 2014. If you did not, or would like it reset, simply use the Lost Password feature, and enter Answer as the security answer.
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Craig  
#1 Posted : Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:07:59 AM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
I have done a quick comparison between placing 4 individual counterbored holes in a cube, and placing 1 counterbored hole and then using the pattern feature to insert the remaining 3 counterbored holes in the cube.
So basically there are two cubes of the same dimension, one has 4 holes that were inserted one at a time and the other that has one hole copied 3 times by the pattern feature.

The file containing the pattern feature holes is over 18% smaller in size than the file containing the individually placed holes.
So just imagine the reduction in size of a file that has a lot of holes or slots/etc and the pattern feature was used instead of individual placement, over 18% reduction on just 4 holes!!!
thanks 1 user thanked Craig for this useful post.
flatpack on 4/21/2016(UTC)
flatpack  
#2 Posted : Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:58:49 PM(UTC)
flatpack

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 264

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Thanks for pointing that out – so it pays to do these kinds of operations in bulk.

I welcome more tools like that – that both increase productivity while simultaneously decreasing file size.
Craig  
#3 Posted : Friday, April 22, 2016 2:34:12 AM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
Yes this pattern feature saves a lot of time and space, I was doing the front grill of a car some time ago and was using the subtract solid function to do it.
The more parts I subtracted from the grill the worse Sharks performance became until it crashed and I lost all of the work from that session.
When I resumed the task I used the pattern function and Shark did not have a problem at all, I will do a large plate this weekend to see the savings.
flatpack  
#4 Posted : Friday, April 22, 2016 8:48:06 AM(UTC)
flatpack

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 264

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Craig Go to Quoted Post

The more parts I subtracted from the grill the worse Sharks performance became until it crashed and I lost all of the work from that session.



I used to have crashes from complex operations more often on my former 2012 iMac. Nowadays I've learned to save at almost every major step. Just in case..

Please update on your findings with the large plate.

Craig  
#5 Posted : Friday, April 22, 2016 9:06:01 AM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
I have done some work on this today and have found that the same savings are not seen on all features.
A set of 4 counter bored holes inserted by using the pattern feature reduces the file size by about 18%, but four slots inserted with the pattern feature only reduce the file size by a very small amount.
The real saving is in the time, I used the by position function and had 10 slots and 8 threaded holes inserted into a plate in far less time than it would have taken using any other method.

I will do some more on this later with more complex features and see how that reduces the file size but as it stands it is well worth using the tool.

Yeah you have to save your work continuously in Shark, I had a couple of hairy moments this morning where I had not saved and tried something which made the wheel spin and spin and spin, luckily the program came live again.
Strange thing is that I can never remember Shark crashing or struggling on a 32 bit system!

Edited by user Friday, April 22, 2016 9:07:22 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

flatpack  
#6 Posted : Monday, April 25, 2016 6:58:36 PM(UTC)
flatpack

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 264

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)

Thanks for sharing your results.

I'll equate tools that save time with saving money as well as less headache. I think with time Shark in 64 bit will become increasingly better, but yes I agree the spinning wheel I've experienced is definitely not always a welcome sign that "good" progress is happening in the background!!
Craig  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, April 26, 2016 12:01:22 AM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
Sure thing, what I have found is that if the feature is a Shark feature like a counter bored hole or a countersunk hole with preset data, then savings will be seen.
If the feature is created by Boolean methods then no savings will be seen, which is sad because I was hoping that it would work on threads due of the amount of data they carry, but it is still a very fast method to use.

Concerning the 64 bit issue, I am not optimistic as many of the smaller CAD companies who were running 32 bit systems are having trouble switching over to 64 bit.
I know nothing about programming but from what I am seeing it seems as if a 32 bit program cannot be converted into a 64 bit system that easily.
I visited another forum of a major player last night and the complaints were abundant.
I am also a member of a long standing private engineering community that has been on the web since forever, and you do not want to hear what is being said over there about certain CAD companies and their people.
flatpack  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:24:20 AM(UTC)
flatpack

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 264

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
That's really unfortunate to hear. So what you're saying is that for 64 bit systems, all of these CAD programs need to be completely revamped or rewritten? Or is there another technical issue? I know nothing about programming either.

As a mac user, I like how Rhino has been ported over the the mac, but it seems so much more complicated to use. Seems to take 3 steps for the same thing that takes 1 in shark.

FormZ is another interesting tool, but it feels more like a really nice 3d artist palette than a tool for creating manufacturable products. Seems like its great for architecture though and if you're making complex 3d printed models.

At various jobs I've used solid works and occasionally inventor, and although I find them great for precision and rapid changes of scale, to me neither are worth spending $5000.

Never messed with Onshape but Fusion is promising – albeit a bit clunky. I find constraints very useful but I don't always want them and I like direct modeling a lot because I'm neither artist nor engineer.. just kinda right in the middle.

VC and Shark seem to be the only really useful Mac-based cad programs from where I stand. I hope to see more improvements in V10 – I just hope Punch doesn't raise the price any higher.

Edited by user Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:26:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Craig  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:23:13 PM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
The really strange thing about this 64 bit issue is that I have a demo version of V8 running on a 7 year old 12” low spec laptop that has no dedicated graphics card and an old core2 duo processor.
It is a 32 bit system and I use it to check if things that made V8 crash on a 64 bit system will crash V8 on a 32 bit system, it has not crashed once despite being the lowest spec of all my machines.
flatpack  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, April 27, 2016 4:03:20 PM(UTC)
flatpack

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 264

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
It sounds like the 32-bit version is extremely stable. Perhaps the 64 bit issues are not memory related.
Craig  
#11 Posted : Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:04:08 AM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
Hard to say as Shark has serious memory issues, you can build up the memory to say 80% and if that file is closed but Shark is left open the memory usage will stay at 80%.
So when you start a new file without closing Shark the new file will be using 80% of the systems memory before you have even clicked the mouse!
In Blender the memory also builds up but if you start a new file the memory drops back to where it should be.

That’s the main issue with making many changes at once; you end up chasing your tail forever which is the case here.
V9 is probably going on for 2 years old now and they still cannot even get the basics working right.
V9 should have been a 64 bit version of V8 with most of the bugs from V8 fixed and nothing more, but they went for the big prize and destroyed everything, 2 years and users are still getting crashes and radius errors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thanks 1 user thanked Craig for this useful post.
GARLIC on 4/28/2016(UTC)
flatpack  
#12 Posted : Friday, April 29, 2016 7:48:56 AM(UTC)
flatpack

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/29/2014(UTC)
Posts: 264

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Do you think the addition of many new features may be one of the reasons why there are memory problems? Would plug-ins have been a better option or not make any difference?

I have to admit that I do get errors that I did not get in V8, but as an optimist I'm hoping for good progress in 10..

Btw have you experimented with much else outside of Shark?
Craig  
#13 Posted : Friday, April 29, 2016 9:10:53 AM(UTC)
Craig

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2009(UTC)
Posts: 383

Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 42 time(s) in 36 post(s)
I have given them all a quick test so I do have some experience with many modern systems, I started back on AutoCAD in the early days which made me hate it with a passion.
I had to find my way around Pro-E back in the day without a manual as I was using a test version, that was some fun I can tell you.
Shark V8 meets my requirements quite nicely, sure there are a lot of bugs that should have been sorted out but it is still the fastest program out of them all for the type of work I am doing.

I don't think plug-ins would have made any difference, in fact they may make things worse.
It does not matter what your task is, from cake baking to engine building to skyscraper erecting to software development, if your foundation is unstable you will pay the price.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.