Performance: more o less features?

I have a question:
Is better a lot af features (in ordered mode), but simple features,
less features but more complicated?

(for the same final result)

The question is for all ambients: par,psm,asm.


Re: Performance: more o less features?

In ordered, your model robustness is mainly controlled by your 2D constraints on the sketches.  It has always been a "best practice" to keep individual features simple as fully constraining a few elements in a sketch is way easier than trying to fully constrain dozens of elements in a sketch.


Production: ST9 MP7
Testing: ST10

Betreff: Performance: more o less features?

Hi @Cek



I also believe that  -as @Grundey mentioned -  it is a better practice to keep single features as simple as possible.

The more simple they are the higher will be the robustness of that feature.


There are several more issue reagarding taht.

IMHO it is easier to control e.g the suppress of an feature.

One of the issue I always brig during a training is the example of a turning part.


When we began with CAD and 3D CAD and then with Solid Edge somewhen in the 90s, we started to bring the complete shape (outside geometry) of this turning part into a single rotated protrusion feature.

Now, such parts have a very very ugly character.

The are very long in relation to its diameter (height).

So what You can see on screen is a small band of geometry together with a lot of dimensions which You can not read neither in a total view nor in a detail view zoomed in.


It is much easier to split those total outside geometry into smaller features (grooves, cutouts, etc.) and concentrate to this in a step by step way.

You can copy them, You can suppress any of them, and going into the sketch, You can usee Your complete screen for those smaller single feature.


BTW, if You start with the overall outside cylinder and its dimension, You can use them as a kind of raw dimensions for that turning part.

And this again could be done very easy and also automated.


So my conclusion for ordered features is: "small is beautiful and easier too"


And again: this is a personal opion


Re: Performance: more o less features?

Thanks @Grundey and @hawcad!
I'm modelling like you suggest, simple features, simple sketch.
But have a lot of features may cause a long time for opening a big assembly?
More features = more load time?
More features = more stability?


Re: Performance: more o less features?

Hi @Cek




first of all I would like to say that features as discussed before aer more concerning parts rather than the assembly which are build of them.


And, there is another big hint and a personal rule, I try to keep

Always define the simplified parts and use them in the assmebly.

This of course is one of the biggest time saver with big assemblies.


For a single part it is not the big issue and doesn't cost You to much time, but using them afterwards will save You a lot.




Re: Performance: more o less features?

I have difficult to use simplify parts in assembly because I must always see the defined parts. I must evaluate the correct space around the parts in the assembly.

We have a lot of load time for big assembly with many sub-assembly with assembly features.
We use a lot the assembly features, but is a problem?

Re: Performance: more o less features?

Hi @Cek





AFAIK assembly features consume a lot of performance


So this is always an issue to consider a different approach and a different solution - if possible.


And simplified parts not alwys mean to not see the space they need.

First of all I simplify all small fillets and chamfers, holes, etc.

They are not necessarily needed at every time.


Also loading an assembly inactivated can save a lot of performance.

Configurations help to reduce what is visible and what is not.


Occurency properties to not show parts at higher level, and so on, ...


Those all together helps for a speeding in assembly work.


Just give it a try, it will be worth.



Re: Performance: more o less features?

Thanks @hawcad !
We will try to improve the simplify parts.
Now we use configurations (but we can work better with it) and open big assembly with all disable.
I don't understand this:
"Occurency properties to not show parts at higher level"
Can you explain me?

Thanks a lot

Re: Performance: more o less features?

[ Edited ]

I don't think the answers really addressed the question. I will ask it in a very simple way.


Say I needed three rectangular cutouts in a part. Should the three cutout be in one sketch and cut at one time. Or should there be three sketches with three cutouts. IE once complex feature or multiple simple features. What method is better? 


I think the fewest number of tree members in the model is the way to go, do others agree? So I would make once complex feature rather than have multiple simple features.

Re: Performance: more o less features?

A better example might be a rectangular steel tube.


Simple feature process

  1. Create a rectangle sketch
  2. Protrude
  3. Round 4 corners with Round command
  4. Thinwall to define the hollow



Complex feature process

  1. Create a single sketch defining the rectangle, radiused corners, and the hollow
  2. Protrude

Where I commonly see most folks struggle is with sketching and understanding constraints and how to get a fully constrained sketch.


A simple rectangle is very easy to create and fully constrain.  If we ignore anchoring it to the origin, it contains 4 elements with 8 geometric constraints and 2 dimensional constraints to fully define it.


All detail in the sketch contains 16 elements, 17 geometric constraints and 7 dimensional constraints to fully define it or some equal combination of geometric and dimensional constraints depending on the process used as there are a few ways to create this sketch.


Obviously the more complex the geometry the faster the sketch expands in complexity when all detail is placed in a single feature sketch.


Production: ST9 MP7
Testing: ST10