Can anyone reproduce the following>
1) Create a cable ladder that is 100m in length from base coordinate along one axis. The ladder run is a second protrusion.
2) Pattern the second protrusion (1st ladder run) with count of approx 340
3) Save the file
4) Close and reopen then simply try measure the width of the ladder or place a PMI dim of the total length.
From the above workflow does your ST9 version become non responsive with a Analyze wait state of nothing in resource monitor. My testing on two wks and two environments has resproduced the same non responsive symptoms of ST9 MP0 ,2 and MP3. Tested on Win 7 Pro 64bit and Win 8.1 pro 64bit.
Does this part fall out side the parasolid limit? Is the pattern to long? I tried both pattern along a curve and or rectangular pattern with 1 column. Just trying to determine if the workflow is at fault and the part is somehow cause ST9 to become unusable?
Id upload the part file here but it is 40Mb in size. However tried to attach movie
Now back to Christmas hols
Ok for those interested I think a found out why this is happening.
I tested in ST6 and sure enough ST6 was also non responsive. I knew it had to be something in the features that create the part so I focused in detail on the pattern.
So 1) Its not outside parasolid limits however
the non responsive symptoms of Solid Edge are to do with the geometric topology of the part. After recreating in ST6 I noticed fast pattern failed but smartpattern (adjusting to part geometry) works but after that Solid Edge is not usable because it becomes non responsive sometimes at least for over 5min....as a result of the way the part is created.
Few I'm glad I found the problem but perhaps someone else can confirm as not sure how else the designer would create a pattern of 340 ladder runs?
Not sure if it's feasible or how much it would help, but what if you made the ladder a simple assembly instead of a single part?
Sure will try that too. However I also found a way to prevent the non responsive symptoms by not removing the mirror but shortening the ladder run so that it does not union to either of the the stringers on each side. Left very small gap.
What Id like to know is if this symptom (non-responsive app) is by design?
Because this is not really a sophisticated part file to create and its really for concept. Yes in reality its an assembly but quicker to model as part with features than assembly......
Surely a workflow as simple as this should not be putting ST9 into a comma? I can accept the workflow is not efficient but designers should not expect this non responsivness....