problem with autocad that in 3d goes to snaps or freezes

[GianniM]

intel i7-3770, ram 16gb, nvidia framework 600
1) 9 seconds
2) 1 / 2 seconds
3) about 2 seconds per shift
4) turns fluid do not notice shots, but moving it much then takes 1 second to regenerate

In short, it is slow, especially in the zoom phase, but the design breaks it in an acceptable way

 

[Cristallo]

In the first place, autocad is not designed for this type of work (as others have already written) , so if you want "acceptable" results you have to compromise.
Secondly, a simple purge has reduced the weight of the file from 16mb to 10mb (this is a bad working organization index).

all the slowness complained is basically in the type of output to video.
select all 3648 dwg objects used:
3-4 sec in realistic mode
almost immediate in wireframe mode.
in making an orbit (of all objects) in wireframe mode is quite fluid. doing it in realistic mode is almost impossible.
Realtime zoom in realistic mode is acceptable as long as you are close enough. from afar begins to suffer.
in wf mode management is much more fluid
Yet my hardware is not the most performing (a quad-core processor - win a 32 and therefore limited to 3gb - a hd7790)

I don't think the problem complained solves with any video card - the approach to the problem is wrong.
is the structure of the autocad real-time rendering engine that is not voted for this type of work.

 

[doking]

I wondered why a file of only 16 mb and 3648 elements is so problematic to handle it while my file of well 25 mb and 7887 elements has problem clearly smaller?

@cristallo che pleasure reread

 

[lokodo]

intel i7-3770, ram 16gb, nvidia framework 600
1) 9 seconds
2) 1 / 2 seconds
3) about 2 seconds per shift
4) turns fluid do not notice shots, but moving it much then takes 1 second to regenerate

In short, it is slow, especially in the zoom phase, but the design breaks it in an acceptable way

and all of this without popping up/down the initial options of the file? However the "shaded" setting is set voluntarily to make the file headable. However I found tests that little differ from what you had "prevented" you at this link http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/autodesk-autocad-2013-gpu-acceleration-164/ I also try the so-called cadalyst. nvidia 680 is always the best.

crystal, so for tea "shaded" you belong is wrong cad, is it fault of autocad or pc fault? but if you wanted to work on the file I mentioned before 570.000 objects about it would take a mainframe made of only video cards? By the way the sly of two nvidia 680 video cards or coome are now called 770 could solve something?

 

[gil]

I reread the test data and noticed strange results

gil (uncomprocessor, poor video card) makes record better results of doking (good process, but very modest video card), and tristan ( discreet and discreet video card processor). in theory a configuration greater than that of gil that has the only advantage of a video card for directx.
giannim beats everyone (good process, discrete video card), yet should not be much over tristan.

I tried to reopen the original file with the viewer. I lose something in openness, for the rest it seems to me that the results are equal to those with autocad 2004.

the mystery of the hardware sticks. . .

 

[Cristallo]

but if you wanted to work on the file I mentioned before 570.000 objects about it would take a mainframe made of only video cards?

Maybe I wasn't clear in the exhibition. autocad video computing and output routines are not designed for this kind of work (570.000 3d objects, of which 80% curved).
autocad takes advantage of the computing skills of the sk video.
If you want to handle so complex 3d models with fluidity, in realistic representation, you have to change type of program. on the other hand if you do piping, autocad is reductive and Moroccan in management. something different if you are doing 1 time piping and the next one a railway track.
I remember an old dwg of acad, where the solar system was represented in scale 1:1. Well in that file (only-pluton extension) there was on the moon a small detail (the lem) on which you found the plate with its good legible inscriptions.
exasperating the concept, I don't know if a solidwork, a cat or a noug can draw you a flange here and one on pluton connected by a parabolide tube, of course 4000 bolts all here for sw and the other soft are a mug to represent

 

[enri]

I don't think autocad supports the sli.
However it is true compared to other sw 3d is very slow in viewport with many elements, certainly compared to rhino, the same fluid file on the latter, in autocad was nailed.
However, I would try with a high-end gtx, then the conclusions are drawn.
Sure would be ideal to try other more efficient sw.

 

[lokodo]

perfect, tomorrow the pc starts in assistance with a letter accompanied by some of your comments and we will wait for their answer.

 

[lokodo]

In the first place, autocad is not designed for this type of work (as others have already written) , so if you want "acceptable" results you have to compromise.
Secondly, a simple purge has reduced the weight of the file from 16mb to 10mb (this is a bad working organization index).

all the slowness complained is basically in the type of output to video.
select all 3648 dwg objects used:
3-4 sec in realistic mode
almost immediate in wireframe mode.
in making an orbit (of all objects) in wireframe mode is quite fluid. doing it in realistic mode is almost impossible.
Realtime zoom in realistic mode is acceptable as long as you are close enough. from afar begins to suffer.
in wf mode management is much more fluid
Yet my hardware is not the most performing (a quad-core processor - win a 32 and therefore limited to 3gb - a hd7790)

I don't think the problem complained solves with any video card - the approach to the problem is wrong.
is the structure of the autocad real-time rendering engine that is not voted for this type of work.

I'll bring you the observations of those who work on the file from 57,000 objects.

<<I read the discussions. and I make my remarks. the problem of using the software is forviant. for the real plant piping we also have other software (licensed) like mc4 that go well. we are not autodesk fanatics, the fact is that we still want to work with autocad for a series of productivity requirements related to other factors that I am not here to explain to you.

the provided file is an example; shaded setting is intended to simulate real working conditions. with the display in wireframe certainly is more manageable but I lose some properties of the autocad objects I have to maintain. cleaning the file (“purge” or similar) I definitely get a lighter file but I do not solve the problem in any way.

In my opinion, we have not properly fixed the core of the problem. the doubt is not whether to work or not with autocad, but how to manage fluidly files similar to that proposed. for business needs we have to work with files so characterized and with autocad, so I wonder if there is a hardware configuration that allows me to do so, as he promised us ekay with the proposed configuration.

I am also particularly impressed by the performance data stated by the users of the blog that using different hw configurations, they get results inversely proportional to the performance of the machines. It would seem almost that in some cases important processing powers and sk performing videos are completely useless. Perhaps some important element escapes! !>>

 

[marcof]

I'll bring you the observations of those who work on the file from 57,000 objects.

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand something. is there someone working on that type of file with autocad?
because from what I read in this thread for acad performance on files with so much geometry to represent in shade "work" is a big word.
more than working would seem to be going to get the coffee waiting to be able to resume working.
So I wonder: which PC configuring use the people who sent you that file from 57,000 objects. and in case they manage that file type because you don't make a pc identical to theirs?

 

[doking]

I am also particularly impressed by the performance data stated by the users of the blog that using different hw configurations, they get results inversely proportional to the performance of the machines. It would seem almost that in some cases important processing powers and sk performing videos are completely useless. Perhaps some important element escapes! !

It is only my impression that the controversial data on different machines is mainly due to the performance of the video card
ie a quad core is an effective video card in this circumstance have the best on my i7 3770k which is supported by a very undersized video card?

 

[lokodo]

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand something. is there someone working on that type of file with autocad?
because from what I read in this thread for acad performance on files with so much geometry to represent in shade "work" is a big word.
more than working would seem to be going to get the coffee waiting to be able to resume working.
So I wonder: which PC configuring use the people who sent you that file from 57,000 objects. and in case they manage that file type because you don't make a pc identical to theirs?

They work it apart and I don't know how they play it. the important thing is to solve the problem with this file and it would already be luxury. the pc configured by e-key does not manage that file smoothly while many of you with lower configurations you do. the claim is not that from 570.000 objects but at least on this that has about 3800. Try it yourself.

 

[Cristallo]

the provided file is an example; shaded setting is intended to simulate real working conditions.with wireframe display certainly is more manageable but I lose some properties of autocad objects that I must maintain. cleaning the file (“purge” or similar) I definitely get a lighter file but I do not solve the problem in any way.

Who wrote these things to me, but autocad knows that he only knows the boot icon.
view (as the term says) is only a video representation of data that are in the file. you can not add or remove anything, switching between 2 different display modes
for purge... Well I repeat the concept about the knowledge of the program. autocad "purga" only objects and/or properties not used. working on a database (a dwg is a simple database) that has x record or another that has x record + y record record of "mountain" certainly affects performance.
but are we sure that they work with us? or are they giving you the problem as a form of ostracism? The blue phrase gives me that feeling... something like "if you can handle this, then we're sure you have the haitas below to solve any future problem"

So I wonder: which PC configuring use the people who sent you that file from 57,000 objects. and in case they manage that file type because you don't make a pc identical to theirs?

demand leciency and very pertinent. I agree in full.

p.s. @doking
I'm sorry I distracted myself before. I'm glad to read you.

 

[lokodo]

thanks as always for all answers. no is not ostracism. I repeat that the pc they have manages another cad little less complex than I provided you. this from 3800 seems to work better on smaller pcs (as you say) than that done by ekey. the claim is not to work on that of 570000 objects but of this of about 3800. therefore it is likely that from ekey they did not understand the complexity with a simple mail. the ram is not exaggerated because dwg-2d of 45mb they clink 16mb of ram and go very fast. I'm only doing through because I'm helping them and thanks to all of you.

 

[enri]

I have often heard problems with the visualizations of such plants, one had a 3ds file of 600 million polygons, the piping does these jokes when it amounts, I think autocad is no exception, even if we talk about solids. you always optimize the work, you can't play in viewport with such a pattern, you can work quietly by turning off the layers that don't interest.

 

[marcof]

I have often heard problems with the visualizations of such plants, one had a 3ds file of 600 million polygons, the piping does these jokes when it amounts, I think autocad is no exception, even if we talk about solids. you always optimize the work, you can't play in viewport with such a pattern, you can work quietly by turning off the layers that don't interest.

therefore autocad in 3d works on polygonal solids for which in a plant with piping a single elbow curve consists of, I know, 200 polygons to render in realtime?
if so I believe that the file from 570.000 3d objects is pure metropolitan legend, unless it is 570.000 polygons.
Tonight if I have time I try to open the attached file with draftsight. I'm just curious. . .

 

[lokodo]

if so I believe the file from 570.000 3d objects is pure metropolitan legend

Shouldn't I just answer you for this statement, would the sense of inventing all this topic be to create a legend? for reasons of privacy and sensitivity and delicacy of the project is not shared that file is not a test on which you can think of "play" to "find the best setting". All I could write, all the material I could publish. the file I saw it I don't understand anything, the vision was like 2d and it seemed (but it wasn't) like a very long skyscraper very tight. I repeat that all your advice has been valuable and that today the pc will come back from e-key with accompanying letter to find a hardware solution that will satisfy the demands of this file and not that of 570.000 and passes objects. that in practice is a assembled that has been built by multiple stations. I would like the autodesk to read our discussion maybe to improve and propose. I remember two years ago when they asked for advice for a need for dwg 2d which machine would have been more appropriate to assemble so I would reply: <<prima acquistate="" adatta="" all'help="" desk="" e="" l'autocad="" la="" macchina="" passeremo="" per="" piu'="" poi="" questione="">></prima> you understand that with an answer so you would send them to that country...maybe the answer would have been there are no machines that meet the requirements of this dwg...a bullet wouldn't have avoided her!

 

[doking]

<<prima acquistate="" adatta="" all'help="" desk="" e="" l'autocad="" la="" macchina="" passeremo="" per="" piu'="" poi="" questione="">></prima> you understand that with an answer so you would send them to that country...maybe the answer would have been there are no machines that meet the requirements of this dwg...a bullet wouldn't have avoided her!

considering that maybe you don't already have relationships with them and that 99% of the installed programs are craccato I think they don't have all the twists

 

[Tristan]

I would like the autodesk to read our discussion maybe to improve and propose.

autodesk today would tell you that autocad is not good for doing those jobs and would propose you a different alternative solution based on a vertical (type This is) or on a sector suite (type This is what).

 

[enri]

therefore autocad in 3d works on polygonal solids for which in a plant with piping a single elbow curve consists of, I know, 200 polygons to render in realtime?

Of course not, that does 3ds used for viewing, I think they have just a model based on solids in autocad. However those plants are always a huge thing as components, just look at one from the real to realize it, like refineries and similar things.