should look into it, or call hp back for an acceptable upgrade, also theres a reason autodesk switched to BIM, it reduces the file size of mostly everything you are working on (except when you go to the 3d model which has almost everything in it), i still work for people that send me a file with everything from the architecture to the framing plans in it, talk about massive layer control and large files-, autodesk has recieved complaints about the softwares, both revit and ACA not being able to handle large files and started the process in the internal math to allow the program to handle how slow it is with large files (at least with revit) i dont know if ACA has been modified yet, we'll see with 2017.Īlso remember what they said below too, if on server, the problem could be there, a conversation with boxx technologies can open one's eyes to how a correct server config. 7 pro can take 128 gig, so look into this before you buy, i would also go with something like a quadro k2200 "if" your machine allows for the upgrade, agin you have to check on all of this i dont know your exact mother board config. card, i would go with the max your operating system can take, or at least 32-64 gig, It looks like the system is bottle necked, you are only allocating 4 gigs per core, and the cpu is actually mutlithreaded (more ram the better) the quadro that was selected is pretty small and regen. Change the view to "one graph per CPU" for a better view of whats going on at the processor level. If you only show one overall graph in the Task Manager it could well top out at 25% for a quad-core processor (~ 16% for a hex-core). Use them for viewports (keep them turned off until printing) and use Navisworks Simulate (or the NWNavigator plugin) for real-time visualization.ĪutoCAD and its verticals are for the most part single-threaded in otherwords they'll only throw one processor at a task at any given time. I wouldn't use one of the rendered visual styles for working - even with advanced hardware performance is a little slow even with simple models. 15- 20 MB is around the upper practical limit, most of our 3D DWG files are under 10 MB. I would *never* consider using an 80 MB DWG file - there's no hardware that can compensate for that. Good data and drawing management will have more and more impact as the scale of work increases. There's diminishing returns on investment in hardware - its not a linear gain.
0 kommentar(er)
