Display State vs. Configuration

[bloodclot]

I was wondering why someone would add a display state rather than a configuration. Seems like adding a configuration would give you the same functionality as adding a display state plus the extra benefits that go along with configurations. If someone out there has chosen a display state over a config, what was the reason?

Just curious and thanks for your thoughts on this,

Bloodclot

***** Fear not those who argue but those who dodge *****

Dell Precision 670
3.0 Ghz Xeon Processor
Nvidia FX3450
3 gig of RAM
Dual 19" Viewsonics

 

[smcadman]

I mainly use display states for assembly instructions. Instead of making different configurations and making sure this or that is suppressed/unsuppressed, simply make a display state.

One of the benefits of configurations over display states is that if you suppress items on some configurations, they do not show up on your BOM.

SW06 SP5.0

Flores

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

I haven't really begun to use Display States much yet, but (if no configs existed) I think I would use them (in place of a config) when only visual changes were made. I would use the configs purely for physical component changes. (size, feature or part suppression, etc).

If configs already existed in a component, I would probably use the DS's inside of them. In effect they would be similar to a derived config but reserved for the visual appearance only.

​

Helpful SW websites faq559-520​

How to find answers ... faq559-1091​

SW2006-SP5 Basic ... No PDM​

 

[Heckler]

One benefit I see for display states is assembly rebuild time. If your change is just visual like Hide/Show, Display mode, Component color, Component texture or Transparency then use display states. But if it's a family of components driven by dimensional changes then configurations would serve you better.



Best Regards,

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 5.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.

 

[J-C]

Display States are faster and I don't think they add to the file size like configurations do. So if you need to show groups of the components for drawing views, the Display States are the way to go for speed. Also there is no worries about part numbers , descriptions and any other custom properties be kept in sync.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[wes616]

I use display states and configurations. Here is generally my process. I use configurations mainly for:

1. detailed assemblies (where I am going to make the drawings)

2. Next Higher Assemblies (where I have components such as fastners supressed)

3. There are other special case situations where I use configurations, but I don't want to go into that now.

I use display states for:

1. being able to turn on an off quickly, major areas of structure.

2. making certain areas display for drawing views, while not showing (hiding) other areas.

I tend to use display states like some kind of quirky layer system. Most of my assemblies with have 10 or more display states and 2 configurations.

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

 

[Diemaker1]

My take is the similar to wes616’s. Configs define the assy… different changeovers, different positions… or configs can isolate smaller, workable areas. Like creating sub assys without actually creating a file.

DS groups parts within a config for display. I like to think of them as visual assemblies. They turn on and off instantly for doing what I like to call "close combat" work. you know...fine tuning, quick changes... actually getting work done instead of setting up to do work.

Autocad has 2 ways to control layer display… On/Off and Freeze/Thaw. On/Off layer changes happen instantly. F/T forces a regen, similar to SWx rebuild. In the early days of acad, my 3rd party software used F/T and any layer change took from 1-10 minutes to regen (386 computers). I programmed my own layer controls to use On/Off method and instantly gained a time advantage over my competitors with no down sides. I think of SWx configs/DS similar to Acads layer methods. Big differences sure, but similarities too.

For me, designing a single tool, with 200-500 parts and lots of references, I would like a to work with one main config and about 20 Display States. But until SW provides a way to lock DS so I can define the DS and it will always display what I defined… DS is pretty useless.