cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!

Level 1

Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!

Been using Simulate hard for 2 years now. Have gotten a lot of very complex and useful analyses from Simulate BUT I have also paid a dear price since upgrading to Creo 1.0. My models corrupt and become completely unusable with no forewarning and no recourse. This happens only with optimization analyses... normal analyses are unaffected.

Last night had an optimization run successfully ONCE... then when I went to edit it all rows in the "Design Limits" field were gone. Spent ours trying reconstruction and other workarounds. Nothing brings the model back to life.

I know at least one other very experienced user that says this happens too often. This has happened often enough that I am actually "on-the-fence" as to whether companies should use simulate for optimization. It's "bad business" to put hours into creating a model knowing that at anytime the model can become completely worthless. What's the incentive to re-creating it when it can (and will) happen all over again.

4 REPLIES 4

Re: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!

Hi Chauncey,

Could you please file a case with Technical Support if you have not already done so (if you have, could you let me know the case id ?).

I'm guessing such corruption may point to an issue with the names of your measures, parameters or dimensions. Could you post an image of your Optimization Study Definition dialog before you run the study (with the name columns expanded to show the full names) ? Also please let me know which build you are running.

Thanks,

Steve.

Re: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!

Case # 11507002.

Nothing remarkable about parameter names (caps, underscores, numbers).

I am more creative with measure names though, do you really think that could create problems? I'm thinking "if it lets me create them then they must be okay, right?".

Measures use caps, lower-case, numbers, underscores and hyphens.

Re: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!

Right, these names should not be a problem.

I can't run A130717_1856_OPT2 because some of the shells are not part of the 2D model definition. Made a number of edits to resolve this, but didn't reproduce the problem. Could you please upload a version of the model that runs and causes the problem, in its state before the run ?

Thanks,

Steve.

Re: Too frequent corruption of optimization analyses AND model!

The "shells are not part of 2D geometry" is a red herring... not a problem. The error should actually say something more like "some surfaces are not defined for meshing and will not be included". The curves I needed to define the tank boundaries are the outer edges of surfaces that I created as "Fills". So the "warning" occurs because of my construction technique (which is highly stable for design and change purposes). All of the surfaces that I DO want meshed as "solids" represent stiffener beam cross-sections which you'll see at various places in the model.

I spent ~ 6 hours on this yesterday, can't sleuth anymore to help (go on vacation next week), BUT... The problem started to occur when I took OPT1 (whose "design limits" had all of my "shell" measures for "failure index") and copied it to OPT2 where I ADDED all of the "BM/beam" measures so that I could optimize the beam cross-sections and reduce the shell thicknesses. After the copy corrupted, I deleted it and created another optimization by the exact same name... but manually added all the required measures and parameters fresh. That still corrupted. I can't spend more time. I sure hope this helps.