Skip to main content
P
pstephens10-Marble
10-Marble
May 4, 2015
Solved

Model Tree Columns Slowing Creo Parametric 2.0 Performance in Recent Builds

  • May 4, 2015
  • 3 replies
  • 5776 views

Hello All,

 

We are experiencing some performance hits in Creo Parametric 2.0 with later builds (M140 & M150) when compared to an older build such as M050 and was wondering if anyone else had experienced the same issue.

 

The performance hit happens when a model tree column containing Feat# and/or Feat ID is turned on.

 

We have a user model with 5000+ features and have tested in M050, M140 and M150.

 

In M050 with Feat# and Feat ID columns turned on, performance is ok.

 

The model opens in 20 sec, a nominated feature is able to be modified by Edit Definition in 11 sec, exit out of edit def in 5 sec and be editable by RMB edit in 4 sec.

 

In M140, the same model with no model tree columns on opens in 30 sec, edit def 10 sec, exit edit def 22 sec, RMB edit 4 sec.

 

In M140 with Feat# and Feat ID columns turned on model opens in 100 sec, edit def 47 sec, exit edit def 125 sec, RMB edit 500+ sec and/or hangs Creo session.

 

I have tested with a bare minimum config.pro (5 lines) to see if it was anything in the config causing the slowdown, but made no difference.

 

Tech Support say that they have been unable to reproduce the issue?

 

Anyone else seen this behaviour with M140 (we've seen the same issue on builds M100+)?

 

Even better, does anyone have a fix?

 

Thanks

 

Paul


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
Best answer by pstephens

Thanks for the offer Tom, but we've eventually got it sorted.

There was a line in our launch batch file that we had been using ever since the Wildfire 5 days and seemed to work ok in CP 2 up until build M050-ish.

call "H:\creo2_64_m140\Creo 2.0\Parametric\bin\parametric.exe" "H:\creo2_64_m140\Creo 2.0\Parametric\bin\creo2.psf %*"

When we took out the "H:\creo2_64_m140\Creo 2.0\Parametric\bin\creo2.psf %*" portion, performance was restored.


Alex at PTC Tech Support pointed me in the right direction, getting me to test launching Creo straight from the loadpoint bin directory.

It then was a matter of trial and error, experimenting with removing different lines in the batch file and testing.

I would never have guessed that as being the cause.

3 replies

P
pstephens10-MarbleAuthor
10-Marble
May 5, 2015

Forgot to add that our Creo Parametric session is connected to Windchill PDMLink 10.1, M020.

A session of Creo Parametric not connected to Windchill does not suffer from the same slowdowns.

L
llie17-Peridot
17-Peridot
May 5, 2015

Very interesting issue. I am going to have to test it on our large assemblies. Stay tuned.

Creo 2 M100 PDMLink 10.2 M020

T
23-Emerald IV
TomU23-Emerald IV
23-Emerald IV
May 5, 2015

I don't currently have any models with this many features, but if you are willing to share one (either publicly or privately), I'm more than willing to test. I have all the builds of Creo 3 and can download whatever build of Creo 2 you want tested. We are running Windchill 10.2 M020.

P
pstephens10-MarbleAuthorAnswer
10-Marble
May 5, 2015

Thanks for the offer Tom, but we've eventually got it sorted.

There was a line in our launch batch file that we had been using ever since the Wildfire 5 days and seemed to work ok in CP 2 up until build M050-ish.

call "H:\creo2_64_m140\Creo 2.0\Parametric\bin\parametric.exe" "H:\creo2_64_m140\Creo 2.0\Parametric\bin\creo2.psf %*"

When we took out the "H:\creo2_64_m140\Creo 2.0\Parametric\bin\creo2.psf %*" portion, performance was restored.


Alex at PTC Tech Support pointed me in the right direction, getting me to test launching Creo straight from the loadpoint bin directory.

It then was a matter of trial and error, experimenting with removing different lines in the batch file and testing.

I would never have guessed that as being the cause.

P
pstephens10-MarbleAuthor
10-Marble
May 6, 2015

No it doesn't

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement