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

Community Tip - When posting, your subject should be specific and summarize your question. Here are some additional tips on asking a great question. X

Time steps vs Load intervals

346gnu
12-Amethyst

Time steps vs Load intervals

Hi,

I have raised this question here before and also raised a low priority call some while back which due to lack of time I have yet to follow up properly.

I am seeking others' understanding and thoughts.

I remain completely unclear about the reason we have these 2 pieces of seemingly overlapping functionality; TIMESTEPS vs LOAD INTERVALS. Is this an either/or choice for the user? The use of one does not disable to option of using the other.

For me, 'timesteps' have always been more 'powerful' and have been around for a long time in other software so I am really pleased we have these.

But (always a but) I would like to see the opportunity to choose which timesteps to save full results in a similar way we can for load intervals. For example, when carrying out an LDA, 2000 steps @ 200kb per.s01 file is a lot of disk plus unnecessary write time. We may only be interested in the final step (or a more modest selection). Saving measures for all other steps.

To begin the discussion, the brief comparison that I submitted to TS sometime ago below.

Do I misunderstand the functionality?

Your thoughts?

Thanks

===================

TIMESTEPS :  The time step function can have evenly spaced X and Y values (time and load factor) making a straight line

is the same as :

LOAD INTERVALS : The master intervals are equivalent to evenly spaced time steps. The value associated with each master interval is the load factor and the 'timestep' is effectively irrelevant.

===================

TIMESTEPS:

Time stepped function always produces full results at each time step. This is expensive.

is almost the same as :

LOAD INTERVALS:

Master interval function can produce full results at each time step BUT full results may be deselected for any number of master intervals at user discretion.

This has the potential to make using master intervals more efficient than time steps

===================

TIMESTEPS:

Unevenly spaced time steps are possible but the 'time' is irrelevant and does not add any benefit. Loads are still applied as the associated factor.

is effectively the same as

LOAD INTERVALS:

Master intervals are evenly spaced. But as for timesteps, only the load factor matters. Again, the 'time' is irrelevant

====================

TIMESTEPS:

Time functions can be different for each load/constraint. and much better than what one can do with load intervals

is not the same as

LOAD INTERVALS:

Master intervals load factors regulate all loads simultaneously. The user would have to run permutations of loads

====================

TIMESTEPS:

Load factors in Time functions can go up and the down

is not the same as

LOAD INTERVALS:

Software does not permit load factors to decrease even though it is a perfectly reasonable request

====================

TIMESTEPS:

The table of load factors seems unlimited. I have used 3000 points before

is not the same as

LOAD INTERVALS:

Limited to 999

====================

One is able to ask for BOTH timesteps AND load intervals. What does this 'physically' mean?

The software will run but it (like me) is confused about what it should be doing and the answers do not meet expectations. Timestep function gets ignored. Is this by design?


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.
0 REPLIES 0
Top Tags