Conversion from Wildfire 4.0 to Wildfire 3.0

[danoo]

Help is needed.

I have several assemblies with lots of component parts created in Wildfire 4.0. I have a customer that is using Wildfire 3.0. Is there away that I can save the files to Wildfire 3.0 from Wildfire 4.0 so they can view and modify the assembly and components?????????

Thanks,
Danoo

 

[fighterpilot]

I would say there is not a way to go from WF4 down to WF3. Pro/E has never been backwards compatable, except for V18/19. You need to save them in a format such as STEP or IGES and then they'll have to import them into their WF3 session. They will not be able to modify them however.

If you want to just view the WF4 items, and not work around them, then there are a number of viewers that will let you do that.



--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer

 

[jeff4136]

http://www.ptc.com/products/granite/gcri/index.htm

read the documents linked to the page. I think there's a 'uses and limiations' description among them.

 

[hydromech]

It's about time PTC sorted this out.

I have WF2 WF3 and WF4 on my computer. We have different customers with different versions. I have to be very careful when I save models that have standard parts or templates. Our official version is WF2 and nobody can open the drawing templates if I save them with WF3 or WF4.

The latest version of Inventor is capable of reading step and iges files and converting the data to a fully functional model. It can also read Pro E and Solid Works files. Some progress at least.

Adrian

 

[jeff4136]

There is no conceptual or functional similarity between
feature recognition and cross release interoperability.

"Backward Compatibility for Files"

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=662857

"2009 to 2008 File Convert"

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5928043

"With feature recognition there is no guarantee
that the features you have in R2009 will be the
same in R2008 after recognition."

The most obvious difference is the irreversible loss of all
intent expression and association to design data ancillary
to the model geometry representation, defining and dependant.

Apple or Orange. What's your preference?