Monkeywrench
Mechanical
One component of a large assembly was converted to SW2004 sp01. I need to get it back to 2003 sp3.1 rather than recreate from scratch. Is there any way to do this?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Convert from 2004 back to 2003 1
- Thread starter Monkeywrench
- Start date
- Status
Mr. Pickles is right in that the lateset Office products don't do too bad a job (depends on what fancy features you use) but for the reason Gildashard states. But back in '97 type vintage, there were some real issues. However, all things considered I think MS does not do a bad job.
Thanks for the steady voice of reason, Gildashard. We are all getting a bit punchy on this one. I do, believe it or not, agree that personally I would not mind the option to save back. Very occasionally it could make life a little easier, but it is not going to happen so I'm not holding my breath.
The only thing you can really do is Parasolid out and back in. Now they are talking about getting some sort of feature compatibility in STEP, so maybe we could eventually get a partial solution. A "solid body feature"
might allow for some of the incompatibilities? Dunno about cuts though. Anyone ever done a save as part on an assembly containing some imported Parasolids? - might give an idea of what it would look like.
I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."
Thanks for the steady voice of reason, Gildashard. We are all getting a bit punchy on this one. I do, believe it or not, agree that personally I would not mind the option to save back. Very occasionally it could make life a little easier, but it is not going to happen so I'm not holding my breath.
The only thing you can really do is Parasolid out and back in. Now they are talking about getting some sort of feature compatibility in STEP, so maybe we could eventually get a partial solution. A "solid body feature"
might allow for some of the incompatibilities? Dunno about cuts though. Anyone ever done a save as part on an assembly containing some imported Parasolids? - might give an idea of what it would look like.
I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."
JNR
I think your 1.5% figure on those who wish to backsave is out to lunch.
The problem is not when you keep the information inside your own company. The problem is when you have to transmit data to the outside world who usually run different versions of the software.
In Autocad for example, when you backsave, you may loose some functionality, but usually 90% + is there and you can work with the information.
If solidworks would allow you to backsave and give 75% functionality, I dont think that we would have such a heated discussion. I dont buy the notion that no one wants it or no one would use it, or that its too difficult. On a backsaving issue, I wouldnt expect perfection, just something thats usable.
I think your 1.5% figure on those who wish to backsave is out to lunch.
The problem is not when you keep the information inside your own company. The problem is when you have to transmit data to the outside world who usually run different versions of the software.
In Autocad for example, when you backsave, you may loose some functionality, but usually 90% + is there and you can work with the information.
If solidworks would allow you to backsave and give 75% functionality, I dont think that we would have such a heated discussion. I dont buy the notion that no one wants it or no one would use it, or that its too difficult. On a backsaving issue, I wouldnt expect perfection, just something thats usable.
I don't want to get everyone's hopes up, those that are wanting backward compatibility. But I read this in Comp.cad.solidworks Newsgroup a few days ago and thought I would post this in here.
Hi Guys,
visit us in booth #17 in Boston for the following demos:
ShapeWorks - nurb surfacing inside SolidWorks
ExChangeWorks - saves SW files from newer versions to older with design tree
3D File Converter - saves SW files into 3DS Max, Lightwave and *.obj
Picture Converter - converts *.bmp pictures into SW sketch
See you there,
Baren-Boym Company
www.Baren-Boym.com[/b]
I'll be going to the Conference this weekend and I will be checking this out!
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP![[borg2]](/data/assets/smilies/borg2.gif "[borg2] [borg2]")
faq731-376
Hi Guys,
visit us in booth #17 in Boston for the following demos:
ShapeWorks - nurb surfacing inside SolidWorks
ExChangeWorks - saves SW files from newer versions to older with design tree
3D File Converter - saves SW files into 3DS Max, Lightwave and *.obj
Picture Converter - converts *.bmp pictures into SW sketch
See you there,
Baren-Boym Company
www.Baren-Boym.com[/b]
I'll be going to the Conference this weekend and I will be checking this out!
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
- Thread starter
- #24
Monkeywrench
Mechanical
Most new functionality encourages upgrades. Backwards compatibility functionality does not do so. A cynical perspective is that SW wants to encourage more upgrades.
What I posted above is a 3rd party program. Not something from SW. Not to say they wouldn't incorporate it if it does work well...
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
1. Like I said in my last post, backsave might be nice at times, but what I meant by my 1.5% was those who "must have" - those who would be planning on using it routinely.
2. Your point on customers or vendors having older revs. is valid (and I have encountered it). But again, if you are really needing SW feature functionality after you export to them, then it is important enough that they ought to be up to the latest rev. In our business I would have a hard time dealing with companies that don't pay for the support licence. (Of course if you are the one who is out of date, well....).
3. As it turns out we have found that except under exceptional circumstances it is safer to send a Parasolid anyway. We have had some (even large) companies make very expensive mistakes by someone either using the wrong configuration or inadvertently suppressing a feature or something. You would think that was a no-brainer, but noooooo...... One of them was having a large and complex investment casting wax mold made and fortunately the machine shop happened also to be one that knows our parts very well. They figured out that the model they had been sent by the casting house was basically the machined configuration!!! We got lucky that time. Could have been a $100,000 mistake for them and a leadtime disaster for us.
4. If this 3rd party stuff does work the way we hope (IF) then the most we should expect is getting it as a Partner solution. I don't think SW would adopt it. Probably the time required to check it all out on new revs. would delay the new revs. (Of course there are always SP's....) As a 3rd party they can get away with some lag in their options as long as the basic software (in this case surfacing) works on time. Come to think of it, I believe we have a seat of it on one of our systems, which means we have a support licence for upgrades. Hey, guys, maybe I will be able to let you know if it really works? Ahh, look at me - getting all excited about something I didn't think much of yesterday! Never let it be said that I'm closed minded...
I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."
2. Your point on customers or vendors having older revs. is valid (and I have encountered it). But again, if you are really needing SW feature functionality after you export to them, then it is important enough that they ought to be up to the latest rev. In our business I would have a hard time dealing with companies that don't pay for the support licence. (Of course if you are the one who is out of date, well....).
3. As it turns out we have found that except under exceptional circumstances it is safer to send a Parasolid anyway. We have had some (even large) companies make very expensive mistakes by someone either using the wrong configuration or inadvertently suppressing a feature or something. You would think that was a no-brainer, but noooooo...... One of them was having a large and complex investment casting wax mold made and fortunately the machine shop happened also to be one that knows our parts very well. They figured out that the model they had been sent by the casting house was basically the machined configuration!!! We got lucky that time. Could have been a $100,000 mistake for them and a leadtime disaster for us.
4. If this 3rd party stuff does work the way we hope (IF) then the most we should expect is getting it as a Partner solution. I don't think SW would adopt it. Probably the time required to check it all out on new revs. would delay the new revs. (Of course there are always SP's....) As a 3rd party they can get away with some lag in their options as long as the basic software (in this case surfacing) works on time. Come to think of it, I believe we have a seat of it on one of our systems, which means we have a support licence for upgrades. Hey, guys, maybe I will be able to let you know if it really works? Ahh, look at me - getting all excited about something I didn't think much of yesterday! Never let it be said that I'm closed minded...
I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."
TreeHuggingAsperger
Mechanical
With regard to the presence of 2 different versions of SW on a system, I tried that recently and it didn't work. I wanted to check SW2004 to see if its worthwhile upgrading the lot of us. So I installed it into a seperate partion on my HD. Yes, I could run SW2004 fine, but could I run our old version...of course not. So I had to take it off again (both versions that is) re-install 2001 to be able to work again.
Just my 2p on running 2 versions on the same machine...
"Gimme dat stickwelder, will yer lad. No need to get all fancy wid'those modern drills." Apprenticeship Lesson 61
Just my 2p on running 2 versions on the same machine...
"Gimme dat stickwelder, will yer lad. No need to get all fancy wid'those modern drills." Apprenticeship Lesson 61
mncad
Industrial
- Dec 27, 2002
- 256
- 0
- 0
TreeHuggingApserger,
I have both 2004 and 2003 running on my machine as I'm responding to this. I'm assuming that the error you got said something like "Solidworks Journal Files already Exist". If that was the error you have to go into Tools, Options, System Options. Then in file locations make sure the directory name for the journal files that SW creates are different for each version of SW.
mncad
I have both 2004 and 2003 running on my machine as I'm responding to this. I'm assuming that the error you got said something like "Solidworks Journal Files already Exist". If that was the error you have to go into Tools, Options, System Options. Then in file locations make sure the directory name for the journal files that SW creates are different for each version of SW.
mncad
This may sound stupid, but I see it often...
One you have to install each version in it own directory. EX: Solidworks01+, Solidworks03, Solidworks04...
If you run each of them at the same time you might get that error that mncad posted.
If your saving a parasolid from SW04 and try to open it in SW03 make sure you save the Parasolid to version 14. Same goes for SW03 - Version 13 - Always save it one verion back of the recent Parasolid version for and older version of SW to open it.
I run SW04, SW03 and SW01+ and I can run all 3 together at one time. So I know running them together and loading them onto one machine does work.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
One you have to install each version in it own directory. EX: Solidworks01+, Solidworks03, Solidworks04...
If you run each of them at the same time you might get that error that mncad posted.
If your saving a parasolid from SW04 and try to open it in SW03 make sure you save the Parasolid to version 14. Same goes for SW03 - Version 13 - Always save it one verion back of the recent Parasolid version for and older version of SW to open it.
I run SW04, SW03 and SW01+ and I can run all 3 together at one time. So I know running them together and loading them onto one machine does work.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE WON'T UPGRADE AND PAY THE HIGH PRICE OF MAINTENANCE FOR THE 2004 VERSION. THE NEW BENEFITS DON'T OFFSET THE RIDICULUS COST OF TRYING TO RE-ACQUIRE A 'CORRUPTED' PART OR ASSEMBLY WHEN WORKING THRU VARIOUS VERSIONS OF SOLIDWORKS.
If everyone out there who has had to even consider this thread, would call their retailer and /or solidworks direct and complain then you'd see the programmers develop solidworks just like autocad. You don't see autocad preventing backward compatible issues from slowing down sales do you. We run 2001+ and won't upgrade for just the reasons presented here.
I urge everyone to complain. "The squeeky wheel gets the grease!"
db
AES PRODUCTS INC.
CHICO, CALIFORNIA
If everyone out there who has had to even consider this thread, would call their retailer and /or solidworks direct and complain then you'd see the programmers develop solidworks just like autocad. You don't see autocad preventing backward compatible issues from slowing down sales do you. We run 2001+ and won't upgrade for just the reasons presented here.
I urge everyone to complain. "The squeeky wheel gets the grease!"
db
AES PRODUCTS INC.
CHICO, CALIFORNIA
Hmm, I wouldn't put it that strong! Yes, i'm sure nobody would disagree that a save option to save your part back to 2003 would be very handy but I don't think anyone is really spending much time in the problem. Using version 2004 in respect 2001plus saves me a lot of time. More time then it costs me to now and then save a file as a parasolid...
Theophilus
Mechanical
2001+ will never be able to figure out a multiple-body part without some sort of alteration of the 2001+ code (and many other more advanced features that are part of improving through upgrades). This is a feature that simply cannot be backward compatible, whereas color-coded layers in ACAD can simply be ignored in previous releases or defaulted to a single color (or some other less drastic backward change).
The magnitude of code change necessary to maintain solid bodies and their parametric features is tremendous when compared with the code changes necessary in displaying arcs and lines in three-view format.
Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC
The magnitude of code change necessary to maintain solid bodies and their parametric features is tremendous when compared with the code changes necessary in displaying arcs and lines in three-view format.
Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC
Theophilus - the voice of calm and reason yet again! He is right. AUTOCRUD and most older generation CAD systems are completely different in concept from modern solid modellers. As such you don't just make "stuff" on "layers" that YOUR brain has to make something real out of and so on - the logic is not the same.
Now don't go and take this all personal, but the mere fact that you don't seem to understand this and the real technical problem in general suggests that maybe you ought not be be using this type of CAD system? Maybe the old stuff of more the kind of thing you need?
BTW: I only said "AUTOCRUD" just to stir all of you up, so don't take umbrage - just a joke. It is a fine system for many purposes, just as virtually all CAD systems are. They all have their stengths and weaknesses.
I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."
Now don't go and take this all personal, but the mere fact that you don't seem to understand this and the real technical problem in general suggests that maybe you ought not be be using this type of CAD system? Maybe the old stuff of more the kind of thing you need?
BTW: I only said "AUTOCRUD" just to stir all of you up, so don't take umbrage - just a joke. It is a fine system for many purposes, just as virtually all CAD systems are. They all have their stengths and weaknesses.
I was - and he did. So at least I didn't get coal.....
OK, OK, It's a reference to my holiday sig. "Be naughty - Save Santa a trip..."
No need to yell their cdennyb!
AutoCAD is preventing users from bring in older files to their new versions of AutoCAD. At least SW lets you bring in old files to newer versions. (This is what I have been told by my customers and other people. I can't test this because I don't have AutoCAD here... Why would I want it... I have SW!!!)
Anyhow I'm back from the Conference and I checked out what I posted above.
Not what you might think. It's a neat concept but that's about it. When I asked about the program they informed me that it was still in experimentation mode, which was fine.
1) First thing he did was he open a part.
2) The part was a small cylinder extruded. With a square extrusion off of it. The Edges had round corners. At the end of the square Extrusion there was wavy surface. That Surface cut the Square extrusion.
3) First thing he did was remove the surface and the cut feature.
4) He saved the file as a 3dx file format.
5) Close the file.
6) Reopen it in SW04
That tells me nothing about how SW03 or older versions will interrupt the file.
7) SW04 rebuilt the file... like using a macro to make the part... simple.
I asked if Dimensions from the sketches could be transferred.
8) He tried it again... No dice! The dimensions are removed.
I asked how does this program handle new functions in later versions of SW for older versions?
9) His response... They are import features.
Just like saving out a Parasolid.
So to my conclusion. This functionality and this program as it is now is useless.
1) Because a new function is brought in as an imported feature. Yes you get some of the features it will recognize. But you could get the same thing if you used Feature Works, and it would leave the rest as an imported feature.
2) It doesn't save Dimensions that are required for editing of the sketches. Then the sketches become under defined and can be moved by accident.
3) I didn't see him try and open it in SW03 or older version. So how can I tell what the response would be?
4) If you did export out this info then the face ID's are different. What are you going to do when you do this with and assembly? You will lose mates if you used faces...
These are some things to think about when saving to different versions.
If I think of more I'll post them!
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
AutoCAD is preventing users from bring in older files to their new versions of AutoCAD. At least SW lets you bring in old files to newer versions. (This is what I have been told by my customers and other people. I can't test this because I don't have AutoCAD here... Why would I want it... I have SW!!!)
Anyhow I'm back from the Conference and I checked out what I posted above.
Not what you might think. It's a neat concept but that's about it. When I asked about the program they informed me that it was still in experimentation mode, which was fine.
1) First thing he did was he open a part.
2) The part was a small cylinder extruded. With a square extrusion off of it. The Edges had round corners. At the end of the square Extrusion there was wavy surface. That Surface cut the Square extrusion.
3) First thing he did was remove the surface and the cut feature.
4) He saved the file as a 3dx file format.
5) Close the file.
6) Reopen it in SW04
That tells me nothing about how SW03 or older versions will interrupt the file.
7) SW04 rebuilt the file... like using a macro to make the part... simple.
I asked if Dimensions from the sketches could be transferred.
8) He tried it again... No dice! The dimensions are removed.
I asked how does this program handle new functions in later versions of SW for older versions?
9) His response... They are import features.
Just like saving out a Parasolid.
So to my conclusion. This functionality and this program as it is now is useless.
1) Because a new function is brought in as an imported feature. Yes you get some of the features it will recognize. But you could get the same thing if you used Feature Works, and it would leave the rest as an imported feature.
2) It doesn't save Dimensions that are required for editing of the sketches. Then the sketches become under defined and can be moved by accident.
3) I didn't see him try and open it in SW03 or older version. So how can I tell what the response would be?
4) If you did export out this info then the face ID's are different. What are you going to do when you do this with and assembly? You will lose mates if you used faces...
These are some things to think about when saving to different versions.
If I think of more I'll post them!
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
faq731-376
It is true that importing files into older versions of Solidworks would have trouble with new features. However, many of the parts we all create do not use new features, they are simply a collection of extrudes, revolves and fillets. Perhaps a "save as" that would save as a SW2001+ or SW2003 file would help out with a great majority of the problems we have with vendors who have not upgraded yet.
It was also written above, "In our business I would have a hard time dealing with companies that don't pay for the support license." Is dealing with Asia, I don't always have the luxury of switching vendors. Pricing, capabilities, and a good working relationship seem like good enough reasons to look past the error of not paying for a support license.
It was also written above, "In our business I would have a hard time dealing with companies that don't pay for the support license." Is dealing with Asia, I don't always have the luxury of switching vendors. Pricing, capabilities, and a good working relationship seem like good enough reasons to look past the error of not paying for a support license.
Perhaps it would but it's not going to happen. You have 3 choices here:
1) Deal with the fact that you will not be able to save back a version, because you cna't do it from SW natively.
2) Install all ther versions you need to install onto your HDD. Then work on the Version that your client is using. (You would have install each SW into a new directory - e.g. Solidworks01+, Solidworks03, Solidworks04, etc...)
3) Look at the baren-boym add-in.
YOu might only use extrudes, fillets, and revolves... but what about your customers? is that all they ever use? If so then you should look into Item3.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP![[pc2]](/data/assets/smilies/pc2.gif "[pc2] [pc2]")
If you are in the SW Forum Check out the FAQ section
To make the Best of Eng-Tips Forums FAQ731-376
1) Deal with the fact that you will not be able to save back a version, because you cna't do it from SW natively.
2) Install all ther versions you need to install onto your HDD. Then work on the Version that your client is using. (You would have install each SW into a new directory - e.g. Solidworks01+, Solidworks03, Solidworks04, etc...)
3) Look at the baren-boym add-in.
YOu might only use extrudes, fillets, and revolves... but what about your customers? is that all they ever use? If so then you should look into Item3.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
If you are in the SW Forum Check out the FAQ section
To make the Best of Eng-Tips Forums FAQ731-376
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question