frustrated with SW2003 1

[dogarila]

I recently upgraded to SW2003 SP3.0 and I deeply regret it.

I wonder what did I gain? The major difference between SW2001Plus SP6.0 and SW2003 SP3.0 is that the last one is much much slower. Instead of increasing my productivity (as expected from a newer software) it reduced it a lot. I spend now most of my time waiting for SW to switch from a part to the assembly or saving/opening files.

My system is an IBM IntelliStation with two processors P3 at 731 MHz, 1 GB RAM, graphic card is an ELSA Gloria II with 64MB RAM.

Another thing I noticed:
In SW2002Plus SP0, every time you opened and closed a file SW was asking you if you want to save it(even there was absolutely no change to the file). At a later SP they fixed that. In SP6.0 if the file was not changed SW would close it down without asking you whether you wanted to save it or not.

Now they are back. Looks like the flag they are supposed to keep to control whether a file was changed if doesn't work properly. Correct me if I am wrong but this is waht happening on my system. I open a part, close it, answer yes to the question whether I want to save it, open the same part, close it, the question pops up again. Annoying.

Andrew

 

[EdDanzer]

I have been so frustrated that I have considered moving to a different CAD vendor. There doesn’t seem to be any better alternatives. After this bad upgrade if they get it fixed we will NOT upgrade for some time. Cutting them off at the pocket book may do more good than talking to them. SolidWorks has become large enough that they don’t really care to increase your productivity, only their profits.

 

[dogarila]

I would love to be able to go back to SW2001Plus but that is not possible. I don't really understand why most of the softwares allow you to save to earlier versions format but SW not.

 

[SBaugh]

IMHO,

I have been using SW03 since it came out and I haven't seen the problems you guys are seeing. So I have to disagree with you both. I think SW has been doing a great job. Yes I have had some problems, who hasn't? I had to reinstall all 3 of my machines because of a problem with SP1.0 WI, which I found out later was mostly due to an OE (operator error). I have seen some nasty bugs and have had some nasty crashing the total ticks me off, but for the most part it has been good to me. I have days where it won't stop crashing. A restart will fix that most of the time.

Netshop21:

We are almost running the same machine - DELL - 800MHz, 512 RAM, ELSA Gloria II with 64MB. Even though I do see problems I don't see a slow down.

The is slow down that you are seeing I have found numerous ways of helping others fix this.

1) Check or uncheck the "Software OpenGL"
2) Update your GC drivers - Version I'm using - 2.8.3.2
3) Minimize Background apps
4) faq559-507
5) Check out the help under some of the tools\options menus. It will show ways to help your performance
6) Upgrade to latest SP

There were a couple other ideas, but I can't remember them at the moment.

How big or complicated are your files & Assembly files?

SW03 is way more demanding on your hardware and software than SW01+ ever was. You can probably bet when SW04 comes out it will be more demanding than SW03 is now. That's been the case since SW has been an infant in the CAD world.

Nobody has to like this opinion that I have made about SW03, but I think SW is doing a good job. I agree that I would like to see some more enhancements and lots of bugs repaired, but who doesn't.

Best Regards to you both and I hope to see you all this NG in the future.


Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
When in doubt, always check the help

 

[MechEng13]

netshop,
When I first started with 2003 my box bogged down to uselessness, so much so that I reinstalled 2001+ and was working with it. My CAD Admin contacted the comp manufacturer, Envision Computer Systems, and they said that it sounded like an issue with the chipset driver, there were 3 of us with the slowdown, since Envision sent the updated drivers I have been running just as well as I did with 2001+..

AMD Athalon 1.5
1 Gig DDR Ram
Matrox Millenium G550
Custom box...don't know the rest of the specs.

 

[josephv]

Hello Andrew,

What operations are much slower (e.g. file open, save, rotate, sketch)?

Hmmm... wonder if this is a video card issue...

The ELSA is a bit long in the tooth, it is also out of business, and there are no new drivers for it.

Hello Ed,

Please let us know if there is anything we can help you with. Hopefully, your Reseller is visiting you and helping you out.


Hello netshop21,

Yes, AutoCAD and Word can save as earlier versions.

But in SolidModelling, it is not that simple. For example, now that we have disjoint bodies... how could we save that into an earlier version?

Or the full round fillet? or the sheet metal loft? or sketch contours? or RapidDraft into SolidWorks 2000?

Every new SolidWorks Release adds NEW REAL functionality, it is NOT like other software where you add a "paper clip guy" and call it a new product.

Finally, why would you "love to go back"? Is there a problem that we can help you with?

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[dogarila]

Scott:

1. I did that - no change. I am using the exact same settings I used successfuly with 2001Plus

2. The driver I use is v6.5.0.0 (the latest for IBM stations)

3. I don't run any background applications (with 2001Plus I was able to run Lotus Notes, Autocad etc. with no change in SW speed)

4. no need

5. I have the same options I used with 2001Plus

6. I have the latest SP.

 

[EdDanzer]

As to saving to an older file format. When saving a new part to the old format it would prompt you that it cannot do it because of new features. The time savings would be not having to make several mouse clicks per part when opening and saving a large assembly with older parts. Being able to save to older formats would force SolidWorks to make backwards compatibility a necessity.
What possible advantage is there to changing a file if it works?
Or am I the only person who prefers to reuse what was done correctly once over again?
If your Company is selling products that they designed you should be using the older SolidWorks files regularly for the life of the product. This cost of converting every product to the new file format will average over $100.00 per assembly. As a product matures there is less profit in it to justify the file conversion cost on an annual basis.
If the government has its way with ergonomic regulation, each mouse click, or keyboard stroke will be logged to limit repetitive motion injury. Then the software world will have to do things to reduce wasted motions.

 

[StarrRider]

josephv

I have to disagree with you. I do not believe that saving to an earlier version would be all that hard of an accomplishment for SW to do. Please notice that SW has absolutly no trouble converting an old format to a new one. Granted - there is a difference and exporting new features probably would not be possible. But restoring the original format to files that were "converted" to the current format IS possible - as well as saving files that do not use new features.

SW know the format they used in SW2001+ and any other verison that you can name - so it really would not be difficult for them to save the data in that format. Considering everything that SW does do - There is only one reason that I can see why SW can not accomplish this. It is not in their vested interests to do it.

When SW2001+ was released, there were so many problems with it that I am sure that there would have been a rapid migration (by a large percentage of users) it had been possible then. It sounds like things haven't changed all that much.

The problem is getting SW to admit that the latest version is not the only solution and that there is a NEED for this functionallity. Complaining about their pride and joy version does not work. Pointing out that you have vendors who are still using an earlier version does not work either - they simply smile and say - they will - if they want your business. - Asking for it has not worked either.

I do not like bashing SW. I like and enjoy using the product, but SolidWorks (the corporation) has a serious problem when it comes to releasing SW before the bugs have been eliminated. This is not anything new - it is a recurring theme with SW.

Lee

Never begin a vast project - with a half-vast idea

 

[dogarila]

Lee, I totally agree with you.

 

[SBaugh]

2) Then try the driver I'm using. It won't hurt and you can always go back to the driver you have now.

3)I not only run SW03, but I also run SW01+, MS Outlook, 1-3 Windows Explorers, Terminal services (which is a program that I can use to connect to a server in a different state over the web) at the minimum. I only have half of the amount memory your running. and I'm still running good.

4) Why not? If you don't try how are you going to know if it would help you?

5) So, there maybe some options that would help your performance. It's worth a try to at least see if it will help.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
When in doubt, always check the help

 

[josephv]

Hello Andrew a.k.a. Netshop:

You may have a bad installation. As per Scott the fix is
FAQ559-507

Sometimes bad installations are caused when the AntiVirus was enabled during the SolidWorks installation or Service Pack upgrade.

You may want to uninstall the video driver and get a newer one, as per Scott (and disable the AV when doing this).

Don't want to sound like a broken record. But this is exactly the sort of thing that your VAR should be helping you with. Have you reported this problem with your VAR?

Hello Ed / Lee:

Regarding the Save As older version, your points are well taken. However, what you really should do is send in an Enhancement Request (log in to subscription) and encourage other collegues to do the same.

Remember that disjoint bodies, large assembly mode, lock external references, fill surface, etc... all happened because many customer took the time to send in an enhancement.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[jdsmi]

Other than Autocad, what other CAD product allows backward compatability? This is NOT a SW issue but more of a product of the evolution of technology.
On the other hand, backward compatability was a hot topic at the last SW World conference. I was led to believe that it will be available in later releases. I certainly don't base the quality of the product on that one function though because no one else offers it either.
On the performance issue - I have SW2003 loaded on 15 workstations, most of them older Dell's w/ Elsa Gloria II's and 512 RAM. We saw no performance reduction in migrating from 2001+ to 2003.
I found the key is to make sure that any Virus Detection software be DISABLED before installing/upgrading SW. It took me a couple load/unload/reloads before figuring this out (with the help of this site).

Be patient. The grass won't be any greener in another camp.

Good luck!

 

[TheTick]

All the complaining about new release problems is not unique to SW. Happens with every CAD program out there.

 

[EdDanzer]

As to having SolidWorks allowing you to save / use older file formats, all the enhancement request in the world probably won’t help. I was at their headquarters in 1997, 1998, and 1999 showing them the problem, gave them a cost of ownership value, and offered to give them my parts library of over 10,000 parts to send with every seat they sold. Until a competitor makes inroads into their profits don’t hold your breath.
I personally talked to several hundred companies considering SolidWorks and sold them on functionality, believing that they would fix the file maintenance problem. When SolidWorks bought Toolbox, and Scott Harris left I knew the direction was down hill.
When any of my other tools are as frustrating as SolidWorks I get rid of them as soon as an alternative was available.
Maybe someone from SolidWorks will take some offence if they are bashed enough in public and fix the problem. That will do more good than sending in an enhancement request from my experience.

 

[Stoker]

There is much more income to be made from subscription dollars than from the initial cost of the software. As long as this is true it doesn't make sense for them to offer backwards compatibility - there is too much money to be lost by not forcing the users to maintain subscriptions. Would you give up such a lucrative source of income if you were in their position? In spite of the obvious poor quality control, in general it is still better to be on the current version.

What is not acceptable is the number of bugs and quirks which are easy to find and fix, but which end up making it into the final release of the software. Why can't PhotoWorks II remember the floor height after it has been set? It keeps jumping to some random value between renders. For that matter, why isn't the default floor height 0? How many of us are creating objects that float in space? Why can't I select a face or plane to be my floor? Why does the position of text move depending on how far you zoom in? When I create a section view when working on a model, why do I see the message "Cannot section the model" when the section plane is cutting through the center of the part? Why can I not save custom scenes in PhotoWorks II? The save dialog flashes for a fraction of a second and then disappears. Why do splines often behave as fully defined even when they are not? Why can't I offset a spline in the same sketch as the original? Why do so many edges not get shown in isometric drawing views of parts? I know it can happen in assemblies when parts are overlapping or interfering, but it happens all the time with parts too. These are not enhancement requests. I can do my job with the tool as is, but it would be easier if these things weren't slowing me down.

 

[Jevakil]

Backward compatibility for a 3-D CAD package is a very difficult task to implement. For example how do you save a multi-body model into SW 2001 version, when that version does not support multi-body models?

Having said that, I agree with most of you guys that Solidworks Corporation should be more responsive to its customers. There are issues that a VAR can not answer. So you write to Solidworks, just to get an automated email, and then you never hear back from them again. That is not right.

I believe Solidworks is still the best CAD package. But if it does not start responding to its customers, then Inventor will do to Solidworks what Solidworks did to Pro-e.


jevakil@mapdi.com

One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.

 

[jdsmi]

Anybody who's worked on the old CADDS5 product can appreciate what backwards compatability can get you.

A great product that rapidly became outdated with no future.

As for the other issues, SolidWorks is not without faults. We all deal with our own issues every day. The fact is, all of the CAD vendors have their own faults and the issue is what CAD vendor is willing to address and deal with their faults as best they can.

It's pretty evident that some are having issues with SolidWorks response in some areas (myself included) but they're still tons better than the others I've dealt with.

 

[Mike2411]

SolidWorks puts out a good product. i have tested numerous different CAD packages and it works as well and better then most others. As far as performing poorly on computers, that is usually a computer issue. I work with SW2003 SP3.1 on a beast of a machine (I rum prototyping and scanning equipment on the same machine) and it runs great! I have had some slower systems in the past that couldn't cut it which led me to investing in a faster machine (P4 3.06 Intel, 4 gigs RAM, nVIDIA Quadro FX 2000 graphics card). IMHO graphics cards play a big part in how SW (any version) runs and RAM is the other biggie.
I can understand your frustrations but computer configurations have a lot to do with how the software runs. That is my experience with this whole SW issue since SW98.

Mike Boehm
Global DesignWorks, Inc
Engineering, Design, Prototyping
mike@globaldesignworks.com

 

[JNR]

S'me again. I have been reading through this thread and I have to agree with many of the replies. SW is no different than any other CAD package when it comes to upgrade and bug problems. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. The more mature they get the more problems will arise. Have you people any idea how many lines of code are involved in this type of software? My experience after 24 continuous years in the CAD business is that SolidWorks is probably more responsive to customer input than anyone. However, remember there are now way over 200,000 seats out there - that's a lot of customers to have to listen to. Maturity again..... You want enhancements, you want performance, the stuff gets bigger and more difficult to deal with the logical interactions. Every CAD company out there suffers from the same problems unless they stagnate, then people quit buying and they go belly up.

Anway, here's a couple of things. Your DUAL PROCESSORS BO NOT BUY YOU ANYTHING WITH SW. The only things multi-threaded are the user interface and graphics interface (not in any way that will help with slow graphics). This is a time dependent data base and thus a serial solver nature (y'all love that roll-back and edit don't ya). It does not lend itself to multi-threading.

If you think it is so "easy" to provide backward compatibility, how come you haven't coded that for yourself? Enhancements, changes and additions make it illogical and impossible to provide that service to the VERY FEW percentage of customer who actually are willing to PAY for it - 'cos it has to be paid for one way of the other. For those few, here is what you do. Parasolid out - Parasolid in. AND before you whine and bleat about loosing features - that's about as good as it would be anyway. Then there's how many back revs. Do we have to deal with? Is it every combination. If it really is important, you should get a quote from a 3rd party to write the code for you. That might give you a clue how "easy" it is.

On speed issues, you should read way back in the threads for some of the early speed/errros/graphics problem postings on SW2003. There is plenty of information on this and lots of help (if as I trust, you are willing to listen, which apparently some individuals were not).