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

 

[TheTick]

Applause for JNR! You found a tactful way to say much of what I believe.

p.s. to everyone out there....
it would be nice if we could put a little more detail into our public profiles (myself included). I'd like to get my SW colleagues a little better.

 

[EdDanzer]

Actually we do pay for the lack of backwards compatibility, and if SolidWorks wasn’t such a moving target, we could afford to pay at least $2,000.00 for programming to give backwards compatibility. But why should we pay an additional cost for programming that SolidWorks should complete and spread out over all the seats because everybody would benefit. They already allow you to open the old file formats, granted you may not be able to save a new file to the old format because of the use of a new feature, but that limitation will have little effect when dealing with older designs.
PLM costs of using SolidWorks with their current mentality will make current customers jump ship as soon as a viable solution is found. Can and will they recognize this problem and fix it?
After spending several thousand dollars talking to them with no evidence of understanding don’t hold your breath.
Unless your company starts to calculate these PLM costs you will see costs continue to spiral out of control, which may cost you customers, or your job.

 

[Rocko]

I strongly disagree that backward compatibility is impossible or difficult.
1) The most important geometry in any model is the sketches typically. They drive the model. If solidworks would at least export the sketches for features on their referenced planes that cannot be exported to a older version you are way ahead of the game and keep the features present that can be translated.
2) I think that the ability to export to the last major release is the easiest to accomplish. I would say that should be the main focus of what we all want. Solidworks if they were smart would have a feature with your subscription service to send them a model and have it sent back translated for the older version. This would give you a good reason to keep the subscription and they could control the best approaches for translation.

 

[SBaugh]

IMHO - I would like to know how could SW save a file from SW03 to SW01+, if some of these types of features were implied in a model made in SW03.

1) Contours
2) Multibodies
3) Combined bodies
a) Add
b) Subtract
c) Common

Any ideas?

Most people would say just make it a dumb solid. Well if that's the case why don't you just use a Parasolid, Step, or Iges?

Best Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
When in doubt, always check the help

 

[JNR]

You thought I was being tactful? OK well, let me try to be a bit more blunt than I thought I was. EdDanzer and Rocko just don't get it do they? I'm sorry guys, nothing personal, but if you think this is all about a few simple sketches then you are sadly and terribly mistaken. As has been pointed out by others, virtually NO CAD companies provide backward compatiblity for really good reasons - it ain't possible. And if they tried there would be so many restrictions, and limitations and errors that the very few (and I still insist it is VERY few) who would use the feature would be whining and complaining that they lost data or it had bugs or some such. BTW: The VAST MAJORITy of us do NOT want to pay for some futile attempt at this just so that a few play with it. Like I said, if you want it will have to go find a 3rd party to write it for you. But you had better have really deep pockets. $2,000 won't even pay for the feasibility study.

Let me try to put this another way. Even MSWord XP cannot backrev without problems if you use any of the newer features - and it's only word processor software!!! You people seem to think CAD is just so simple to code - it's not - it's horribly complex.

 

[EdDanzer]

Apparently I did not make it clear that I DO NOT want to save new geometry features to the old format if it is not possible. Most of the new features are not necessary and shouldn’t be used if you are designing a product for backwards compatibility. The reason for backwards compatibility is also for stability when working with older products designed with older versions of SolidWorks. SolidWorks 98+ worked ok after a few service packs, we were able to complete several complex products at a reasonable cost, but now these files are more expensive and difficult to work with than when they were done in 1998.
I would be nice if some one could give a good reason to resave and repair all the files associated with a 2,000 part assembly every year just so I could print production drawings and make minor upgrades to the product.
Even though some of you may think I’m dumb, I do know how to do time studies to determine the costs incurred completing a task. Every time I have to work on an older product the time wasted resaving and repairing files reduces the company profit.
My job is to control costs, and make the company money, failing to do so will invite failure of the company.
Unless the company you work for likes to reduce their profits to pay you to NOT ADD VALUE when working with SolidWorks you are in good shape, otherwise your company and your job are in jeopardy. It appears some of you don’t understand how SolidWorks is setting you and your company up for failure, but if you wait a few years you may find out the hard way, I have and it sucks.

 

[TheTick]

There is an API option in SaveAs that allows one to save back to SW98. I believe it still works, but is no longer supported.

 

[EdDanzer]

A quote from Cadalyst Newsline: News and Productivity Tips for CAD Users
05/19/03. Volume 8 No. 20

Keith Bentley, Bentley co-founder and co-CTO, says CAD users deserve
the ability to access and reuse their AEC content indefinitely: "That
ability can only be truly unambiguous if content is stored in a
format that is stable, open, and documented versus a format that is
merely 'cracked' and subject to uncertainty due to vendor self-
interest."
Atleast one CAD vendor understands my frustration, even though I've never considered their product, until now.

 

[TheTick]

Ed,

That still only implies forward compatibility with newer versions, not the ability to save to past versions.

 

[EdDanzer]

What part of access and reusability of content indefinitely does not imply backwards compatibility considering the content is stable, open and documented?
Maybe I’m looking at the glass half full, or hoping I’m not alone in the frustration of trying to leverage past work to speed future projects to completion, or reusing existing information without added maintenance cost.
There will need to be a starting point, if SolidWorks would publicly announce that all future versions would handle files created or saved in 2003 without conversion that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[josephv]

Hi Ed / Lee:

Would using GoBack or CleanSlate help you?

That way you can "go back" to the previous version or Service Pack, and your files will "go back" to the previous versions as well.

I am not sure this is a solution, but it may help.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[SBaugh]

To go back a SP you should really install the WI type instead of the Traditional type. In SW04 no one will have a choice of the install type. That is if they want to upgrade to SW04.

Once files are converted to latest version they can't go back. Users should really make backup copies of all their files. I know making backups can be a pain, but that's when and extra HDD can come in handy.

IMHO - (Not to be taken personal Josephv) Go back is one of the worst programs I have ever seen and it gave me the worst headache of having to dealing with it. They are great when you need to go back, or if you’re new to computers, but if something major happens and you have to reinstall or you want to use a different OS. The only way around the program (Even after deleting the partition and formatting C:\) is to write zeros to the drive. Depending on the size of the HDD the longer it will take. 40Gig HDD took 8-10 hours. To long....

At least this is how it is with Gateway computers. I'll never but another gateway or a form of go back again. I'll just backup up my files and if I have to reinstall an OS No big deal. I can load Win2000 in under hour.

Best Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
When in doubt, always check the help

 

[TheTick]

soo.... why not bring your past work forward to 2003?

 

[MadMango]

That's what I was thinking... then it dawned on me that many people (like myself) deal with outside vendors, and many vendors have not upgraded which forces my company to deal with "dumb solids" with these vendors. Parasolid files work great in these situations.

My company has been using SW since SW96+. Each new version that comes out, we get, install it and upgrade files. We've never lost any design data due to a poor upgrade of SW or service pack.

Granted, going to SW03 did cause some of our configurations to go a bit screwy, but they were fixed easily enough by just deleting them and recreating them. After that no problems.

I also understand that not everyone can afford (or works at a company that can) to upgrade each year. I wouldn't say that I'm frustrated as netshop21 posted, but it does get annoying when you see the same multitude of tiny issues that keep poping up or reappearing.

Wanna Tip? faq731-376
"Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities."

 

[EdDanzer]

MadMango,
You must not have done much work in 97+. We were working on several large assemblies when we upgraded to 97+. We had to send over 50 files to SolidWorks for manual repair and chose to redo over 6,000 part files that were corrupted when we saved the assemblies, and updated old files. This all happened in 4 days with 2 seats. We had to send 2 zip disks of files air freight to them for repair and lost spend several days fixing the mess.
The reason we redid most of the parts library parts was for interchangeability of fasteners, bearings and hydraulic fittings. We started using ToolBox for parts but found if a bolt length had to be changed it meant fixing 3 mates.

 

[dogarila]

What a storm of pros and cons!!!

I installed SP3.1 and (magically?) almost all my problems are gone. SW2003 is close to SW2001Plus speed, saves quicker and it doesn't take forever to switch from a part to its assembly and back. It doesn't ask me anymore whether I want to save a part when no chages were made to the part.

SP3.1 fixed everything? I doubt it. I am wondering if my frustrations related to speed weren't actually caused by a temporary reduction in the speed of my company network that I wasn't aware (our IT department is very secretive). The problem I still have is "SolidWorks has teminated due to an unhandled error" (never happened is SW2001Plus), 3 or 4 times per day so I try to remember to save often.

 

[SBaugh]

Have you checked out the KB article at the SW website?

Trouble shooting a Crash Prone system.

It's a very good article on helping a user determine the possible cause of their problems.

Best Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
When in doubt, always check the help

 

[JimSym]

If the issue is being able to complete ECOs on projects created with older versions of SolidWorks, then there is no issue. Unlike Autodesk, SolidWorks does not require that you delete or discontinue using older versions of the software. You can have as many releases as you like on your computer, so you can work with whatever release the project was done in originally. Even contract people who buy a new license can request older versions and get them at no charge.

Being able to save feature-based models back to older versions won't happen. No contraint manager on the market supports backward compatibility and therefore there is not one single parametric solid modeling system on the market that can save feature-based models to previous versions.(Inventor 7 is backward compatible with Inventor 6, but that is only because Inventor 7 isn't really a new release. It's just a service pack with almost no new features.)

 

[Arlin]

From what I hear, even PTC's ATB (associative topology bus) only results in a 'slightly less dumb' solid when a WildFire model in brought into 2001. Even though PTC makes it sound as if WildFire is completely backwards compatible with 2001.

Basically, my understanding is that a WildFire part must be specifically saved using the ATB format. Then, ProE 2001 can open the part and get a dumb solid. The advantage of PTC's ATB, is that a WildFire user can update the original WildFire model and the 2001 (dumb) model will also update.

But, a 2001 user still cannot open and manipulate the WildFire model any more so than any other dumb solid import.

My point... same a a bunch of others here... backwards compatibility is just not going to happen in (today's) parametric MCAD market.

 

[tluxon]

When I first installed SW03, I had a lot of crashing issues. When I talked to the VAR, they suggested that I just delete a certain SolidWorks folder in the W2K registry. SW automatically rebuilt that portion of the registry and Voila! - not a crash since.

Unfortunately, I can't recall precisely which folder they had me delete, so it might not do you any good. It might have been the entire SolidWorks folder under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -> SOFTWARE, but if you contact your VAR they might know about it.

All the best,

Tim