Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
solidworks 2008-2009 file compatability 2
- Thread starter njsavage
- Start date
In AutoCAD, you can save back as many versions you like. This seems to be one of the biggest gripes about SolidWorks, especially from ex-ACAD users.
Send SW the suggestion to make this available.
Deepak's suggestion is the only way for now.
Chris
SolidWorks 09 SP4.1
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
Send SW the suggestion to make this available.
Deepak's suggestion is the only way for now.
Chris
SolidWorks 09 SP4.1
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
-
1
- #4
Theophilus
Mechanical
Wow, it appears njsavage's question hasn't yet lead to a crucifixion. If that would have been asked a year or two ago, bad things would have happened.
Perhaps the tide is turning among the faithful users to truly question why some form of backward compatibility is impossible?
But I agree with TheTick, the simple placement of a one-dimensional line--even in color--is no reason not to have backward compatibility with such a product. There are some features in SolidWorks that simply don't exist in previous versions. Somehow this issue would need to be addressed properly for real backward compatibility, even if the new feature were imported into the older version of SW as a "dumb" surface/solid/feature/whatever.
Regardless, many files could be read perfectly fine by previous versions, but are hindered from doing so by the software. If I open a new part and sketch nothing on the Front plane and save that "part" file, an older version of SW will not read it. Why not? There are many such features I'd guess would import to previous versions just fine without any issues.
Jeff Mowry
A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.
Perhaps the tide is turning among the faithful users to truly question why some form of backward compatibility is impossible?
But I agree with TheTick, the simple placement of a one-dimensional line--even in color--is no reason not to have backward compatibility with such a product. There are some features in SolidWorks that simply don't exist in previous versions. Somehow this issue would need to be addressed properly for real backward compatibility, even if the new feature were imported into the older version of SW as a "dumb" surface/solid/feature/whatever.
Regardless, many files could be read perfectly fine by previous versions, but are hindered from doing so by the software. If I open a new part and sketch nothing on the Front plane and save that "part" file, an older version of SW will not read it. Why not? There are many such features I'd guess would import to previous versions just fine without any issues.
Jeff Mowry
A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.
I was about to ask if we can put a permanent sticky note at the top of this forum that addresses that question. So, can we?
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
Matt,
if we stickied the handful of topics that get repeatedly answered here you'd have to go two pages in to see new content.
Joe Hasik,
CSWP/SMTL/MTLS
SW 09 x64, SP 4.1
Dell T3400
Intel Core2 Quad
Q6700 2.66 GHz
3.93 GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
if we stickied the handful of topics that get repeatedly answered here you'd have to go two pages in to see new content.
Joe Hasik,
CSWP/SMTL/MTLS
SW 09 x64, SP 4.1
Dell T3400
Intel Core2 Quad
Q6700 2.66 GHz
3.93 GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
Theophilus
Mechanical
Make the display of those two pages of sticky topics cookie-dependent. Haven't been here before? You get to read through all the sticky stuff first. After that? No longer displayed.
Jeff Mowry
A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.
Jeff Mowry
A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.
-
1
- #9
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
A single sticky pointing to the FAQ section combined with Theo's idea might help.
"It's so crazy it just might work!"
"It's so crazy it just might work!"
Theophilus
Mechanical
(Star for good use of one of my favorite generic movie quotes ever.)
Jeff Mowry
A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.
Jeff Mowry
A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.
People
I have a real problem with Backwards combatibility........not with soliworks parts or drawings but with E-drawings..........There is no real reason why the E-drawing cannot be Backwards combatible........Just like PDFs............We have real trouble convincing our IT to upgrade E-drawing on all the PCs in company just because we want to upgrade to SWX2010........That is the reason we are still on SWX2008............I regret my decision to share the drawings thru E-drawings in the begining......
I have a real problem with Backwards combatibility........not with soliworks parts or drawings but with E-drawings..........There is no real reason why the E-drawing cannot be Backwards combatible........Just like PDFs............We have real trouble convincing our IT to upgrade E-drawing on all the PCs in company just because we want to upgrade to SWX2010........That is the reason we are still on SWX2008............I regret my decision to share the drawings thru E-drawings in the begining......
Pro/E does offer something in this area called a Neutral file that can be opened in earlier versions and if features are created they'll appear as features in the Later Program but the features don't show in the Early version. They also have a.neu Neutral File but that's no better than the Parasolid.
If you are working with another Company on a project you can both use a version you have in common and that's the best way to save time over using a number of parasolid files and having a might be export import nightmare. If somebody has 2009 installed they can run SolidWorks versions back to 2003 or earlier so there should be no problem working that out.
Typically for any 3D cad system because the products evolve look at the differences of SolidWorks over the Years. I found a video that shows the what's new in most if not all years of SolidWorks Don't have that handy but can post it later. If you create something using a new feature type or capability in 2009 then how is SolidWorks 2007 gonna know how to deal with that Feature type. They can probably work out a backwards compatability but that would lead to customers buying and keeping one seat on maintenance and saving all the files created on that version back to 2008.
Michael
If you are working with another Company on a project you can both use a version you have in common and that's the best way to save time over using a number of parasolid files and having a might be export import nightmare. If somebody has 2009 installed they can run SolidWorks versions back to 2003 or earlier so there should be no problem working that out.
Typically for any 3D cad system because the products evolve look at the differences of SolidWorks over the Years. I found a video that shows the what's new in most if not all years of SolidWorks Don't have that handy but can post it later. If you create something using a new feature type or capability in 2009 then how is SolidWorks 2007 gonna know how to deal with that Feature type. They can probably work out a backwards compatability but that would lead to customers buying and keeping one seat on maintenance and saving all the files created on that version back to 2008.
Michael
beachcomber
Mechanical
Now that the mainstream modellers are introducing direct modelling I believe there is even less reason not to have backward compatibility, albeit only between versions that can use direct modelling.
However, somehow I don't think this will be the case. They will still come up with a reason for not being able to do it.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
However, somehow I don't think this will be the case. They will still come up with a reason for not being able to do it.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
beachcomber
Mechanical
cbl,
I don't know - I'll ask on SE forum.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
I don't know - I'll ask on SE forum.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
beachcomber
Mechanical
No ST1 can't directly read ST2 files.
ST still contains 'features' but no history.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
ST still contains 'features' but no history.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
- Status