SW scam

[alexit]

Now I know SW and their "future version" is just marketing BS. Probably a line of code like: IF REVNoFile>REVNoSoft THEN Err"Future Version"

eDrawings 2003 cannot open an .edrw eDrawings2004 file..."future version"...there are NO "updated" features, there are no features listed at all...in fact the model/drawings were creating in 2003 and 2004 was only used to create the eDrawing.

We should withhold our "maintence" payments until they give us "Save As" at least ONE previous version.

Rant Mode Off

 

[peterjn]

I will agree 100% they force the update upon us because of this "feature"
If enough companies and individuals complained with their purchasing department by not upgrading maybe they would listen?

Naw, too many users spending the money thats not theirs working for big corporations.

Rant mode off over here also. "Ditto"

 

[fredt]

I agree entirely with you both. SolidWorks is the only software that I work with that will not save as previous version. I dutifully upgraded only to find that my files cannot be read by one important customer who still uses 2003.

Microsoft seems to have gone one step further with older Office software being able to read files directly created in newer versions.

 

[Tinkerer]

I agree it should support being able to "save As" at least one backwards step . 2004 -2003 at least that way those that are reasonably happy with 2003s stability and ease of use can use other models from companies that have been conned into jumping onboard with the latest version.
We waited until sp2.1 came out before we loaded it.
Should have waited until 2006 came out . Aleast by then 2004s service packs would have it running fairly stable (or is it a microshaft xp pro problem????).
Sorry about this post needed a rant.
Brett

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

There may not be any new "features" in eDrawing 2004, but remember that it is reading & saving per SW2004 ... which has many new features over SW2003 & previous versions. You can rant & rave & withold maintenance fees all you want, but it is extremely unlikely to change anything.

Read Thread559-82459 for explanations of why the incompatibility issue exists.

fredt
What other Solid Modeling programs do you use which can save to a previous version?

from (the City of) Barrie, Ontario.

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

 

[DSRT]

Backwards compatibility is a critically needed function with any software one uses. If Solidworks ever hopes to become a mature product, to compete with Autocad then it needs this feature in one of its future releases.

 

[SBaugh]

It's not going to happen... so get over it. See the above thread that CorBlimeyLimey pointed out.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376

 

[ewh]

"Backwards compatibility is a critically needed function with any software one uses. If Solidworks ever hopes to become a mature product, to compete with Autocad then it needs this feature in one of its future releases."

Heaven forbid SW can't compete with Autocad! I guess we had better notify all of the automotive and aerospace companies using mid and high level CAD that they are ALL wrong! Gee, some of these packages have been around for over 20 years, and there's no way they will ever mature! We had all better get used to creating our solids and surfaces on Autocad if we want to use a "mature" system.

Sorry to rant, but it is a Monday morning, and that was a pretty silly post. Seriously, this topic has been beaten to death, and there are many valid reasons why backward compatibility in any progressive CAD system is difficult to achieve. How can you allow for new features and functionality in a previous release, other that stripping them of their parameters? You may as well use a parasolid or iges file.

 

[ctopher]

my 2 cent worth....I will never go backwards to AutoCAD again!
sorry

 

[alexit]

I know EXACTLY "why the incompatibility issue exists" its because of ONE LINE OF CODE --> IF REVNoFile>REVNoSoft THEN Err"Future Version"

I used to use SolidDesigner and each version allows save as to the previous one...if I so desire I can take Rev13 save to Rev12, then take Rev12 and save to Rev11...all the way back to Rev5.1 (the first version I have the media for...)

I understand there are several other HIGH-END 3D software brands that understand this need (SDRC, Unigraphics come to mind, someone please correct me since its been a while I last used those two) I believe other mid-end 3d (Ashlar for one, again some please correct me if I am wrong) also allow previous revisions.

Now, IF the software was solid, so I would not have to have FIVE upgrades in under ONE year to keep all the features working...but thats an industry standard (since M$DOS 5.0 or such) and we'll never see it...


Alex

 

[ewh]

UG has never (to my knowledge) been backward compatible, at least since I first used it, around version 6.

 

[ShaggyPE]

Not to jump in mid stream, but... If SolidDesigner allows you to save as previous version the way you said (I am not disagreeing that it can't, as I have never used it). Then at some point in the save as previous you will run into a problem with the software not recognizing a certain feature. This feature would be one that was new to the next release.

It would be possible to save as previous all the way back to version one if you never utilized a new modelling technique to design anything. Wouldn't that be fun.

OTOH if the software allowed you to save as previous on models that did not utilize new features, that would be reasonable.

 

[ElectroMatt]

There has been a lot of ranting and raving going on in this thread, but nobody commented on what the original comment was about. I believe it was referring to eDrawings 2003 not being able to open a 2004 file.

Why should backwards compatibility not work with these types of files (eDrawings)? Are they not just views of a dumb solid packaged in a PDF-style package? Even Acrobat allows saves back to previous versions.

I think there's way too much complaining going on regarding the software we all use. I think anything that gives us 10x the productivity of a board and a t-square should be admired for what it does right, not the piddly things it does not do.

Lastly, for all those who are still comparing SW to AutoCAD. STOP! I use both, along with Illustrator and Visio and while they are all "Drawing" packages based on the fact that 95% of the output from these programs is a print on paper. They ALL do things differently and ALL do some things better than others.

 

[alexit]

A sweep, loft, revolve, bore, extrude, cut, helix, chamfer, fillet, shell, flange, ad infinitum is the same thing in every version...what is the magic feature in 2004 that prevents me from saving (every single file I have) as 2003 (especially when all the parts were created in 2003, 2001, etc. in the first place?)

Does the feature tree actually change when the file is converted from 2003 to 2004? I mean does the part I made with four individual sheet metal flanges suddenly show "Tab All Edges" because that command is new to 2004? I've never seen it.

I can (barely) see that a part made from scratch in the new version could have some feature that is unrecognizable in a previous version, but files that were "converted" should be able to be backwards compatable.

As it is now the "technical" reasons SW cannot save as is "we would not be able to hold every user hostage when we release a untried *new* release" ...especially now that I see the eDrawings files are "Future Version" limited too...

Alex

 

[SBaugh]

Save your Edrawing04 files as a *.exe then you can send the viewer with your 04 files. Then they will be viewed.

Just a guess here - but - The internal code probably changes for each feature, so that would limit you from going backwards. Also there are some new additions to some of the features. That would limit you also.

If you disagree with all of this and all of us, then you prove us wrong and write your own API or C++ program that will convert recent SW files to older versions of SW.

http://www.baren-boym.com

is trying to create just that program, but it was a horrible attempt to try and do that. It would bring a SW04 file to 03, but the new features were all one dumb imported body. Might as well used a parasolid file... not much change. You also had to save the file out as a particular file type (that baren boym made) then import that file back in to SW and it rebuilt the part. If it couldn't figure it out. It just made it dumb. Most of the part was dumb. So it made it pointless to pay for a program that couldn't do it to what you and I would want to see in a backwards compatibe software.

Regards,

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376

 

[TZellers]

I feel the pain too, but this ain't Word or even AutoCAD. Being unable to read a true-type font doesn't affect a parametric feature....

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

alexit
What other conspiracy theories do you belive in.

Seriously though, CoCreates' SolidDesigner (now OneSpace I believe) was the first solid modeling package I used. I used it for about 5 years and found it to be an excellent package. It used text based machine shop terms instead of illogical/cryptic icons, which was great for a first time user. SD is a feature based program rather than history/surface based, so perhaps that may be why it was able to do a backward save-as. I don't doubt that SD could save backwards, but I never needed to do it, so cannot confirm or deny that it actually did.

However, during my stint with SD I cannot remember any addition of really new features in any of the updates. Sure it had nice GUI changes & even made some commands more "intelligent" by pre-selecting your next possible move, but nothing ... to my memory ... which would have involved substantial program code change. Most changes made were to the Annotation module (or ME10) & it's integration with SD.

Changes like multi-bodies in 2003, new style sheet metal in 2001+, etc didn't happen in SD. Maybe it has changed now ... I haven't seen it in nearly 4 years.

mfshadow
There has been a lot of ranting and raving going on in this thread, but nobody commented on what the original comment was about.
See my post ... fifth from the top
Are they not just views of a dumb solid packaged in a PDF-style package?.
I don't think the views are as dumb as ... ... hmmm ... I think I'll stop here before I get Red Flagged.

from (the City of) Barrie, Ontario.

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.

 

[SWCADMAN]

Think b4 upgrading too newer version of any software...in this case SW...one must ask yourself do I really need to upgrade to sw2004 from sw2003?..what new feature does the new release have that will help in my designs? I use sw2003, which is an excellent product and will upgrade to sw2004 when sw2005 comes out. I've been doing this upgrade sequence since sw2001 and have had no problems with compatibility issues with my customers. Especially the one's over seas. So to summerize...don't upgrade to SW2004 until SW2005 is released unless there's some new feature that you absolutly want to play with.

SWCADMAN

 

[uncleal52]

Isn't edrawings free? Why can't you just download edrawings2004 to open the file... even though you run SW2003?

If you are sending to a client... most of the time all they care about is interface points (not changing your design). Any dumb solid is all you really need (and sometimes the only thing you want to send).

 

[JNR]

I don't want to sound uncharitable. but!!!!!

I am tired of this hoary old issue coming up over and over and over and .... again.

I'm sorry if you people don't get it and are unable to understand why backward compatibility is not possible with this type of modelling/CAD package. However I echo what Scott said. Please let's save formum space and time whining and bleating about it. It is not going to happen - get over it.

I might add that there are many major software packges of all kinds that also suffer from this so called "deficiency" to some degree or other. It just so happens in many cases that enhancements in some of them do not really change the database structure to an irreversable degree - so they can kinda get away with it to some extent for a rev or two.

If you want a cheap package which gives some backwards compatibility then go buy it, but don't complaint it does not have the same capabilities, longevitiy, support, whatever as SolidWorks.

It's really that simple.

John Richards Sr. Mech. Engr.
Rockwell Collins Flight Dynamics

There's no place like 127.0.0.1