×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

frustrated with SW2003

frustrated with SW2003

frustrated with SW2003

(OP)
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
  

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

(OP)
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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

(OP)
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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

(OP)
Lee, I totally agree with you.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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






RE: frustrated with SW2003

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!

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.  

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

     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
 

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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).

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

Ed,

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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."

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

(OP)
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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.)

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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.

RE: frustrated with SW2003

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

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources