Error message in V5.

[dtwo]

I am trying to open a Catpart from an external supplier and getting the following error messages:

".....Wrong application level."

and "....Invalid data structure."


We are using release 14.

 

[catiajim]

The data is at a higher level than R14. Talk to your supplier and see if they can save the geometry to a lower level of CATIA.

 

[dtwo]

catiajim,

you are correct. The supplier is using R16. Now my next obvious question- Can a model created in R16 be saved as R14?

 

[DBezaire]

Your supplier can perform a downward migration. This will result in a dumb solid. The downward migration is a translation, results are not perfect.

Regards,
Derek

 

[solid7]

NOTE:

YOu cannot downward convert it yourself. You will have to ask your customer to do that for you. Unless you install R16. In that event, it would be mostly pointless to convert it, unless you are releasing the dumb solid. (you can create a separate environment for the new version)

Our company has a very strict policy about asking for which version to supply data in. This is a constant source of confusion and frustration. Always be aware of this when dealing with others. It is very easily overlooked, by all parties.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[kboy]

dtwo

This is extremely frustrating and something that we all inevitably come across, I have several different installations at work based upon what customer programme we are working on.
Where I can I use step in the absence of native V5 data, & then just save as CAT part, of course you have to pay £4K for the license first.
Ironiclly, if you have native V4 data and paste with spec into V5 you get full history in V5!

So you see, Dassaut can solve this problem if they wish, but there is no incentive, just force users to upgrade, in the meantime, What a great incentive to sell V5 to users with leagacy data in V4...

Maybe I'm just getting cynical, but the interoprability, or lack of is an ongoing headache for us all.

 

[solid7]

if you have native V4 data and paste with spec into V5 you get full history in V5!

You call that a conversion? How do you convert "history" from a CAD system that had none? And on top of that, because of differences in modeling kernels and tolerances, the "conversion" is seldom pleasant.

Believe me when I tell you this. I do MANY V4 to V5 conversions for customers in many different industries. This, along with Pro/E data, (pre Pro/E wildfire) are some of the most difficult files to deal with.

So you see, Dassaut can solve this problem if they wish, but there is no incentive, just force users to upgrade, in the meantime, What a great incentive to sell V5 to users with leagacy data in V4...

Maybe I'm just getting cynical, but the interoprability, or lack of is an ongoing headache for us all.

Yes, you are just being cynical.

STEP is still not the answer to the problem. Catia V4 files are usually hard to translate to ANY system. They are damn near impossible to get good IGES or STEP data from, in many, if not most cases. (see above response) When I say "good", I mean complete solids or volumes, of course.

What you describe is a good way to cut one's nose off despite the face, and this perception has been a big problem for Dassault. It is a strategy that even they would correct, I am quite sure, if it were so simplistic. V5 sells itself, or forces V4 users to upgrade, in that V4 has a cutoff date, and every Dassault customer knows this. They don't have to be further strong-armed.

There are others doing interoperability much better, to be sure. But your problem is just a simple case of not managing your product or your supply chain well. If that's frustrating, my suggestion is to take note, and don't let it happen again.

I have 4 configurations of Catia installed on each of our machines. I know by now that I have to send/receive my data in a readable format, so I make my customers supply me with the correct release data. It's NOT hard to set up a Catia environment, (especially in Windows) so there's no excuse for blaming a software company for incorrect data release levels. This is not Adobe Acrobat or MS Word. Some things just won't span versions.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[kboy]

Solid 7

You may find this difficult to believe, but your not the only guy who uses multiple CAD systems!

I fully understand, the regimented data exchange laid down by OEM'S, Including all the big Automotive players,,

Do you have shares in Dassault!!!! Or a re-seller!

Believe me, I have used many CAD systems for a long time now, including Pro-E, Ideas, V4, UG, Solidworks to name but a few, but find the re-occuring license fees and nemerous other license fees laid down by IBM ,(YES INCLUDING STEP A JOKE)!!

I look at the value for money af an MCAD system like Solidworks, and think what a great package.
As a director of the business I could save a lot of time and money if the OEM'S we deal with would take solidworks etc, but no, I have to supply in the right V5 release, & service pack, & hot fix in some cases, which consequently means, sorry we screwed up in the first place!

Is that cynical enough for you!


As for V4 data transfer, yes, I understand it has mixed success, I also do numerous conversions.

 

[solid7]

You may find this difficult to believe, but your not the only guy who uses multiple CAD systems!

Nor did I insinuate that I was. My lack of sympathy should not be construed as some sort of complex.

but find the re-occuring license fees and nemerous other license fees laid down by IBM ,(YES INCLUDING STEP A JOKE)!!

All of the high end CAD packages have a "right to use" agreement, which governs the payment of maintenance. However much I may dislkike that, I DID sign the dotted line... (and you/your company did also)

As a director of the business I could save a lot of time and money if the OEM'S we deal with would take solidworks etc, but no, I have to supply in the right V5 release, & service pack, & hot fix in some cases, which consequently means, sorry we screwed up in the first place!

Is that cynical enough for you!

Actually, it's way too cynical for me.

As a "director of business", you shouldn't be looking to save time or money with Catia. You should be looking at using it as efficiently as possible, while passing your expenses on to those who demand that you use it. Or, you should look to other companies and/or industries where your products and services provide more attractive gains. The other option is to outsource to a third party, who can eliminate the headache and frustration for you. (which is what our company does everyday, with no overhead to our customer)

I don't mean that to sound rude - just to illustrate that having data in the correct version is still required, and that doesn't matter WHAT CAD you are using... (which is why I don't understand the indignation, since it's the same story with any parametric CAD system out there)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[kboy]

Solid 7

Ok, I take on board some of your points...

We have outsourced in the past with varied sucess, Along with resident contract staff who have turned out to be quite dissapointing.

But, as customers I feel our voices should be heard, then maybe in the next release we will have the functioanlity we are asking for. I have already seen impressive enhancements with the latest releases.


I think Catia V5 is extremely powerful, but just think with a little extra effort could be much, much better.

 

[JasonAiken]

The person with R16 can try a "CATBack" to R14.
This usually works - unless a feature created in R16 does not exist in R14, or other reasons.
Tools - Utility - DownwardCompatibility
You can go back as far as R6.

Thanks
Jason

 

[DBezaire]

Jason - as stated the above 2 posts (Jan 29) You can perform a downward migration - no history to the solid.

Regards,
Derek