Does eanybody know how to convert solidworks 2005 parts and assemblies to a previous version of Solidworks? I have not ound the way to do it! Pleeeeeease help me, my SW05 files are useless if not possible to export them to SW03 retaining parametrical data (to allow changing dimensions ans so forth in SW2003). Thank you
Eng-Tips is the largest forum for Engineering Professionals on the Internet.
Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of engineering information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations dmapguru on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Export from solidworks 2005 to solidworks 2003 3
- Thread starter Caddie
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Save as parasolid. You will have to find out what version of parasolid can be opened in SW03. You will lose all parametric data. It becomnes a dumb solid, but they will be able to open it.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP![[pc2]](/data/assets/smilies/pc2.gif "[pc2] [pc2]")
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
-
1
- #4
Theophilus
Mechanical
If you search this forum on the topic, you'll discover why this cannot be possible. Many features have been added in 2004 and 2005 that simply cannot be replicated in any way in 2003 (at least not as a single feature). Therefore, SW necessarily cannot be made to "think" the same way between versions of this kind.
(It's not M$ Word or anything remotely as simple as that.)
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
(It's not M$ Word or anything remotely as simple as that.)
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
Chris,
I doubt this feature will be added in future versions. it might be but Jeff points out why backwards compatability is a bad idea.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
I doubt this feature will be added in future versions. it might be but Jeff points out why backwards compatability is a bad idea.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
I doubt it will also. But, since SolidWorks is signing on more ACAD users who are used to the feature ... maybe someday they will give in and add it. I'm not holding my breath though.
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 2005 SP0.1
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 2005 SP0.1
I sat through a training session 7 years ago with six AutoCAD users and they were a bunch of closed minded individuals when it came to new MCAD technology. I truely hope that the migration of AutoCAD users to SWx does not affect SWx Corp's forward thinking....otherwise SWx might take full circle as AutoWorks
Best Regards,
Heckler
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups" John Kenneth Galbraith
Best Regards,
Heckler
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups" John Kenneth Galbraith
![[bugeyed]](/data/assets/smilies/bugeyed.gif "[bugeyed] [bugeyed]")
- Thread starter
- #10
I understand that the parametric modelling is more complicated that MS Word and also that there are new features in SW05 not included in previous versions but parametric modelling has been done in the same way for several years and designers of SW should understand that there is a need within companies to share files between different software versions and not having this basic facility creates a lot of problems such as having to build whole projects in several SW versions.
wow...did you type that in one breath? (kidding)
IMO, a company should only have one version of any software they use. Having variuos versions just creates more work and headaches. If you have SW 05 and need to send someone a model to look at and that someone has an earlier version, send him/her an eDrawing or PDF.
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 2005 SP0.1
IMO, a company should only have one version of any software they use. Having variuos versions just creates more work and headaches. If you have SW 05 and need to send someone a model to look at and that someone has an earlier version, send him/her an eDrawing or PDF.
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 2005 SP0.1
Theophilus
Mechanical
Working between versions within several companies or divisions of a company is sometimes required. I would love to have backward compatibility while keeping all parametry. However, I cannot think of a way to do that shy of having a "dumb" feature once in a while in the feature tree.
For example, nothing before SW 2003 can handle multiple-bodied parts. I have no idea how that could be made backward-compatible. To state loudly that somehthing should be available when possibility suggests it cannot be done is somewhat futile--however much I'd like to have it. Sooner or later we must come to grips with reality as it is and figure out a way of getting what we want. (There must be a real, specific path between desire and reality. A is A.)
A slightly less exasperating example might be a full-radius feature. This feature was not available before SW 2004 (or 2003?), and cannot be done as a single feature in a previous version. Perhaps we could propose this feature lose its parametry in exchange for getting most of the features in parametric steps within the feature tree. We would have a series of features that existed in the previous version much as they do in the future version. Impossible features would be represented as "dumb" features or geometry, much as we might have "dumb" surfaces or solids imported within a part.
Knitting this all together and keeping parametry in the rest of the model's features, however, will prove to be a trick when upstream features are edited. How do we keep fixed "dumb" geometry tied to a model that shifts upstream in an edited feature?
Until these crucial questions have rational answers, backward compatibility will not be possible with parametry. Even limited parametry has problems.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
For example, nothing before SW 2003 can handle multiple-bodied parts. I have no idea how that could be made backward-compatible. To state loudly that somehthing should be available when possibility suggests it cannot be done is somewhat futile--however much I'd like to have it. Sooner or later we must come to grips with reality as it is and figure out a way of getting what we want. (There must be a real, specific path between desire and reality. A is A.)
A slightly less exasperating example might be a full-radius feature. This feature was not available before SW 2004 (or 2003?), and cannot be done as a single feature in a previous version. Perhaps we could propose this feature lose its parametry in exchange for getting most of the features in parametric steps within the feature tree. We would have a series of features that existed in the previous version much as they do in the future version. Impossible features would be represented as "dumb" features or geometry, much as we might have "dumb" surfaces or solids imported within a part.
Knitting this all together and keeping parametry in the rest of the model's features, however, will prove to be a trick when upstream features are edited. How do we keep fixed "dumb" geometry tied to a model that shifts upstream in an edited feature?
Until these crucial questions have rational answers, backward compatibility will not be possible with parametry. Even limited parametry has problems.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
Backwards compatibility COULD be had, as it is possible with many other kinds of software and complicated file structures that have new features added every release.
The way it's done in these other types of software is that the file will "lose" the "new" features.
Now, the big problem with Solidworks is the parent/child relationships, so that you can't just "drop" features out of the tree without a spectacular disaster!!!
However, what SolidWorks COULD do is to have a "backwards" wizard, that could analyze what features in the tree would prevent a backward compatibility.
For instance, if you design a part using only features that are available in SW 2001+, then you should be able to down convert that project.
The wizard could highlight the features that prevent the backwards compatibility, and then you could make the design changes needed to down convert.
Now, as a first release of the "backward compatibility" feature, all SW has to do is say "yes or no" and how far back a file can go. I don't see that as being terribly hard.
BUT: Solidworks as a company has no INCENTIVE to do this - they want everyone to buy into their $$$ maintenance program, and by refusing backwards compatibility, they make the upgrades and maintenance more important for most, adding to their bottom line.
A
The way it's done in these other types of software is that the file will "lose" the "new" features.
Now, the big problem with Solidworks is the parent/child relationships, so that you can't just "drop" features out of the tree without a spectacular disaster!!!
However, what SolidWorks COULD do is to have a "backwards" wizard, that could analyze what features in the tree would prevent a backward compatibility.
For instance, if you design a part using only features that are available in SW 2001+, then you should be able to down convert that project.
The wizard could highlight the features that prevent the backwards compatibility, and then you could make the design changes needed to down convert.
Now, as a first release of the "backward compatibility" feature, all SW has to do is say "yes or no" and how far back a file can go. I don't see that as being terribly hard.
BUT: Solidworks as a company has no INCENTIVE to do this - they want everyone to buy into their $$$ maintenance program, and by refusing backwards compatibility, they make the upgrades and maintenance more important for most, adding to their bottom line.
A
Theophilus
Mechanical
I agree to a point. The type of work I do, hardly any of my parametry would work if I arbitrarily lost a feature from a future version, or even converted it into a "dumb" feature (see my web site--lots of complex surfaces). But most of the people using SW probably don't create parts of this sort.
Myndex, you make a good point on the feature investigation for exporting to an older version. If I built a set of plates or other simple geometry (basic extrusions, etc.) it shouldn't be too difficult to convert these same features into their identical features in an older version.
In the case of the geometry I create, I would be hard pressed to make changes to my parts in such a way as to get clearance from such a conversion wizard. If I build a part in 2005, chances are I'm using features previously not available in older versions.
I think it's important that we don't merely say that though SW is complex, an adequate solution for backward compatibility can be readily had. In M$ Word, it's really no big deal if I lose some formatting--the text (content) remains the same and I can alter the formatting in a previous version with little difficulty. However, in SW I can think of several problems to which viable solutions may never be had. Weighing the compromises necessary in reaching a possible solution may reveal a weak and hardly worth-while backward conversion.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
Myndex, you make a good point on the feature investigation for exporting to an older version. If I built a set of plates or other simple geometry (basic extrusions, etc.) it shouldn't be too difficult to convert these same features into their identical features in an older version.
In the case of the geometry I create, I would be hard pressed to make changes to my parts in such a way as to get clearance from such a conversion wizard. If I build a part in 2005, chances are I'm using features previously not available in older versions.
I think it's important that we don't merely say that though SW is complex, an adequate solution for backward compatibility can be readily had. In M$ Word, it's really no big deal if I lose some formatting--the text (content) remains the same and I can alter the formatting in a previous version with little difficulty. However, in SW I can think of several problems to which viable solutions may never be had. Weighing the compromises necessary in reaching a possible solution may reveal a weak and hardly worth-while backward conversion.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
Jeff - you hit the nail "Weighing the compromises necessary in reaching a possible solution may reveal a weak and hardly worth-while backward conversion." I see no real value with "backwards compatibilty" it's just like the word implies backwards.
Best Regards,
Heckler
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups" John Kenneth Galbraith
Best Regards,
Heckler
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups" John Kenneth Galbraith
With Backwards Compatiability will also cost more money for SW to produce, because they will have to update and change the code as needed between major versions. Eventually the users will feel that pinch and it will cost the users more in the long run. People complain enough as it is about Cost and how slow SW gets SP and major versions out now. With SW working a Backwards Compatablity as well as all the improvements+, will will probably see a slow down in major releases and probably SP. I know I don't want to see that happen and I know I don't want the customers to see a cost increase in maintenence.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
-
1
- #17
MElam
Mechanical
- Jan 15, 2004
- 329
Also, if certain features were "dumbed-down" in a backwards translation (and had no way to follow future edits), how would you expect those features to behave once the part eventually moves back up to the latest release? There is no way they would magicly get their parametrics back, and certainly not with the same design intent.
I guess you could keep the original future version and replace once the rest becomes current. BUT - you would have a repeat of the parent/child problems Jeff already mentioned, plus the dumbed-down part could now have changes which make the original obsolete.
Every time this discussion has come up, someone asks for examples of other 3D parametric solid modeling packages that have this ability. I've never seen an answer.
If one package ever figures is out, maybe the rest will follow.
I guess you could keep the original future version and replace once the rest becomes current. BUT - you would have a repeat of the parent/child problems Jeff already mentioned, plus the dumbed-down part could now have changes which make the original obsolete.
Every time this discussion has come up, someone asks for examples of other 3D parametric solid modeling packages that have this ability. I've never seen an answer.
If one package ever figures is out, maybe the rest will follow.
- Status