Re: Reading and writing older versions

MM,

You make some interesting and valid observations, but I would suggest that a
partial solution to this problem would serve SolidWorks much better than
their current approach. Since each new release of SolidWorks adds new
features, constructs, etc. it would be appropriate if attempting to save any
of the newer items in an old version would produce an error/warning that the
new entities are not supported. In these cases, SolidWorks could gracefully
notify the user of the problem and not produce the desired old version file.
On the other hand, for geometry that doesn't require the newest features,
entities, etc. SolidWorks could produce the desired old version easily. I
would venture to guess that at least half of all parts created would fall in
this later case and the ability to save them in old versions would be very
beneficial to SolidWorks users. Since cases involving the newer
features/entities would be somewhat frequent as well, these would serve as
an impetus for all users to stay current with SolidWorks. The biggest
advantage of such an approach would be the change in user perception of
SolidWorks Corp. Some of the people that believe the current approach (or
non-approach) to this problem is a manipulative way to force upgrades would
reconsider if SolidWorks made an attempt to deal with older SolidWorks
releases.

If there were no valid reasons for a company to run an older version of
SolidWorks, this topic would be strictly academic. Unfortunately, there are
valid reasons to run older versions. Stability is one reason often
discussed on this newsgroup. I won't say anything more about this reason,
except to note it is one reason. Additionally, there are costs associated
with changing versions other than the basic fees paid to SolidWorks. For a
large company, changing versions requires much coordination, training,
upgrade labor, etc. Such companies don't necessarily choose to go through
the whole process once a year. They choose to minimize the time spent on
upgrades in order to improve their efficiency and minimize their overall
cost, despite paying all of their maintenance fees to SolidWorks. I am
familiar with several large companies (not necessarily using SolidWorks)
that limit the introduction of new versions for this very reason. Often,
they skip some releases because the new releases come out so frequently.

I believe that jss87 is correct when he wrote "Imagine what a company could
do working with it's own files, not someone elses'". SolidWorks should be
able to save their their basic geometric constructs in slightly older
version files with only minimal effort. I would venture to guess that each
new release of SolidWorks does not involve the complete re-definition of the
file formats. For the record, I would only expect SolidWorks to support one
or two years of older SolidWorks versions.

--

- John

John Eric Voltin
Mechanical Engineer
Agile Technology
512-633-0394

"MM" <markm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rYbKe.1135$dk5.756@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> John,
>
> The biggest difference here (and it's huge) is that if your missing
> something in a word doc, or even an Autocad 2D drawing, the system can
> still
> usually read, and use, what's there.
>
> Solid modeling systems in general are much different. The mathematics of
> the
> model "must" resolve to form valid topology within the accuracy of the
> system. With SW that's at least 10e-8 meters, and this is just the
> topology,
> faces, intersections, and vertices.
>
> Add to that the construction database with it's dimensions, geometric
> relations, equations, and all the rest, and you have an exremely complex
> data object.
>
> If the system can't resolve it, (missing, corrupt, incomplete, or wrongly
> defined elements) alot of things can happen. All of them bad by the way.
> At
> best you could get a "corrupt file" warning, and it just won't open. At
> worse, it could freeze or crash the application. Or even crash the entire
> system to a blue screen.
>
> These are just some of the requirements for a model within the software
> version in which it was created. Now you want to save this binary hairball
> to an earlier binary hairball that doesn't support some of the critical
> elements that comprise it's construction in the newer version.
>
> I don't doubt that if SW were to throw enough money and development time
> at
> it, they could make something that worked in "some" cases. The problem is,
> they would take so much heat for the times it didn't work, that they'd
> just
> prefer not to open this can of worms in the first place. Can't say as I
> blame them either
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> "jss87" <jss87@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:MdbKe.2668$Ub1.1560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Well,
>>
>> I know it's not exactly the same thing, but my Word XP will save as other
>> versions back to '95 or even DOS. It will occassionally warn you that
>> some
>> features may be lost, but it at least it tries.
>>
>> It is interesting that Solidworks purports to do the same thing for
> Autocad
>> files. I agree that the SW files may be more complex, but that doesn't
> sound
>> impossible. Imagine what a company could do working with it's own files,
> not
>> someone elses'.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1kcif1526h45baj196h70ifr0u27pci438@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > On 9 Aug 2005 15:37:24 -0700, "ADS" <asked@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>This is a major item of discussion that people want.
>> >
>> > It would be downright silly to ask for.
>> > The ONLY way such could work would be no changes to
>> > the part database structure to support new features of to fix
>> > old bugs. Static.
>> > Even migrating old part database structures forwards is
>> > a wonder at times but must be done in some way.
>> > Never expect more than one release level on that ...
>> > --
>> > Cliff
>>
>>
>
>
>



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reading and writing older versions
    ... ability to export SolidWorks files as dumb solids via parasolid, IGES, etc. ... John Eric Voltin ... > "Making unsupported features dumb solids" kind of rolls off the tounge ...
    (comp.cad.solidworks)
  • Re: SolidWorks Subscription
    ... we have a few individuals that use solidworks on ... reason SW doesnt... ... > development in the last six years as a licensed user. ... > customers to continue this practice. ...
    (comp.cad.solidworks)
  • Re: SolidWorks Subscription
    ... > 2006 for that reason, and I probably won't be anytime soon. ... > SolidWorks don't want to see people doing that. ... I am aware of the $250 going towards the total penalty cost if you sign ... I have been a licensed user of SolidWorks ...
    (comp.cad.solidworks)
  • Re: SolidWorks Subscription
    ... > a part time basis, some use it once a week and or SW dealer wants us to ... > buy seats for ever installed copy of solidworks. ... > reason SW doesnt... ... I have been a licensed user of SolidWorks ...
    (comp.cad.solidworks)
  • Re: upgrading from XP home to XP pro
    ... > upgrading to XP pro if not too expensive. ... Reason I want to do ... these features aren't needed, would never be used, and buying ... Although I'm not personally familiar with Solidworks, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading