Re: SW2006 file format

Beta testing...that's a whole other topic that perplexes me. Who are all
these masses of people willing to work spending their evenings, weekends or
even their employers time troubleshooting software that they paying for, for
free? What other industry in the world gets away operating like this?

Anyway, have your ever noticed how the file formats change in different Beta
versions? I find that curious. If you create parts in an older beta
version, you can open them in a newer beta version or released version, but
not the other way around. I suspect the reason is to prevent people from
using pirated beta versions for production.

The point I'm trying to make is they appear to be able to change the file
formats and structures at the drop of a hat making few, if any changes to
the program itself. I bet it's as easy as changing a setting number during
the compiling process. So I wouldn't automaticy believe a change in file
format is the result of coding changes to the program.


"HardXBow" <noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g%pUe.247$ib1.223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Well, now that I am in the conversation... I am positive it is not for
> lack of trying on the part of SW to get it right with one file format as a
> significant portion of my time each year with Beta testing is spent
> dealing with conversion problems and submitting conversion errors even
> before I get to see what's new and submit enhancment requests. I am sure
> they would forego this every year if they could - I know I would.
> However, each year it gets better with less and less conversion errors.
> Although it is up to us to help them by continueing to stay active and
> give positive criticism, these changes are for the better. You may have a
> preference for some other CAD program and are therefore biased - as am I
> for SolidWorks - but I have made the decision to use it for the long haul
> and thus stay active in its development; as do many other people including
> the several thousand beta testers each year.
>
>
> "abc" <abc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:BNGdnT6_pfC1Z7zeRVn-iw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Dude
>>
>> I hate to say this but I think your the idiot. To blindly assume and
>> accept that no version compatibility of any sort is possible within SW is
>> totally BS and you've totally suckered yourself into believing what they
>> want you to believe.
>>
>> I agree that some feature types cannot import/export due to new feature
>> enhancements. So what? Let them still import as dumb solids anyway and
>> let the rest of the features import as normal. At the very least, let
>> drawings import.
>>
>> Take a look at all the things FeaturWorks can do now. It can even
>> recognize features to use as hole wizard features in dumb solids. Hard
>> to believe that these kinds of technologies can't be used within SW on
>> their own file structure for translations.
>>
>> Look at the evidence. You can export files as ProE, and Catia, but you
>> can't export older versions of SW. You can import Catia, Pro E, UG,
>> Inventor Solidedge, and Cadkey. But you can't import newer SW files.
>> They got it rapped up tight only for themselves.
>>
>> As service packs are released for older versions of SW, they could
>> include updates that would allow for translations to open newer file
>> versions of SW. When a version of SW is no longer supported, then they
>> could stop worrying about translations for it.
>>
>> I know it could be done, but they have no financial incentive to do it
>> and they want everybody think it's not possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> <ken.maren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1126290532.544045.174540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>i hate to do this but you're an idiot. you are talking about a 3D file
>>> vs. a flat 2D file. That's nearly no different than word files being
>>> opened from office 97 to office 2003 and back and forth. There's
>>> nothing to translate.
>>>
>>> Tell me how that one might translate a SolidWorks file that uses the
>>> flex feature back to SolidWorks 2003? There have been many theories
>>> and good ideas too but you post is by far the most idiotic post I have
>>> read in a long time.
>>>
>>> KM
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disable third party extensions
    ... No, its a feature of Service Pack 2, which is currently in beta testing. ... install it at your own risk. ... MS-MVP Windows Media Center\Windows Powered Smart Display ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: VS 2005: Gradient background colour lost after going from beta 2 -
    ... For some reason this property does not need to be set in beta 2. ... >> Alexey Borzenkov ... >>> I know this feature can be replicated in code, ... >>> Is there some way to force my app to use that colour scheme by default? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms)
  • Re: Meraki Wifi Stumbler
    ... I like running the bleeding edge firmware before I inflict ... multiple SSID feature. ... I guess my question was how are you running SP2 when it's not ... Would you settle for Pre SP2 Beta or do you only run "released" ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)
  • Re: VS 2005: Gradient background colour lost after going from beta 2 -
    ... Its just the background coulour thats changed. ... >> I have been playing round with the beta of VS 2005 and built a simple ... >> I know this feature can be replicated in code, ... >> the .NET framework i was using, but it was also a beta) so I am at a ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms)