Is there a way to convert parts and other designes from SW2005 to SW2004?
SW2005 ---> parasolid (.x_b) ---->SW2004 --->FeatureWorks----->Autoequal----->Autodimension. Pretty cool, hey? At SWW2003 they talked about having backward compatibility. Haven't seen it yet though.
Welcome to the wonderful one-way world of Solidworks that Doubly shoots in the foot 1. Once upgraded to next version eg swks 2005 you are stuck (even if its flaky at first) & 2. Try sending a file to a colleauge who hasn't upgraded yet all he gets is dumb solids - no features, no parametrics, no use !! ...... Bang Bang !! Imagine if each new release of word made .doc files that couldn't be opened and edited by the very latest version of word ...... Solidworks stop dragging your heals on this ...... all it needs is 'save as' last version.
MicroSoft doesn't change the alphabet or dictionary every time a new version of Word comes out either. That makes it easier.
you have been rather silent about 05 thus far Paul...seems like I have been the only one getting wound up lately... ;o)
Sorry Paul, I just can't believe that SW is that slow. The DS in my backyard doesn't move at all. At SWW they had a big presentation listing all the performance gains SW has seen over the years. Any examples to the contrary?
It moves, but like SW, it's too slow for your to notice it moving. Carefully note the location and size of your DS. Check a couple of years later and you will see that there are no piles where you had them noted. If it's not there, it must have moved. I've only gone to one SWW, in 2000. There was a big presentation on how fast the new version was going to be. When I got the software, I never noticed any improvement. From other people's comments, the same seems to happen every year. I wish I had time to present some examples. I would like to reload SW98+, build some representative parts and assemblies, then load each year's new SW, convert the parts, and note load, rebuild and save times, as well as file sizes. Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"
I actually did that. About 2-5% slower each year and sometimes between SPs. 98+ 99 2000 2001 2001+ 2003 2004 2005 7 releases 1.02^7 = 1.15 or 13% slower 1.05^7 = 1.41 or 39% slower Take your pick or somewhere in between. Actuall DS has one advantage. If you watch over the year the grass will grow faster. Maybe that is what they are measuring? If you think carefully about what they represented at SWW it was performance features, not benchmark or measured results. This suggests there is a widening gap between what they say the software does and what it actually does. After all, if what they said was true you could run a 5,000 part assembly on a 486 by now.
Lack of backwards compatibility has always been blamed on the data structures not being compatible from one release to the next. Back in my Amiga days Commodore had solved that problem for their image files. You could literally put anything in them kind of like structured storage. If your software (yes software) could not read some of the information in the file it didn't matter, it would read in what it could. So what is in a SW file? Feature tree information, a parasolid, display list, custom properties and maybe a few other things. The parasolid is obviously backward compatible. So are the custom properties and the other things. It is the feature tree stuff that is my guess at what causes difficulties. There has to be a way to deal with this in some modular fashion that would allow moving back with the caveat that something might get lost. One way would be to embed the handler for the new capability in the file kind of like eDrawings does.
"At SWW they had a big presentation..." wow. do you really believe everything 'THEY' tell you? instead of asking for examples, did you think to do a test yourself? bob z.
bob z. agrees wholeheartedly with the above. what the ...? why can't they just save?!?!? save something?!?!? just do it! or like bob z.'s T-SHIRT from the Miller Brewery - JUST DID IT. oh yeah, bob z. is /keepin it REAL/ :~)> bob z.
The files are not backwardly compatible by design. This is done for marketing reasons, so you will pay for maintenance and upgrades. They want your money foremost.
Usually it's a major mapping issue. Even migrating forwards may present problems at times for the vendors but this MUST be done. Depends what the changes to the part database structure are. In going forward you can usually get a mapping in one direction. But it's not 1 to 1 going backwards or database changes could be avoided in many cases. HTH
Acknowledged. After all look at the problems Pro/E had with this. When they saved their parts to text base file you had to know how to edit the file and change a date to get backward compatibility...That was, until encryptions wars began. The fact of the matter is that 90% of the SW part files we make have common functionality in them and consist of nothing more than extrudes, cuts, revolves and fillets. The remaining 10%, can be dealt with as parasolids or hybrids. As an example, consider toolbox part. The mdb files are at Access 97 level. Nothing much has changed there for many years. Finally, if something like backward compatibility were desired in a software program then the decision should be made up front to put in the architecture to allow that to happen. It isn't impossible, it just requires the I DID IT attitude. Major issue or not, you would be surprised how difficult things become easier once you decide to do them.
That's not actually material to the issues. Any such would have to work in all cases and you are only thinking of construction sequence I suspect. Some bits may well not have changed for many years. But it only takes one bit. IF you did it there would be no need for any changes to the part database structure. In fact, it would be impossible to do. Many people forget a few things SW is *applications software*, just as an API program would be. Parts are data structures full of data for applications software to work with. It's not all one unified thing <G>.
It's possible to fix bugs & suchlike and add certain "features" in the *applications software* while making no change to the part database structure. An API program would be a simple example of this. I don't know what AutoCad does. Rev 10, much touted & long ago, I think either he's gone again or the new meds are working ... AFAIK he really reads very, very few posts and understands less. IF he read them he'd know a LOT more (except perhaps for his reading comprehension impairment which forces him to copy so much from others). Why not post some ads? He might come slavering .....
