SP 2.1 Must Be OK???

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by Bo, Mar 1, 2004.

  1. Bo

    Bo Guest

    I'm a reluctant upgrader, still on 2003 SP5.

    Has 2004 SP 2.1 worked out well for standard sorts of work, excluding
    surfacing issues?

    I'm thinking SP3 may be the time to upgrade.

    Thanks - Bo
     
    Bo, Mar 1, 2004
    #1
  2. Bo

    Wayne Tiffany Guest

    We finally jumped in after the release of 2.1 and I'm not sorry - wouldn't
    want to go back. There are some issues, but, in my opinion, not serious,
    and not enough to stop the show like there were with 1.0 & 2.0.

    WT
     
    Wayne Tiffany, Mar 1, 2004
    #2
  3. Bo

    Paul Salvador Guest

    Chicken... ;^)

    Only rumors... and past history, but sp3.0 (release.. soon?) will most
    likely be better.

    I would bet surfaces (lofts/fill/sweeps) and curves will again have
    another algorithm change/mod and other past surfaces and boundaries will
    fail,...sweet, as always.

    Consistently inconsistent per SW Corp = more subscription and next
    release promises = revenue!!

    And, btw, I'm tired of ctrl-q'ing surfaces/curves (pos/pita). (even
    with resolve on)

    ...
     
    Paul Salvador, Mar 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Bo

    Bo Clawson Guest

    Thanks Paul.

    Chicken? Pioneers & birds took the arrows. I would rather be the
    entrepeneur who rides the rails.

    I do use lofts and sweeps a bit, but not surfaces for my prismatic
    solids production work.

    Think I'll jump when SP3 hits.

    Later - Bo
     
    Bo Clawson, Mar 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Bo

    Jacob Filek Guest

    Why would anyone be reluctant to upgrade to the latest version of
    SolidWorks?

    What a sorry state that anyone using SolidWorks for the past few years would
    be "Reluctant" to upgrade or install a SP.
    I thought the reason we all are paying subscription $$$ was to better are
    software tools.
    This says allot about the dilemma facing users who have lost time/money
    because of software upgrades or bad SP's.
     
    Jacob Filek, Mar 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Bo

    Jacob Filek Guest

    BTW I'm using 2004 SP2.1

     
    Jacob Filek, Mar 2, 2004
    #6
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads

  1. Someone must know how to do this.......

  2. This must be a bug

  3. How to solve layout Minimum Density Area across chip / CHIP Area must be >= 14%

  4. what must be associated in verilog file with LEF when imported in the SOC ENCOUNTER?

  5. Waveform type must be specified if any waveform parameters are given???

  6. "*Error* length: argument must be a list or an array

  7. command line CDL out - cadence lib' must be local?

  8. a must see!!!!

Loading...