2004 SP1.0 is available

That's what it looks like, which of course is an MS thing. When I did my tests I did as 'save-as' to get rid of that extra mirror data. Plus that setting seems a bit flaky because on some files, I had to do a save-as to see any difference at all.

From what I can see, the assembly respects the individual part settings. If the setting is unchecked for a particular part, SolidWorks will not save the tessellation for that part when saving from the assembly.

Another big deal about all of this is how much faster the files save! It would be nice to see some results on the time saved.

I would suggest that you modify your part templates to have that setting disabled so that any new part you make will be ready to go.

Mike Wilson

Reply to
Mike J. Wilson
Loading thread data ...

We were warned about this when SP0.0 became available for download. This isn't news. I don't like it. It was in the release notes or some such. I do think they might have saved some frustration and support expenses if they had done more to make this known. I don't know if I would have caught it myself if I had not been reading this ng on a regular basis and saw it mentioned.

Reply to
Dale Dunn

yep..

Yeah, understood and tested the save as also.

Without testing/timing a lot of large parts, my early conclusion is it saves at least 50% time from before. And re-opening those complex parts, they re-tessellate within seconds and that time is not a factor which would significantly effect a days worth of saving (conservative, 4 saves/hour or a min of 24 saves/day). Even though, if you open the file equally as much as you saved it, the time savings is still ahead from what I've tested so far.

yep.

Reply to
Paul Salvador

I think this issue is somehow related to WI (like it or not, WI looks to be here to stay).

Or it could be a method to help reduce some piracy. Now, pirates cannot just use the downloadable versions. They need the CDs to be able to install SPs (not that CDs cannot be copied).

Reply to
Arlin

Phil,

In the nicest way possible if you paid any attention to what you downloaded you would have seen the warnings in bright red letters explaining this.

Ken

Reply to
CSWP

you don't have a wee file called DatabaseUpdateError.log do you? seems I have a 8.6 and 8.7 file version together

Reply to
neil

Obviously not big enough :-)

Reply to
Phil Evans

BTW I now have the original 2004 disks and it still wouldnt let me update, I can understand the need not to update the downloadable version on its own, but in conjunction with the disks would have been nice.

Reply to
Phil Evans

Hmmm,.. yes...

******************** Thursday, November 06, 2003 23:44:41 ********************

Source Database: c:\SW2004\\toolbox\data utilities\lang\english\updatedb.mdb Destination Database: c:\program files\common files\solidworks data\lang\english\SWBrowser.mdb

Starting update database...

Backup Destination Database: c:\program files\common files\solidworks data\lang\english\SWBrowser.mdbold

Destination Database Version: 8.6 Source Database Version: 8.7

Finished update database...

*********************************************************************

I do not and never have had ToolBox, so I don't understand why that line exist?

Is the 8.6 and 8.7 for Toolbox?

Otherwise, the "sw2004-0.0-1.0-i.log" seems ok? And, it does include the path mentioned above as a update.

..

neil wrote:

Reply to
Paul Salvador

Phil,

You'll have remove the old sp0.0, clean out the registry and do a "new install", then you can apply sp1.0.

Painful, yes, but it's the way to go.

..

Phil Evans wrote:

Reply to
Paul Salvador

I don't have Toolbox either everything else seems in order..... do you have 2003 and 2004 installed also?

Reply to
neil

Reply to
Paul Salvador

I didn't clean the registry on either of my installs, and all seems to be fine....

Reply to
Steve Rauenbuehler

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.