DWGgateway form Solidworks

rook in the strategy to out maneuver the competition. This in theory should decrease Adesk's cash flow if ACAD users no longer need to upgrade for compatibility reasons. They now need to justify to upgrade based on the limited software advances, 2D can just go so far.

using any version of AutoCAD

users universal DWG compatibility without having to upgrade to the latest version of AutoCAD software. Download DWGgateway today and eliminate the need to upgrade AutoCAD licenses just to be able to share work and collaborate with other AutoCAD users.

When do we get this capability for SolidWorks files? ;>

It could be done for SW also, but that could cut their cash flow. It's ironic that if one uses SW2001 or SW2003 and attempts to use a part downloaded from

which was created with a new SW version, they are screwed. No way to obtain a smart part.

Keith Streich wrote:

rook in the strategy to out maneuver the competition. This in theory should decrease Adesk's cash flow if ACAD users no longer need to upgrade for compatibility reasons. They now need to justify to upgrade based on the limited software advances, 2D can just go so far.

using any version of AutoCAD

users universal DWG compatibility without having to upgrade to the latest version of AutoCAD software. Download DWGgateway today and eliminate the need to upgrade AutoCAD licenses just to be able to share work and collaborate with other AutoCAD users.

When do we get this capability for SolidWorks files? ;>

The cash cow...

What if they offered a reduced subscription for a tool that would translate future versions into whatever your current versions is? Backwards compatability shouldn't be free. Somebody should pay for it. Maybe it shouldn't be the people who are on the current version and don't need it.

Just a thought. I'm not sure I'm right, but the idea is interesting. If I'm on subscription, I don't want my fees paying for backwards compatability with those who refuse to upgrade.

Or maybe it should be dependent on the business relationships involved between users. The reverse translation tool could be an add-in for either user. The vendor has to suck it up and pay the difference. Of course, in that model, we should also have to pay for all the translators we already have. Or is that situation significantly different?

And it seems to work....DWG Gateway that is.

Keith Streich wrote:

rook in the strategy to out maneuver the competition. This in theory should decrease Adesk's cash flow if ACAD users no longer need to upgrade for compatibility reasons. They now need to justify to upgrade based on the limited software advances, 2D can just go so far.

using any version of AutoCAD

users universal DWG compatibility without having to upgrade to the latest version of AutoCAD software. Download DWGgateway today and eliminate the need to upgrade AutoCAD licenses just to be able to share work and collaborate with other AutoCAD users.

national engineering and design show in Chicago this week, maybe it was an off year.

Since they didn't have a booth at the show, one could wonder, perhaps, that they ( autodesk ) were not busily coding sldprtgateway .

One can always hope that was the case.

Keith,

I think it is something of an "apples to oranges" comparison.

2D data is MUCH simpler to convert to older releases. Even AutoCAD has limitations in providing data interoperability between releases (and products). The implementation of "proxy objects" in AutoCAD is "cosmetic" approach to solving this issue.

If SW was to support saving 3D files in older versions, would you accept a mixed model of parametric and dumb surfaces and solids? Where would you draw the line? What if a simple "older" feature (i.e. boss-extrude) was dependent on a "newer" feature (i.e. - a filled surface)? Would you accept limited parametric editing capabilities? What if the "mixed" data was returned to a newer version of SW? Should the data become fully parametric again? The list of problems converting the data is almost endless.

This is the problem with the "proxy objects" approach. There are many ways to "corrupt" the newer data, rendering it limited in usefulness.

Anyone have an opinion on how this should be implemented?

If you examine the parts on 3D Content Central, you will find that they don't incorporate many of the features and design intent that SolidWorks supports.

I think it is safe to say that SolidWorks has code to convert newer files to older releases. I just don't think they have found a reliable way to convert new features to old parametric features, not to mention back again.

My 2 cents.

John

if i could do backward conversions of library (or collab files) i would probably load up and use sw2000. the inherent speed would more than make up for any added features since then, and i could easily use old $300 computers. obviously, this capability wouldn't come from swx!

just a thought. bill