Is there anyway to open and edit 2007 files using 2006

I have upgraded to 2007 but on a second machine have 2006 installed. Is there any way to open and edit files created in 2007 with 2006. It keeps
giving me future version problems.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bad news dude...
restore your 2006 files from those eternal backups that you might have!
Once you take the leap of faith, there is no return.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rkremser wrote:

Man I wish I could charge $1.00 for every one that asks this question. I wouldn't have to work the rest of my life. Not only is it not possible it probably never will be. SW needs to put a big red banner when it installs a new version that any file saved in this version will not be able to be opened in any older version. People have to remember that SW is not or ever will be Autocad. If you look at any other parametric modeler, this is not possible in those either. Once you've saved in new version, old version wont open them.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you are really desperate you could try saving the file in STEP, IGES, SAT (ACIS), VDA-FS, or Parasolid format - then use featureworks to restore "some" intelligence to the dumb solid
Kev
j wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The only way this will ever be possible with any parametric cad package is if they only make improvements to the gui interface, code optimaizations for speed, bug fixes, and just general interface improvements. Any time they add a new feature or geometry creation functionality the file will automatically not be backwards compatible. This is because the old version will not reconize this new math/data for this underlying feature process.
To some, this may not be a bad idea for a a version or two. I however, welcome improvements to feature creation and new functionality in general.
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. UG has been merging the I-DEAS and NX CAD programs for the last few years, and the migration process has been steadily improving so that there will (eventually) be no loss of associativity at all when migrating the data.
The relevance here is that at earlier releases, many of the part features would seamlessly migrate over, but some would not, for the reasons you have given above. What happens with those features is that they get converted to what SWX would call "imported" features. There's no reason why this couldn't be the way SWX saved files as an earlier version, but they choose not to in order to maximise revenue from maintenance contracts.
It's swiings and roundabouts - if they allowed saving as an earlier version, then unit maintenance costs would rise to compensate for that the fact that fewer people would be forced to upgrade.
John H
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SolidWorks figured out how to make AutoCAD backwards compatible. Very useful. SolidWorks could make it happen if they wanted too! Like someone else mentioned, it is all about revenue.
Kman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'll never understand how anyone can compare 2-dimensional "dumb" lines and arcs along with notes and text to the 3d parametric cad system.
And I suppose even if it could be done people really think this could be done at no extra develepment cost???? They have a hard enough time making a 2006 file work correctly with a 2006 version of SolidWorks. And now your asking a 2007 file to work correctly in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003.... I see development time and manpower ballooing and we would probably expect this for free as well.
I just want my 07 file to work correctly with 07 Solidworks please. Thanks! Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So why do you think 2007 will be any different from all the past releases! Compatibility would be a huge savings in manpower and just think of the collaboration possible. Isn't that one of SW themes "collaboration" what a great word for sales and marketing types. I too would like 2007 to be relatively squeaky clean before jumping into the next release. Been waiting for event since 1999
Ever wonder how automotive and plane manufacturers manage to build high quality vehicles year after year, hundreds of thousands of parts and almost unimaginable collaboration and logistics. And no doubt using flawed software to boot. They must be gods.
Kman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There was a time when AutoCAD users clamored for backwards compatibility. Can you guess what some of the excuses were for why it couldn't be done.
Kman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There was also once upon a time when computers and software were much more simple in terms of program logic and system complexity. Remember the GREAT old days of DOS!!!! I seem to remember a famous quote from Bill Gates himself about "who would ever need more 640 kb of ram?????"
This seems laughable now when we begin to think about the complexity of systems and programming depth. It's actuall hard to believe how far it's come since the DOS days.
The same holds true with CAD software. The programming and complexity for the tools we have today I would believe compare even with any of todays operating systems. I truley believe we have entered an era where "backwards compatabilty" is an idea that has to be left behind in order to move forward with the advancing complexity we demand in future releases.
However, I don't mean to sound overly pessamistic.... ; ) Maybe one day they will prove me wrong and somehow develope a more robust and modularized coding/information structure that will provide for this type of backwards compatabilty. But unitl then... I can't name one 3D CAD package (even Autodesk's Inventor) that can save to a previous release..... dare to dream though!
nuff said. Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@norgrenauto.com wrote:

AutoCAD 2007 can save as previous versions 2007, 2004, 2000, and Release 14.
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Autocad's not a 3d modeler either....easier to maintain backwards compatiblity when they add no new features....just lines, arcs, and text for the most part. Also, not sure I'd trust anything saved back. In the case of Autocad, try saving a multi paperspace page layout to a version (r14) that didn't have that capability. Person opening it in r14 won't even know there were extra sheets as they are now gone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This revenue excuse seems kinds of contradictive don't you think???? It would seem to me that there IS a big demand for this type of thing. This would be something that would draw in customers I would think... this would be the biggest thing a 3D CAD marketer has ever had in there selling engine. If this were simple and could be done, don't you think someone would have developed it by now?
I think it has been seriously looked in too. I just don't think it makes buisness sense economically for them. And I mean this in terms of the complexity and cost in order to make this become a reality.
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good point - but it depends on how the question to customers is phrased ! (or they would just get the answers they want to hear - ie easy route/status quo).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is a question of how many users will upgrade if they can remain on same release with backwards capability. Coaxing users to upgrade is how they make their profits. Selling a seat one time isn't how they generate the lion share of profits each year. So to answer your question, I don't think the "revenue excuse" is contradictive.
Kman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If new releases don't have enough VALUE in them to "coax" users to upgrade then is is just a matter of time before some competitor figurs out how to pull in these SW customers. The non-implementation of backwards compatability and other similar issues to promote sales is basically extortion and in the end this type of "marketing" will hurt SW and the users in general.
Edt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No other 3d parametric cad program offers backwards compatability so what's the incentive to switch? I'm sure it can be programmed but I can imagine it would be a tremendous amount of effort and would be a support nightmare for only a few handful of users that want this. Not to mention that this would be a project for Solidworks to work on for every new release which takes away from other development projects.
Anyway, this comes up quite a bit, if it was easy, some cad vender would be doing it by now.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After reading through this post, both sides of the coin have some valid points on what should, could, and in the future might possibly be.
That said, it's always easiest to say what one would do "if"...... (insert phrase)
Kind of hard to see the big or overall picture when one does not have all of the pieces, or at least have some notion of what is and is not possible. If anything, time has shown, the human brain (intelligence) can quite possibly figure out any solution to a problem. That said, and not trying to get too philosophical, it's only once you understand the rules can you truly break them.
One of the main bullet points that have been brought up is that if a new feature is used in the program, what will it be in the past version. The solution was thrown out; just turn it into a "dumb" feature. But think about that for a second..... about how long your Feature Manager Tree (FMT) can get, how many Parent child relationships have been established, how this is just not a straight line anymore. Parametric programs are now akin to spider webs.
And I know that we all know and understand that these "rules" are in place. But take a step back for a second and really start to examine what is being asked.
Take my FMT and examine the 2,3,400 features that I have, Track and understand what was not in the previous version of the program Change that specific feature into a "dumb" solid AND, make sure that ALL relationships don't blow up, so that when I make a change everything holds true.
Not saying impossible, just a mighty big undertaking. Granted, there is tons of new user's everyday, but by now most of you seasoned veterans know about the sting, so there isn't any real reason to get caught by the upgrade bug.
I dunno, just 2 cents......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think you hit on it, most of us don't know how hard it is and how much could go wrong. Hell, sometimes going up to a new version results in feature failures. And many probably don't realize that some of the underlying code for a feature changes from release to release which is what causes these errors. Now imagine going back to a previous version or two and the feature no longer has the code that made it work in the first place. Perhaps it works and doesn't error but gives you different geometry, it happens sometimes going forward, gonig back will be worse. I would be scared to trust the model that's been saved back.
I do see two ways that may it could work on a smaller scale.
1. The file was simply saved in the new format but no update was perform so everything should be as it was for saving back.
2. Save as an older version results in a dumb solid but maintains internal id, face, plane, & axis names such that the model can work with assemblies and not lose mates. I think this approach is a more reasonable request and easier to program.
On Nov 17, 10:10 am, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.