SW2006 file format

No , and NO. Keep forking out the bucks for the new versions-no backward compatability.

jk

Yea, but the DWG editor program SW includes with 2006 can open up and save as, all versions of AutoCAD files.

So they can do it with AutoCAD files, just not their own files. I think that's pretty funny!

Good job SolidWorks, they are just so smart!

i hate to do this but you're an idiot. you are talking about a 3D file vs. a flat 2D file. That's nearly no different than word files being opened from office 97 to office 2003 and back and forth. There's nothing to translate.

Tell me how that one might translate a SolidWorks file that uses the flex feature back to SolidWorks 2003? There have been many theories and good ideas too but you post is by far the most idiotic post I have read in a long time.

KM

RRRRRRRRRRight....

I think it shows how decadent AutoDesk is that it hasn't made any significant improvements that are ground breaking or added new program features that previous versions haven't had.

Sometimes progress is painfull; but we should just take the medicine and be greatful for the improved functionality and the opportunity to be a part of the beta program.

Isn't that why Solidworks has the STL, IGS, and other "static" 3-D formats available? You can save a file in the latest version and be able to read it in a previous version. I do realize that a "Save As" function that would go directly to a previous version would be nice.

Dude

I hate to say this but I think your the idiot. To blindly assume and accept that no version compatibility of any sort is possible within SW is totally BS and you've totally suckered yourself into believing what they want you to believe.

I agree that some feature types cannot import/export due to new feature enhancements. So what? Let them still import as dumb solids anyway and let the rest of the features import as normal. At the very least, let drawings import.

Take a look at all the things FeaturWorks can do now. It can even recognize features to use as hole wizard features in dumb solids. Hard to believe that these kinds of technologies can't be used within SW on their own file structure for translations.

Look at the evidence. You can export files as ProE, and Catia, but you can't export older versions of SW. You can import Catia, Pro E, UG, Inventor Solidedge, and Cadkey. But you can't import newer SW files. They got it rapped up tight only for themselves.

As service packs are released for older versions of SW, they could include updates that would allow for translations to open newer file versions of SW. When a version of SW is no longer supported, then they could stop worrying about translations for it.

I know it could be done, but they have no financial incentive to do it and they want everybody think it's not possible.

I would think if it is possible that the larger programs would have this ability. None of the solid based modelers can do this either. If you open a SW converted file in Pro E, all you get is one dumb solid so SW is not doing anything special to the file so the features come into the other programs.

Wow. Must have been a stressful week.

There's a difference between being ignorant and being an idiot. There is no shame associated with either. At present you are the former. Do some research on the subject. If, afterward, you still don't understand then maybe the latter should be considered. Will depend on the arguements you present.

If you want a hint on where to start looking; UGS and PTC. Don't expect to find a lot of detail (relatively new approaches being developed) and don't expect to find full featured "translations".

Well, now that I am in the conversation... I am positive it is not for lack of trying on the part of SW to get it right with one file format as a significant portion of my time each year with Beta testing is spent dealing with conversion problems and submitting conversion errors even before I get to see what's new and submit enhancment requests. I am sure they would forego this every year if they could - I know I would. However, each year it gets better with less and less conversion errors. Although it is up to us to help them by continueing to stay active and give positive criticism, these changes are for the better. You may have a preference for some other CAD program and are therefore biased - as am I for SolidWorks - but I have made the decision to use it for the long haul and thus stay active in its development; as do many other people including the several thousand beta testers each year.

You're first statement was vague and just down right dumb. This subject has been rehashed over and over and like I said there have been ideas and thoughts that were and are really good ideas but you were comparing 2d to 3d and now you are going to attempt to spout something intelligent. Too late. Besides, nothing you said was a new idea. Start with something intelligent to say or don't say it.

KM

abc wrote:

Beta testing...that's a whole other topic that perplexes me. Who are all these masses of people willing to work spending their evenings, weekends or even their employers time troubleshooting software that they paying for, for free? What other industry in the world gets away operating like this?

Anyway, have your ever noticed how the file formats change in different Beta versions? I find that curious. If you create parts in an older beta version, you can open them in a newer beta version or released version, but not the other way around. I suspect the reason is to prevent people from using pirated beta versions for production.

The point I'm trying to make is they appear to be able to change the file formats and structures at the drop of a hat making few, if any changes to the program itself. I bet it's as easy as changing a setting number during the compiling process. So I wouldn't automaticy believe a change in file format is the result of coding changes to the program.

What I see is SW digging around in other software companies back yards, trying to put on a good show with attempts at making both 2D and 3D file types importable and exportable from most the major competitors. They continue to improve these features while at the same time offer NO tools to help with their version to version compatibility issues. I view this with suspicion, while the SW cheerleading squad views it with total acceptance.

If you stop and think about the financial implications of making version compatibility possible, it would probably result in quite harsh losses for the shareholders and viewed as risky. A lot of revenue could be lost when all the subscriptive services stopped flowing in from company's who would freeze upgrades. I think that's the real reason it can't be done.

The betas and pre releases time out. No need

If you stop and think about the financial implications of making version compatibility possible, it would probably result in quite harsh losses for the shareholders and viewed as risky. A lot of revenue could be lost when all the subscriptive services stopped flowing in from company's who would freeze upgrades. I think that's the real reason it can't be done.

In SW2005 (don't know about 2006), you can RMB on the view and select 'Properties' and there is a BOM heading in the bottom left corner. You can check the 'Keep linked to BOM' box and select the pull down of a placed BOM. That way the view will number according to the BOM, no matter where it is in the document.

I don't think there is a way to do it across more than one document, though.

Also, I believe this only works for SW BOMs, not Excel based ones.

HTH,

Aaron

Jeff Howard wrote:

Yikes, after all the replies I think I hit on a sore spot :0

I think for the next version, SW needs to add a parseable structured format like XML. That way you could have all your features and relations in a hierarchical setup and any feature not supported could be ignored (and it's dependents) or skipped and still parse the rest of the file.

I'd like to point out that its been more than a year since the free a-cad plug-in was released, and was announced some time before that. I am positive that its cut into a-cad's revenue, and probably pissed them off quite a bit.

If it were easy, or even reasonably feasible, I am also sure that autodesk would have released a free plug-in to do at least limited backwards translation of solidworks. They haven't. To my knowledge, they are not even working on it. That says something about the inherant difficulty involved.

The fact that solidworks released their a-cad plug-in, knowing that it would paint a bullseye on their back, also says that they know it would be unlikely that a-cad ( or any other software company for that matter ), could implement a useable translator.