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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jeff Howard wrote:
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
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.
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.
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
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.