Solidworks 2021 SP 4.0 is NO LONGER available .. But SP 4.1 Now is !

[Bradfordzzz]

They have removed this service pack from downloads ....

So how badly did i get screwed by installing it while it was available?

[jcapriotti]

We should get a sp4.1 pretty quick. Possible the problem doesn't affect you......they just need to tell us what the issue is and whether to roll back.

[AlexLachance]

I'm not sure, maybe you were lucky actually. Maybe it was just too good for Dassault's Standards, who knows.

[SPerman]

At what point do they decide to give a damn about quality?

[mike miller]

I have a hard time believing that SP4 could be more cataclysmic than SP1. I mean, I thought 2021 SP1 was bad.......... but sheesh...............

[Frederick_Law]

At what point do they decide to give a damn about quality?

When they actually has a QC department.
Right now everything went through the faith department.
Just sent it out have faith, it'll work. Don't need to check or test.

[MJuric]

They have removed this service pack from downloads ....

So how badly did i get screwed by installing it while it was available?

Anyone ask why it was pulled over at the forum that shall remain unnamed? This seems like one of those questions that belongs over there.

[DennisD]

Anyone ask why it was pulled over at the forum that shall remain unnamed? This seems like one of those questions that belongs over there.

I just tried to post something about this over there admonishing them for not telling us anything. It hasn't been posted yet.

[Bradfordzzz]

Anyone ask why it was pulled over at the forum that shall remain unnamed? This seems like one of those questions that belongs over there.

I don't go over there anymore. Pointless when anyone I actually want to discuss issues with are all here.

[MJuric]

I don't go over there anymore. Pointless when anyone I actually want to discuss issues with are all here.

Yeah, but no one over here works for DS and probably wouldn't have direct information of why it was pulled.

This is why I've stated a couple times that I think there is a place/Function for both of these forums. If I want solutions to problems, out of the box thinking and "How to make SW work" I ask here. If I want to know "Official" information like "What's the status on this bug getting fixed" I would ask over there.

[MJuric]

I just tried to post something about this over there admonishing them for not telling us anything. It hasn't been posted yet.

Wait?! You published a post and it didn't post? That seems weird I didn't think they were moderating over there or is the forum just plain broke again?

[MJuric]

I just tried to post something about this over there admonishing them for not telling us anything. It hasn't been posted yet.

Hmmm, I just posted it as a question...maybe they blocked you for the admonishment

[DennisD]

Wait?! You published a post and it didn't post? That seems weird I didn't think they were moderating over there or is the forum just plain broke again?

I originally posted in the SWX Connect community instead of the User Forum community. I posted there because that is where we are supposed to get information from them, whereas the forum is more user-to-user. It turns out I do not have author status for that section. Silly me.

Here is the the post in the forum section: https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... 3VF6fyWPSg

[Frederick_Law]

Creating circular links:
https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... Ej6H8TaQuw
https://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/C ... etins.html

[MJuric]

Creating circular links:
https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... Ej6H8TaQuw
https://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/C ... etins.html

So somehow they actually broke one of Solidworks worst habits which is that it looks all over the place and rather randomly decides which file to use. I wonder if they will "Fix it" by having SW resolving to "Mehhh, something close"

[bnemec]

So somehow they actually broke one of Solidworks worst habits which is that it looks all over the place and rather randomly decides which file to use. I wonder if they will "Fix it" by having SW resolving to "Mehhh, something close"

Do you mean when the referenced file is stored in the parent file by full path but Solidworks FIFY by finding that filename in whatever directory it thinks is best?

[JSculley]

So somehow they actually broke one of Solidworks worst habits which is that it looks all over the place and rather randomly decides which file to use. I wonder if they will "Fix it" by having SW resolving to "Mehhh, something close"

It's not random. It's a poorly thought out 'routinre' that I'm convinced is a conglomeration of 'we need this' requests from large customers.

It's down to 8 steps from 13 back in SW2013, so it's 'improving', I guess.

[JSculley]

They have removed this service pack from downloads ....

So how badly did i get screwed by installing it while it was available?

It's a glaring but fairly innocuous bug. If you open a file that's missing references, this dialog pops up as normal:

If you click on browse, no file chooser appears and the dialog just goes away. The assembly opens, with the missing files shown as suppressed. Unsuppressing shows a similar dialog,

image.png (12.6 KiB) Viewed 8921 times

for which the browse button is also non-functioning.

The simple work-around is to use the 'References' button in the file open dialog, which does allow you to double-click a reference and choose a different file.

[MJuric]

Do you mean when the referenced file is stored in the parent file by full path but Solidworks FIFY by finding that filename in whatever directory it thinks is best?

Yes, this is one of the things that I think makes SW unstable. Coming from IV where "Projects", files, file locations, file links etc etc where fairly robustly enforced...Solidworks scared me from day one in this regard.

In the reverse I find since SW appears to be so "Willy nilly" with these links, it has been my experience that a good portion of the "Man Inventor sucks" comments stem from the idea that most SW users don't understand file structure very well :-)

When you're used to a software that "Helps you pick what files should be in the assembly" it's difficult getting used to a software that demands you tell it exactly what files you want to use.

[MJuric]

It's not random. It's a poorly thought out 'routinre' that I'm convinced is a conglomeration of 'we need this' requests from large customers.

It's down to 8 steps from 13 back in SW2013, so it's 'improving', I guess.

Yes it's not random....just a really bad idea on how to decide what files should be in an your assembly. I prefer a step of 1..."This is the file that should be here." rather than "Well this is the file that is supposed to be here but it does not appear to be here so let me run all over this disaster of a file structure you have here pretending I know how it works even though you don't know how it works so I can decide which one I think is supposed to be here"

[bnemec]

Yes it's not random....just a really bad idea on how to decide what files should be in an your assembly. I prefer a step of 1..."This is the file that should be here." rather than "Well this is the file that is supposed to be here but it does not appear to be here so let me run all over this disaster of a file structure you have here pretending I know how it works even though you don't know how it works so I can decide which one I think is supposed to be here"

Solid Edge has a goofy way of looking for files as well, feels kinda like how SW does it. What I don't understand is why using the path that is stored in the parent file is so far down the list.

If I could choose (thank goodness I cannot) it would be a 3 step process. CAD would do this when opening a file with references.
1) Is that filename already loaded in memory? ( I can accept this one is mandatory for reasons that are over my head)
2) Is the file in the EXACT PATH stored in the parent file I'm opening?
3) Display dialog, "Referenced file path {full file path as stored in the parent file} does not exist, please fix your $#!+."

Done, that's it. If you renamed your file server then use one of the existing tools to update all the refs in all the files, don't change default behavior of the program. Any Solid Edge user that became comfortable with Revision Manager, now Design Manager, knows what a good tool for fixing missing/broken refs looks like.

[MJuric]

Solid Edge has a goofy way of looking for files as well, feels kinda like how SW does it. What I don't understand is why using the path that is stored in the parent file is so far down the list.

If I could choose (thank goodness I cannot) it would be a 3 step process. CAD would do this when opening a file with references.
1) Is that filename already loaded in memory? ( I can accept this one is mandatory for reasons that are over my head)
2) Is the file in the EXACT PATH stored in the parent file I'm opening?
3) Display dialog, "Referenced file path {full file path as stored in the parent file} does not exist, please fix your $#!+."

Done, that's it. If you renamed your file server then use one of the existing tools to update all the refs in all the files, don't change default behavior of the program. Any Solid Edge user that became comfortable with Revision Manager, now Design Manager, knows what a good tool for fixing missing/broken refs looks like.

That's pretty much what Inventor does. Not only that but the files are limited to "Project space". The file not only has to be where you tell it to be but that path also has to be with in the project space definition. So you can't randomly place a file somewhere and then tell IV to include that file in the assembly because it will tell you, "Uhhh, nahhh, I'm not making this assembly a mish mash of file locations that will end up looking like your desktop....yes I've seen your desktop, it's a mess and I'm not letting that happen here so shape up!"

The approach takes a bit of additional work and a whole lot more structure but in the end, in my experience, it ends up in a whole lot better stability and much better "Part to part" link and function. Some things that make SW choke IV does without issue because it doesn't have to go thru a rehab 12 step process to find the files it need to work with.

Take all of that with the idea that I haven't worked with IV for five or six years and apparently we forget or remember incorrectly something like 50% of what we know from year to year....so there's that.

[JSculley]

Solid Edge has a goofy way of looking for files as well, feels kinda like how SW does it. What I don't understand is why using the path that is stored in the parent file is so far down the list.

If I could choose (thank goodness I cannot) it would be a 3 step process. CAD would do this when opening a file with references.
1) Is that filename already loaded in memory? ( I can accept this one is mandatory for reasons that are over my head)
2) Is the file in the EXACT PATH stored in the parent file I'm opening?
3) Display dialog, "Referenced file path {full file path as stored in the parent file} does not exist, please fix your $#!+."

Done, that's it. If you renamed your file server then use one of the existing tools to update all the refs in all the files, don't change default behavior of the program. Any Solid Edge user that became comfortable with Revision Manager, now Design Manager, knows what a good tool for fixing missing/broken refs looks like.

Number 1 irks me to no end. A file is not a file name. It is a path and a file name. I can have 100 files named A.SLDPRT in the file system, provided that they have different paths. SOLIDWORKS throws the path information out the window and disallows not only having two files with the same name but different paths in an assembly, but complete disallows opening two different files just because they have the same name.

Also, storing full paths with drive letters instead of full UNC paths is a monumental mistake.

[Frederick_Law]

I like IV Project File. It became a relative path which user can put anywhere.
Most important it limit where files could be. User can save files anywhere by ignoring IV warning.

We're trying to move things to the cloud but our software and OS still need 8.3 with 254 character max path.
Someone need to design a new "universal" file system.
Software need to learn how to handle delay or missing files without crashing.

[bnemec]

That's pretty much what Inventor does. Not only that but the files are limited to "Project space". The file not only has to be where you tell it to be but that path also has to be with in the project space definition. So you can't randomly place a file somewhere and then tell IV to include that file in the assembly because it will tell you, "Uhhh, nahhh, I'm not making this assembly a mish mash of file locations that will end up looking like your desktop....yes I've seen your desktop, it's a mess and I'm not letting that happen here so shape up!"

The approach takes a bit of additional work and a whole lot more structure but in the end, in my experience, it ends up in a whole lot better stability and much better "Part to part" link and function. Some things that make SW choke IV does without issue because it doesn't have to go thru a rehab 12 step process to find the files it need to work with.

Take all of that with the idea that I haven't worked with IV for five or six years and apparently we forget or remember incorrectly something like 50% of what we know from year to year....so there's that.

That part about (Files must be in the Project" folder) makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Mostly because ~75% of my CAD experience is in an environment where "projects" have a finite lifespan "files" live on as a product of the project. New "Projects" use ~85% existing files that were created by a "project" that was put to bed 1 to 20 years ago. So if we were using IV, a "project" by CAD definition would have to be our entire data set. Which would at least keep people from saving stuff in the wrong network share or on C drive or a USB stick.

[Frederick_Law]

Yes, single Project is recommended.
I've used that for a long time. I'm using same folder structure for SW.
I can keep both IV and SW files in same "Project".
Good thing about project is, I keep different version in different folders. ie 2019, 2020, 2021.
Use correct project and you won't open wrong version files.

So it's a bit difficult for SW when using multiple versions.

[jcapriotti]

That part about (Files must be in the Project" folder) makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Mostly because ~75% of my CAD experience is in an environment where "projects" have a finite lifespan "files" live on as a product of the project. New "Projects" use ~85% existing files that were created by a "project" that was put to bed 1 to 20 years ago. So if we were using IV, a "project" by CAD definition would have to be our entire data set. Which would at least keep people from saving stuff in the wrong network share or on C drive or a USB stick.

I agree, our files aren't stored by "Project". At most maybe "Product" but our product have many shared components. In IV we could only have one project I assume for that to work? In that case, wouldn't you have the same problem SolidWorks can have? Multiple copies floating around and the wrong one gets loaded?

[MJuric]

That part about (Files must be in the Project" folder) makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Mostly because ~75% of my CAD experience is in an environment where "projects" have a finite lifespan "files" live on as a product of the project. New "Projects" use ~85% existing files that were created by a "project" that was put to bed 1 to 20 years ago. So if we were using IV, a "project" by CAD definition would have to be our entire data set. Which would at least keep people from saving stuff in the wrong network share or on C drive or a USB stick.

With IV you can define "Libraries" as part of the Project area definition. If 90% of a new project was the same as a previous one just add that directory to the libraries.

So essentially you CAN have files everywhere with IV, you just have to make sure that you tell IV exactly where everything is.

In the end however this tends to force a more structured file structure because when you open up a project and see 700 library directories

[MJuric]

I agree, our files aren't stored by "Project". At most maybe "Product" but our product have many shared components. In IV we could only have one project I assume for that to work? In that case, wouldn't you have the same problem SolidWorks can have? Multiple copies floating around and the wrong one gets loaded?

"Project" in IV is little more than defining where everything is. You essentially have a working project folder where all the new stuff automatically goes and then you can add "Libraries" which are nothing more than "directories where other stuff is". You can't have any duplicate files in a project so IV doesn't go looking for another file if it's not where you said it was.

[Bradfordzzz]

We just simply rename the files with the job number as a prefix.
Solidworks cant go looking for anything else because the name is unique.
History has shown that I can't trust Solidworks to do the right thing all the time .. so this is my Solidworkaround.

[matt]

I split this topic as it stopped being about the bug in sp 4 and started being about PDM. The new thread is in the SolidWorks PDM subforum with the title SolidWorks PDM. I know, so imaginative.

[bnemec]

I split this topic as it stopped being about the bug in sp 4 and started being about PDM. The new thread is in the SolidWorks PDM subforum with the title SolidWorks PDM. I know, so imaginative.

So this thread is back to kicking Solidworks for releasing crappy Service Packs?

[matt]

So this thread is back to kicking Solidworks for releasing crappy Service Packs?

Yeah, I guess. If that's really how you want to spend your time. I give you all a hard time about bitchin now, but Paul Salvador is probably laughing his @$$ off at me, or at least scratching his head a little bit wondering if I hit my head or got religion or what happened?!?!?

We could try to run this thread off the rails a second time and have to split it out to Kitty Dump...

[mike miller]

Yeah, I guess. If that's really how you want to spend your time. I give you all a hard time about bitchin now, but Paul Salvador is probably laughing his @$$ off at me, or at least scratching his head a little bit wondering if I hit my head or got religion or what happened?!?!?

We could try to run this thread off the rails a second time and have to split it out to Kitty Dump...

Speaking of rails, I wonder who will be ridden out on one?


*RUN!*

[bnemec]

Yeah, I guess. If that's really how you want to spend your time. I give you all a hard time about bitchin now, but Paul Salvador is probably laughing his @$$ off at me, or at least scratching his head a little bit wondering if I hit my head or got religion or what happened?!?!?

We could try to run this thread off the rails a second time and have to split it out to Kitty Dump...

Hopefully the second.

It's hard to have a conversation about software without some amount of complaining or mockery. There's the canned demos that always look so cool and smooth, but in reality most of what we do is humdrum and repetitive. Nobody would want to demo what most of us here where I work do all day, people would be sleeping. Thing is we only notice when stuff doesn't work; when the tools work well consistently we just use them. You've been there MAtt.

[DennisD]

SP4.1 just became available.

https://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/downloads.htm

[DennisD]

They have removed this service pack from downloads ....

So how badly did i get screwed by installing it while it was available?

@Bradfordzzz, would you mind modifying the title of the thread to append ", but SP4.1 IS (June 24, 2021)", or something similar?

[Bradfordzzz]

@Bradfordzzz, would you mind modifying the title of the thread to append ", but SP4.1 IS (June 24, 2021)", or something similar?

Absolutely.

[mattpeneguy]

All right beta testers...on my mark, ready...set...GO!
Wait...why did I mark that as sarcastic?...

[jcapriotti]

All right beta testers...on my mark, ready...set...GO!
Wait...why did I mark that as sarcastic?...

Because.....

[Tim R. Halvorsen]

For those who already installed the SP4, there is a hotfix available:
https://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/hotfixes.htm

Tim

[Bradfordzzz]

For those who already installed the SP4, there is a hotfix available:
https://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/hotfixes.htm

Tim

Nice. Thanks Tim!

[Reennie]

Yeah, I threw 4.1 on both systems already without hiccups.
I was already scr*wed with 4.0, so I was willing to betatest 4.1.

What could possibly go wrong?

Running fine since then.

[Bradfordzzz]

Yeah, I threw 4.1 on both systems already without hiccups.
I was already scr*wed with 4.0, so I was willing to betatest 4.1.

What could possibly go wrong?

Running fine since then.

Mine is working fine too now.

[jmongi]

Well, this is great. We hadn't upgraded for forever and a few weeks ago we renewed our subscription and installed the latest with assistance from our VAR. I should have known there was going to be issues when the support tech went to install SP3.0 (which is what it was tagged as) and the installer pulled SP4.0. Never good when the VAR is confused.

So, what's the deal. Fortunately I haven't done much SW work since then. What is the bug/issue and how do I fix this before I break something?

[Bradfordzzz]

Well, this is great. We hadn't upgraded for forever and a few weeks ago we renewed our subscription and installed the latest with assistance from our VAR. I should have known there was going to be issues when the support tech went to install SP3.0 (which is what it was tagged as) and the installer pulled SP4.0. Never good when the VAR is confused.

So, what's the deal. Fortunately I haven't done much SW work since then. What is the bug/issue and how do I fix this before I break something?

Just upgrade to 4.1. working fine with this service pack for me. (disclaimer to that statement ... we don't use PDM so I can't speak to that)