CAD Forum

Hmm...did they pull it?

20 years ago, SW was an ant that could lift 10 times its own weight.

Now SW is an elephant that can only lift half its weight.

A few years from now, it will be a whale--biggest thing ever, and unable to lift a thing.

TRKemp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 06, 2022 7:49 am Would you mind confirming if you have any issues with Pack and Go, as Glenn described?

Also, not sure if you'd be willing to check out my post where I posed a few questions. Would be great to have additional feedback from multiple users on some of these issues.

I cannot recall if I have used Pack n Go recently, will investigate this when I am back in my office. (I have been off work awhile with the c0vid and unlike some of you lucky blokes, I do not have home access..)
I will look into the issues you speak of, that I am able..

mike miller wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 7:56 am This new "enhancement" would explain why mirroring is broken: http://help.solidworks.com/2022/English ... f6eb51#Pg0

THIS IS STOOPID. I cannot believe anyone would ask for this.
If someone could please explain the benefit of a problematic new feature, that has very few (if any at all) real-world application, for me at least, that supposedly saves a single extra feature, at the expense of years of muscle memory thrown out by a new workflow required for an existing tool. I am literally dumbfounded..!!?!?!
Surely something like this can be added to the bottom of the feature input dialog as an option that can be engaged if desired, rather than the secondary plane being a box automatically populating within the existing workflow. I hate these arbitrary changes. They do not save time, another example of creating more work in undoing what I have now done "wrong" because what used to work one way now does not.
Or, am I missing something here...?!

Damo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:27 pm THIS IS STOOPID. I cannot believe anyone would ask for this.
If someone could please explain the benefit of a problematic new feature, that has very few (if any at all) real-world application, for me at least, that supposedly saves a single extra feature, at the expense of years of muscle memory thrown out by a new workflow required for an existing tool. I am literally dumbfounded..!!?!?!
Surely something like this can be added to the bottom of the feature input dialog as an option that can be engaged if desired, rather than the secondary plane being a box automatically populating within the existing workflow. I hate these arbitrary changes. They do not save time, another example of creating more work in undoing what I have now done "wrong" because what used to work one way now does not.
Or, am I missing something here...?!

Call me stoopid I guess . The help picture is a bad example.....but we do this kind of stuff all the time where I have to create two mirror features. So that said, this is a better enhancement than some others.

More than 24 hours have passed and still I don't see SP2 in my portal.

Tera wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:02 am More than 24 hours have passed and still I don't see SP2 in my portal.

Same here. still not there since it was posted on the 11th.

Anyone that can access it feel like downloading the full version and sharing a drobox link for the rest of us that cant get it?

SPR 1228145 - Pack and Go assembly does not reference components that are renamed with Select / Replace or from the column 'New Filename'. It's implemented in SolidWorks 2022 SP3.
So you all have to wait a bit longer.

Frank_Oostendorp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:17 am SPR 1228145 - Pack and Go assembly does not reference components that are renamed with Select / Replace or from the column 'New Filename'. It's implemented in SolidWorks 2022 SP3.
So you all have to wail a bit longer.

Its really quite amazing how many broken things they can pack into one program.

And just when you think ok .. we are good now .. they release a new Service pack that fixes some things, and trashes others.

must be pretty cool at the dinner table when they get home from work ...

"how was your day ... oh you know .. the usual .. help 4 people and screwed over 6.1 million others ... you know .. same $#!+, different day.."

ugggh

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:42 pm Call me stoopid I guess . The help picture is a bad example.....but we do this kind of stuff all the time where I have to create two mirror features. So that said, this is a better enhancement than some others.

image.png

Mate, I've seen you around this, and the old pre-swamp forum, for some time.. and you are definitely not stoopid..!

And so.. fair call. And a good descriptive example of this being useful. (Tho not really for me.. extremely rare that this kind of symmetry from front-to-rear would occur.) but yes, I have a better understanding now of the logic behind it.. correct me tho if I'm wrong that a circular pattern around an axis wouldn't do the same thing..?
Anyhoo, happy you like it.. I would just prefer the option to not have it.

Damo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:30 am Mate, I've seen you around this, and the old pre-swamp forum, for some time.. and you are definitely not stoopid..!

And so.. fair call. And a good descriptive example of this being useful. (Tho not really for me.. extremely rare that this kind of symmetry from front-to-rear would occur.) but yes, I have a better understanding now of the logic behind it.. correct me tho if I'm wrong that a circular pattern around an axis wouldn't do the same thing..?
Anyhoo, happy you like it.. I would just prefer the option to not have it.

Seems like this could have just been an option to toggle on or off if needed.

I don't know why they insist on forcing this kind of thing on us.

Damo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:27 pm THIS IS STOOPID. I cannot believe anyone would ask for this.
If someone could please explain the benefit of a problematic new feature, that has very few (if any at all) real-world application, for me at least, that supposedly saves a single extra feature, at the expense of years of muscle memory thrown out by a new workflow required for an existing tool. I am literally dumbfounded..!!?!?!
Surely something like this can be added to the bottom of the feature input dialog as an option that can be engaged if desired, rather than the secondary plane being a box automatically populating within the existing workflow. I hate these arbitrary changes. They do not save time, another example of creating more work in undoing what I have now done "wrong" because what used to work one way now does not.
Or, am I missing something here...?!

As you know if you follow this or other SW forums, I'm quick to scream and holler if I think a new enhancement is implemented poorly, but I will strongly disagree with you about this one. First, while I don't know that I'll use it much, I can see where it would be helpful for some people. Modeling a leg on a table, then adding it to the other three corners with one operation would be a big help.

Second, there's no need to change your workflow. If you'll click on the caret to close the "Secondary Mirror Face/Plane" section of the property manager then you can use your previous workflow until/unless you open it again.

Damo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 9:27 pm THIS IS STOOPID. I cannot believe anyone would ask for this.
If someone could please explain the benefit of a problematic new feature, that has very few (if any at all) real-world application, for me at least, that supposedly saves a single extra feature, at the expense of years of muscle memory thrown out by a new workflow required for an existing tool. I am literally dumbfounded..!!?!?!
Surely something like this can be added to the bottom of the feature input dialog as an option that can be engaged if desired, rather than the secondary plane being a box automatically populating within the existing workflow. I hate these arbitrary changes. They do not save time, another example of creating more work in undoing what I have now done "wrong" because what used to work one way now does not.
Or, am I missing something here...?!

I can see the point of the multiple plan mirror BUT as you say it should be a tick box option.

Prime example of lack of thought or maybe too much work or both.

We had a few years ago that you could go one way in changing fillet to chamfer as a update. It doesn't go both ways. You still can't change to any type of fillet later = variable to standard. It would make 100% sense if you could. I'm pretty sure the coders know this but the issue is it is too much work to fix or won't be back compatible or again to much work to make it back compatible.

Damo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:30 am Mate, I've seen you around this, and the old pre-swamp forum, for some time.. and you are definitely not stoopid..!

And so.. fair call. And a good descriptive example of this being useful. (Tho not really for me.. extremely rare that this kind of symmetry from front-to-rear would occur.) but yes, I have a better understanding now of the logic behind it.. correct me tho if I'm wrong that a circular pattern around an axis wouldn't do the same thing..?
Anyhoo, happy you like it.. I would just prefer the option to not have it.

No worries, I didn't take it personally and I've got plenty of posts calling out what I would perceive as "stoopid" functionality.

In this case, a circular pattern would only work for a square base where the features themselves are symmetrical in nature.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:33 am Seems like this could have just been an option to toggle on or off if needed.

I don't know why they insist on forcing this kind of thing on us.

What do you mean by toggle? You're not forced to use the second plane.

RichGergely wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 9:53 am I can see the point of the multiple plan mirror BUT as you say it should be a tick box option.

Prime example of lack of thought or maybe too much work or both.

We had a few years ago that you could go one way in changing fillet to chamfer as a update. It doesn't go both ways. You still can't change to any type of fillet later = variable to standard. It would make 100% sense if you could. I'm pretty sure the coders know this but the issue is it is too much work to fix or won't be back compatible or again to much work to make it back compatible.

It basically is an option. Did you see my post directly above yours?

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 10:07 am It basically is an option. Did you see my post directly above yours?

No Glenn missed that.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 10:05 am What do you mean by toggle? You're not forced to use the second plane.

I see that now .. thank you!

I received this email from Solidworks.
But when I follow the link ... i still only have SP1 as the latest.
This is really disheartening.

@Bradfordzzz just adapt (lower) your expectations a bit more to the new xWorks heroic standard. You can kill your time by colouring the book that is available on 3DExperience SWYM.

Frank_Oostendorp wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 5:28 am @Bradfordzzz just adapt (lower) your expectations a bit more to the new xWorks heroic standard. You can kill your time by colouring the book that is available on 3DExperience SWYM.

That's probably the best advice.

Maybe the Easter bunny will drop off some chocolate Service packs this weekend?

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 5:35 am That's probably the best advice.

Maybe the Easter bunny will drop off some chocolate Service packs this weekend?

SW2022 SP2.1 ? Could be. It is very silent on the Dassault side.......

Did you read the screenshot you posted?
Early visibility means it isn't available to the masses yet, only those who signed up for Early Visibility. The link for the download is in that screenshot.

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:17 am Did you read the screenshot you posted?

image.png

Early visibility means it isn't available to the masses yet, only those who signed up for Early Visibility. The link for the download is in that screenshot.

Yeah .. and I am signed up for Early Visibility .. which is why i got the email ... but still .. when I click the link ... not there.

So the link just takes you to the normal download page?

I think Frank is correct on a SP2.1

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:14 am So the link just takes you to the normal download page?

I think Frank is correct on a SP2.1

Unfortunately, yes .. just brings me to the normal download page.

This is like getting in line for a punch in the face ... and then getting back in line for another turn.

And yes ... I think Frank is probably right as well. (though I wish he wasn't)

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:32 am Unfortunately, yes .. just brings me to the normal download page.

This is like getting in line for a punch in the face ... and then getting back in line for another turn.

And yes ... I think Frank is probably right as well. (though I wish he wasn't)

I wish the Pack and Go issue is fixed in SP2.1. I have a dream that this SW2022 SP2.1 will be the perfect version, we can stick to the next 10 years.

But if you really can't wait....

ok ... So I was finally able to get 2022 SP2.

Tried to do the mirroring again. same failed result.

I did a side by side with 2021 SP5.1 on one screen, and 2022 SP2 on my other screen

I mirrored the same details, in the same assembly in both versions side by side.

i verified each and every setting at each step of the mirror. both identical.

previews looks identical and correct.

compete the command .. 2021 SP5.1 works perfectly ... 2022 SP2 fails. details upside down, and inside other details.

Service request had been reopened with Solidworks by my VAR.

Stories like that make me question DSS bragging about all of the bugs "fixed" in 2022.

Frank_Oostendorp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:17 am SPR 1228145 - Pack and Go assembly does not reference components that are renamed with Select / Replace or from the column 'New Filename'. It's implemented in SolidWorks 2022 SP3.
So you all have to wait a bit longer.

Thanks. Won't be bothering with an upgrade until this is fixed since it's a key part of our process. It's roulette lately with this feature.. among others..

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:57 am Stories like that make me question DSS bragging about all of the bugs "fixed" in 2022.

Makes me wonder what it was that they "fixed"

bnemec wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:03 pm Makes me wonder what it was that they "fixed"

It makes me nervous. and I have that uneasy feeling of .. what can I actually trust is right?

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:41 am ok ... So I was finally able to get 2022 SP2.

Tried to do the mirroring again. same failed result.

I did a side by side with 2021 SP5.1 on one screen, and 2022 SP2 on my other screen

I mirrored the same details, in the same assembly in both versions side by side.

i verified each and every setting at each step of the mirror. both identical.

previews looks identical and correct.

compete the command .. 2021 SP5.1 works perfectly ... 2022 SP2 fails. details upside down, and inside other details.

Service request had been reopened with Solidworks by my VAR.

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I was a SolidWorks VAR. This was in the days when there were two releases a year.

One of the Swx support folks, who still works there, told me that there were two developmental versions of SolidWorks, with two teams of programmers. They could not maintain the pace of the two releases a year without parallel development.

This explained why occasionally you would see regressions like this one in a newer version. The two versions had gotten out of sync.

It would make sense that this is still the methodology used, and would explain the behavior mentioned above.

It was often highlighted by functionality that was added in Service Pack releases versus an upgrade. Many times the added functionality did not migrate to the parallel version.

This really doesn't add anything to the discussion, but is useful for situational awareness.

cheers

bentlybobcat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 8:11 am Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I was a SolidWorks VAR. This was in the days when there were two releases a year.

One of the Swx support folks, who still works there, told me that there were two developmental versions of SolidWorks, with two teams of programmers. They could not maintain the pace of the two releases a year without parallel development.

This explained why occasionally you would see regressions like this one in a newer version. The two versions had gotten out of sync.

It would make sense that this is still the methodology used, and would explain the behavior mentioned above.

It was often highlighted by functionality that was added in Service Pack releases versus an upgrade. Many times the added functionality did not migrate to the parallel version.

This really doesn't add anything to the discussion, but is useful for situational awareness.

cheers

Thank for sharing that. It really helps to understand how these bugs are able to get thru. I wonder what kind of quality control and testing actually takes place before a roll out. Over the years, it seems like some of the most commonly used features are the ones that get broken. you cant help but wonder if they actually even tested anything when things like mirroring and pack and go aren't working properly.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 4:23 am Thank for sharing that. It really helps to understand how these bugs are able to get thru. I wonder what kind of quality control and testing actually takes place before a roll out. Over the years, it seems like some of the most commonly used features are the ones that get broken. you cant help but wonder if they actually even tested anything when things like mirroring and pack and go aren't working properly.

I would imagine they have a series of standard data sets that they do all their testing on, so each feature probably passes with those particular models. It's then when there's something different in the model that it falls over.

dave.laban wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 2:59 am I would imagine they have a series of standard data sets that they do all their testing on, so each feature probably passes with those particular models. It's then when there's something different in the model that it falls over.

However they are doing it .. its not working. maybe some tweaks are in order?

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 5:39 am However they are doing it .. its not working. maybe some tweaks are in order?

It all depends on how you define working.

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:01 am It all depends on how you define working.

image.png

Well right now, I am defining it by the errors I am getting when mirroring

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:01 am It all depends on how you define working.

image.png

Well, they are trying, huge increase on fixed SPR's last couple of years. But your graphic equals my expectations to have a reliable, consistent and fast version a bit more.

DSS definition of "fixed" doesn't always match what the rest of the world considers fixed. But it looks good on all of the charts.

Frank_Oostendorp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:59 am Well, they are trying, huge increase on fixed SPR's last couple of years. But your graphic equals my expectations to have a reliable, consistent and fast version a bit more.
image.png

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:42 am DSS definition of "fixed" doesn't always match what the rest of the world considers fixed. But it looks good on all of the charts.

I'd be interested in seeing that chart alongside one showing new SPR's.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:41 am ok ... So I was finally able to get 2022 SP2.

Tried to do the mirroring again. same failed result.

I did a side by side with 2021 SP5.1 on one screen, and 2022 SP2 on my other screen

I mirrored the same details, in the same assembly in both versions side by side.

i verified each and every setting at each step of the mirror. both identical.

previews looks identical and correct.

compete the command .. 2021 SP5.1 works perfectly ... 2022 SP2 fails. details upside down, and inside other details.

Service request had been reopened with Solidworks by my VAR.

@Alin

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:42 am DSS definition of "fixed" doesn't always match what the rest of the world considers fixed. But it looks good on all of the charts.

We have a winner.

Fixed can mean:
Fixed
Semi-Fixed
Expired (Outdated but not fixed)
Fixed the active bug but created one further in the programmation.
A new feature adresses it(but not exactly, and the new feature most likely is riddled with bugs)
Etc..

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:08 am We have a winner.

Fixed can mean:
Fixed
Semi-Fixed
Expired (Outdated but not fixed)
Fixed the active bug but created one further in the programmation.
A new feature adresses it(but not exactly, and the new feature most likely is riddled with bugs)
Etc..

and adapted the manual according inconsistent behaviour ?

Frank_Oostendorp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:13 am and adapted the manual according inconsistent behaviour ?

Hey, if it'c consistantly inconsistent, then it's somewhat consistent?

I still have high hopes that it will be all that we want it to be.
if we keep pestering about the issues we are having.... they are bound to listen at some point ... aren't they?
maybe? even a little?

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 12:20 pm I still have high hopes that it will be all that we want it to be.
if we keep pestering about the issues we are having.... they are bound to listen at some point ... aren't they?
maybe? even a little?

You can escalate to critical if you haven't already. You have to do a write up though, something like:

"X bug is costing our company $$$ in losses and affecting productivity"
Signed " CEO of ACME Rocket sleds"

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:49 pm You can escalate to critical if you haven't already. You have to do a write up though, something like:

"X bug is costing our company $$$ in losses and affecting productivity"
Signed " CEO of ACME Rocket sleds"

Yeah, and then you have to hopes that you win the lottery pretty much, I've gone through that process, only to have the bug come back a few release later.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:49 pm You can escalate to critical if you haven't already. You have to do a write up though, something like:

"X bug is costing our company $$$ in losses and affecting productivity"
Signed " CEO of ACME Rocket sleds"

Thanks!

I have already done that actually. and I have sent a follow up one as well.
I was hoping to get more feedback and reaction to this issue, but I don't know if our VAR's hands are tied?
They went thru the issue with me .. and can see the problem, and have met with Solidworks team to discuss
but since then, I have only been met with .. "we are looking into it"
followed by .. we are continuing to look into it.