CAD Forum

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:11 pm BTW. Solidworks SP 3.1 is now available for download.

and no .. still doesn't mirror correctly.

I'm holding out for at least 3.2.
No sarcasm, I just don't like these bad tastes we're left with.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:11 pm BTW. Solidworks SP 3.1 is now available for download.

and no .. still doesn't mirror correctly.

I'm shocked

SolidWorks SP3.1 creates a directory SolidWorks 2022 SP03.1 during the download. So this year there is plenty of room for improvement?

Once we get service pack 23 from Solidworks, and most of the bugs that affect our day to day are pretty much resolved, I think we are done. We wont continue with our yearly service upgrades.

I cant see paying a "Value added reseller" for this any of this "value" we are getting. We are just paying for a shitty broken product and signing up to keep doing that year after year.

How am I supposed to go to my boss and tell him that I think its worth it to keep paying. I cant lie to him like that. and that exactly what I would be doing. I would think that our VAR would be warning us of the issues that they or others have found in Solidworks.

I report my issues to them .. but not 1 time have I gotten an email from them informing me of an issue that they have been made aware of. So what exactly is the Value they are adding? what am I paying for? the amazing advances in the service packs?

Unless someone can explain to me why we should be continuing, I'm thinking SW2022 will be as far as we go. and I'm smacking myself wishing I would have made this decision versions ago.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:06 am Once we get service pack 23 from Solidworks, and most of the bugs that affect our day to day are pretty much resolved, I think we are done. We wont continue with our yearly service upgrades.

I cant see paying a "Value added reseller" for this any of this "value" we are getting. We are just paying for a shitty broken product and signing up to keep doing that year after year.

How am I supposed to go to my boss and tell him that I think its worth it to keep paying. I cant lie to him like that. and that exactly what I would be doing. I would think that our VAR would be warning us of the issues that they or others have found in Solidworks.

I report my issues to them .. but not 1 time have I gotten an email from them informing me of an issue that they have been made aware of. So what exactly is the Value they are adding? what am I paying for? the amazing advances in the service packs?

Unless someone can explain to me why we should be continuing, I'm thinking SW2022 will be as far as we go. and I'm smacking myself wishing I would have made this decision versions ago.

I've had this conversation with my boss and the final conclusion was that we're better off paying it then cutting subscriptions to save the cost because if we do end up having to pay later on to upgrade again, we would have to pay the backdating which would make it a bigger ammount and thus make it a harder pill to swallow.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:42 am I've had this conversation with my boss and the final conclusion was that we're better off paying it then cutting subscriptions to save the cost because if we do end up having to pay later on to upgrade again, we would have to pay the backdating which would make it a bigger amount and thus make it a harder pill to swallow.

I hear what you are saying but when I look back at what we paid for .. how much the yearly "maintenance" fees are .. and how much we have spent per year in dealing with the broken software .. the added design time spent trying to find work arounds, and using those workarounds ... I'm pretty sure the cost spent would far outweigh any upgrade costs.

At some point .. you just have to say no. I'm not going to let you f*** me over again. enough is enough.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:06 am I hear what you are saying but when I look back at what we paid for .. how much the yearly "maintenance" fees are .. and how much we have spent per year in dealing with the broken software .. the added design time spent trying to find work arounds, and using those workarounds ... I'm pretty sure the cost spent would far outweigh any upgrade costs.

At some point .. you just have to say no. I'm not going to let you f*** me over again. enough is enough.

Yeah, that's pretty much my mentality too. I would rather cut the subs and fork them the ammount required if we were to eventually upgrade in 2030, then continually paying and get to 2030 only to have the company decide to switch programs.

Either that or have Dassault come out with some ingenious plan to bring back those that have cut their subs, and have those who continued paying them regret paying them.

Just make a calculation, and you will see that:
- Stop paying subscription but buy a new version every 5 or more years
- Use the old perpetual versions for special departments, projects, interns, hobby?
- You only need to go through the update process once every 5 years or more, so the time needed for updating existing data, creating new templates, courses for users on what's new, pre-testing the new version very good, is more cost effective.
- For support, you could have only 1 out of many subscriptions active, and guide the support of the VAR through that.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:42 am I've had this conversation with my boss and the final conclusion was that we're better off paying it then cutting subscriptions to save the cost because if we do end up having to pay later on to upgrade again, we would have to pay the backdating which would make it a bigger ammount and thus make it a harder pill to swallow.

Of all the questionable decisions Dassault has made, the one changing the upgrade policy is the one that I resent the most (and we stay on subscription so it doesn't even affect me). Some people and companies made the decision to buy
Solidworks because they were told that they could skip subscription and get back on for $500.00. While I'm sure it was legal, I felt it was dishonest to change that policy for existing customers.

If they had changed it for new customers and grandfathered in existing customers I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Frank_Oostendorp wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:22 am Just make a calculation, and you will see that:
- Stop paying subscription but buy a new version every 5 or more years
- Use the old perpetual versions for special departments, projects, interns, hobby?
- You only need to go through the update process once every 5 years or more, so the time needed for updating existing data, creating new templates, courses for users on what's new, pre-testing the new version very good, is more cost effective.
- For support, you could have only 1 out of many subscriptions active, and guide the support of the VAR through that.

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of the way I'd process if it were up to me. We're still on 2019 SP5, so that says a lot.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:42 am I've had this conversation with my boss and the final conclusion was that we're better off paying it then cutting subscriptions to save the cost because if we do end up having to pay later on to upgrade again, we would have to pay the backdating which would make it a bigger ammount and thus make it a harder pill to swallow.

The next time we go off subscription, it will be with the intention of switching to a new platform.

We have software that translates any of our customers data to any format of our choosing.
At this point .. I would rather just pay for the upgrades for that, so it will always read and translate the customers data for us, and not bother to upgrade "Solid doesn't works". stick with the animal that we know rather than keep hoping for things to get better.

At least this major bug got solved in 2022 SP3.1.
https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... _L8W4V2W4Q

Alin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:34 am At least this major bug got solved in 2022 SP3.1.
https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... _L8W4V2W4Q

I think you and I have very different ideas of what a major bug is.
mates that go slow vs mirroring that doesn't actually work.
I wish they would be working on the things that are broken, rather than the things that are just a little laggy.

I'm sure everyone has their wishlist for fixes, but mirroring is really a sore spot for us.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:10 am I think you and I have very different ideas of what a major bug is.
mates that go slow vs mirroring that doesn't actually work.
I wish they would be working on the things that are broken, rather than the things that are just a little laggy.

I'm sure everyone has their wishlist for fixes, but mirroring is really an sore spot for us.

The issue with not being able to re-name files during Pack and Go was the big one for me. That seems to be fixed with sp 3.0 (which has since been removed and replaced with sp 3.1).

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:10 am I think you and I have very different ideas of what a major bug is.
mates that go slow vs mirroring that doesn't actually work.
I wish they would be working on the things that are broken, rather than the things that are just a little laggy.

I'm sure everyone has their wishlist for fixes, but mirroring is really a sore spot for us.

I do not see how our ideas differ. I pointed to a major bug, while you pointed to a humongous one. Where is the disagreement?

Alin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:37 pm I do not see how our ideas differ. I pointed to a major bug, while you pointed to a humongous one. Where is the disagreement?

and that right there is why we Love you Alin ! LOL

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 11:10 am I think you and I have very different ideas of what a major bug is.
mates that go slow vs mirroring that doesn't actually work.
I wish they would be working on the things that are broken, rather than the things that are just a little laggy.

I'm sure everyone has their wishlist for fixes, but mirroring is really a sore spot for us.

I think this is normal for different users to rank the various regressions/bugs differently. For example, we have many many mirrored/(RH, LH) parts but we never use mirror functionality in the assembly environment, the resulting file management is more hassle than it's worth. Always make the mirrored part file fist then put them in the assembly. What is earth shattering for one user may have zero impact on the next.

Slightly off topic. 2023 Beta is available for download.

We cannot discuss it here, though, since it would be against the NDAs.

Alin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 1:10 pm Slightly off topic. 2023 Beta is available for download.

We cannot discuss it here, though, since it would be against the NDAs.

Thanks Alin,

I got the email, but I don't have a spare computer to try it on, so I'll probably pass.

One other thing to consider on the broken mirror / upgrade issue, and it's a catch 22 situation.

If it is indeed fixed with the next version and you don't upgrade you are stuck with a version that for your workflow is perpetually broken.
So the question becomes do you swallow the hard pill and upgrade to fix the broken function, or ride it out.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 1:45 pm Thanks Alin,

I got the email, but I don't have a spare computer to try it on, so I'll probably pass.

I have just installed it and started to run benchmarking related large assembly performance.

Alin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:20 am I have just installed it and started to run benchmarking related large assembly performance.

Crazy increase in performance I cannot explain.
If curious, join the conversation in the space we are legally allowed to do so:
https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... wCRnmbiivA

Watch the video and let me know what you think might cause this crazy opening time saving.

P.S. Matt, I hope you do not mind sharing this link, but I would really like to brainstorm things like this with the best power-users... and most of them are here.

Alin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:30 am If curious, join the conversation in the space we are legally allowed to do so:
https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... wCRnmbiivA

Am curious. I did the link and replied to the "Community signup request . . .". How long does that take? Do I get notified in a real email?

Thanks

Dwight

We were heavily impacted with a supposed low priority "localization" bug with 2021.

This bug was erroneuosly classified as such ignoring that it was not a mistranslation issue, but the translation of a legacy variable name (not the variable label, the variable itself) that blown up our cutlists. We had to supply SW with our losses estimates to make them fix their mess and it was escaleted to CRITICAL and somehow fixed with this SP3.1
We are still waiting for another issue with cutlists to be solved: a rebuilding triggering some bodies material to change without apparent reason.
Also still waiting for a toll to upgrade templates as is quite time consuming and it come with the risk of breaking things such automation, variables etc.

Those are just a small sample of the many reasons our engineers trust in SW is below zero atm.

I installed SP 3.1 last week. I haven't used it a ton yet, but the crash-to-desktop issue that I was having seems to be much better. Fingers crossed, but it hasn't happened yet.

I discovered a bug in SP 3.1 today. Configuration-specific properties do not work.

Mike Gera wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:44 pm I discovered a bug in SP 3.1 today. Configuration-specific properties do not work.

How exactly? It seems to be OK on my side.
-

Tera wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:52 am How exactly? It seems to be OK on my side.
-
2022-07-21_14-51-22.png

Try setting a different "01 Flat Pattern" value for the "2" configuration.

Then, close the Property Manager and come back to see if it all saved.

Mine does not. Maybe yours is working.

Mike Gera wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 6:47 am Try setting a different "01 Flat Pattern" value for the "2" configuration.

Then, close the Property Manager and come back to see if it all saved.

Mine does not. Maybe yours is working.

Just tested. I have no problem. They saved as expected. I tried changing them both manually and with macro.
In both cases no problem on my side.

Tera wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:09 am Just tested. I have no problem. They saved as expected. I tried changing them both manually and with macro.
In both cases no problem on my side.

Talked to my VAR today. It is a bug. It's slated to be fixed in SP 4.0.

One thing that I forgot to mention is that you need to set the Bill of Materials options to "User Specified Name" to reproduce it.

Mike Gera wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:05 pm One thing that I forgot to mention is that you need to set the Bill of Materials options to "User Specified Name" to reproduce it.

Fortunately or unfortunately I can not still reproduce it.
Do you have the spr for this bug?

thanks.

Tera wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:54 pm Fortunately or unfortunately I can not still reproduce it.
Do you have the spr for this bug?

thanks.

SPR 1231137

@Mike Gera Thanks.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:02 am Wow, I can't actually figure out what could be the root cause of this, that's something. I don't understand how the middle part of a name would have an incidence on a function.

Have you shared that with your VAR? Please let us know the follow-up, I'm quite intrigued.

Is it actually the numbers that are causing the issue or is it the number of empty spaces in the file name? That's something to look at as well.

You also have a special character in your file name. In most larger organizations, the use of special characters are extremely limited- and for good reason. Special character can wreak havoc in a lot of downstream systems. Your ERP system will probably hate them and so will reporting tools!

Ryan

Ry-guy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 4:35 pm Is it actually the numbers that are causing the issue or is it the number of empty spaces in the file name? That's something to look at as well.

You also have a special character in your file name. In most larger organizations, the use of special characters are extremely limited- and for good reason. Special character can wreak havoc in a lot of downstream systems. Your ERP system will probably hate them and so will reporting tools!

Ryan

The special character has no affect either way. nor do the spaces. it is definitely the numbers, and that has been confirmed by our VAR.

no clue why, but apparently, Solidworks is aware and is working on it.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:01 am The special character has no affect either way. nor do the spaces. it is definitely the numbers, and that has been confirmed by our VAR.

no clue why, but apparently, Solidworks is aware and is working on it.

Sorry, I got lost in the conversation. What's the "special character" in reference to?

Thanks.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:30 am I think we need to have the Mission Impossible them song play whenever we open Solidworks. at least we would open it feeling a little better, then going into it already knowing our day is just going to suck.

One of our designers (All Hail Mitch) just discovered that if you rename the part so that it doesn't have numbers after the prefix in the name, the mirror now works. FML

Example:

This doesn't mirror
6903A - 2 x 2 Riser #1.sldprt

This does mirror
6903A - Riser #1.sldprt

WHAT THE ACTUAL F$%# !!

Anyway ... hopefully this helps someone else.

Mike,

Its in reference to this. the # in our file name.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:22 am Mike,

Its in reference to this. the # in our file name.

Thanks.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:28 am Of all the questionable decisions Dassault has made, the one changing the upgrade policy is the one that I resent the most (and we stay on subscription so it doesn't even affect me). Some people and companies made the decision to buy
Solidworks because they were told that they could skip subscription and get back on for $500.00. While I'm sure it was legal, I felt it was dishonest to change that policy for existing customers.

If they had changed it for new customers and grandfathered in existing customers I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The thing is Glen (BTW I agree with what you are saying), this new policy would have made some sense in the early days of SolidWorks when there really was a big difference between versions and huge amounts of manpower were used in the new versions.

Now days the new years version is barely different from the last with a few tweaks around the edges (bugs aside). Allegedly this back dating fee was supposed to pay for all the development in the years you missed. If so many people have SolidWorks and are paying subs where is this development?? My guess a lot of it goes to the 3D experience or other projects.

Surely the best way to increase revenue is to improve the product. Make it a product you just have to have. More features, more stuff bundled in for free. Not take stuff away like draftsight.

RichGergely wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 10:35 pm The thing is Glen (BTW I agree with what you are saying), this new policy would have made some sense in the early days of SolidWorks when there really was a big difference between versions and huge amounts of manpower were used in the new versions.

Now days the new years version is barely different from the last with a few tweaks around the edges (bugs aside). Allegedly this back dating fee was supposed to pay for all the development in the years you missed. If so many people have SolidWorks and are paying subs where is this development?? My guess a lot of it goes to the 3D experience or other projects.

Surely the best way to increase revenue is to improve the product. Make it a product you just have to have. More features, more stuff bundled in for free. Not take stuff away like draftsight.

You'll never here me say this but, Amen brother!
They should have stayed the course and listened to the users, not listen to the executives who are now using our annual fees to enjoy their raises and all expenses paid Maldives Luxury Vacations.

I am certain that once the mirroring bug, and the pack n go bugs are fixed along with many others (hopefully by service pack 5.1), that will be it for us.
we are not benefitting from any of the updates that are worth all of the piñata of broken features we are continually getting.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

Their very process .. the fact that they even have a schedule for the release of bug fixes tells you that they aren't sure of their own product ... but we still sign up for it every year. no more. not for us. once this years "maintenance" expires .. so does our time for signing up to madness.

also want to throw out a comment about VAR's. we are always asked to report the bugs to our VAR's. they confirm the issue, and report it to Solidworks. but I have never received a single email from them informing me of a reported bug for me to watch out for. so ... they know of a bug .. but don't tell their customers about it? and that's Value Added? for whom are they adding the value? its certainly not us.

just my 2 cents.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:34 am I am certain that once the mirroring bug, and the pack n go bugs are fixed along with many others (hopefully by service pack 5.1), that will be it for us.
we are not benefitting from any of the updates that are worth all of the piñata of broken features we are continually getting.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

Their very process .. the fact that they even have a schedule for the release of bug fixes tells you that they aren't sure of their own product ... but we still sign up for it every year. no more. not for us. once this years "maintenance" expires .. so does our time for signing up to madness.

also want to throw out a comment about VAR's. we are always asked to report the bugs to our VAR's. they confirm the issue, and report it to Solidworks. but I have never received a single email from them informing me of a reported bug for me to watch out for. so ... they know of a bug .. but don't tell their customers about it? and that's Value Added? for whom are they adding the value? its certainly not us.

just my 2 cents.

"piñata of broken features"


"we are always asked to report the bugs to our VAR's. they confirm the issue, and report it to Solidworks."
Consider yourself lucky, when ever we report a bug the response is, "Proove that it's reproducable. on your time, and then give us the exact steps to reproduce the issue. Then we'll involve Solidworks." Then we go through the same process with Solidworks. Its Dilbert all over again, I don't know if Scott Adams gets his material from corps like Dassault or if Dassault is implementing what Mr. Adams is writing.

bnemec wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:16 am "piñata of broken features"


" Its Dilbert all over again, I don't know if Scott Adams gets his material from corps like Dassault or if Dassault is implementing what Mr. Adams is writing.

I highly recommend picking up "The Dilbert Principle", it will so validate your feelings on corporate life.

Has anyone else had trouble with opening 2022 SP2 files with 2022 SP3.1?

She just grinds and grinds and grinds.

tsmith wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:26 pm Has anyone else had trouble with opening 2022 SP2 files with 2022 SP3.1?

She just grinds and grinds and grinds.

Mr Bradford created a new thread about SP4, maybe you could ask him to see if one of your problematic files still displays the problematic behavior..?

http://cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=210 ... 12042dd8b3

tsmith wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:26 pm Has anyone else had trouble with opening 2022 SP2 files with 2022 SP3.1?

She just grinds and grinds and grinds.

We did have the same issue when going from Sp2 to SP3.1. This also seems to be resolved with SP4 EV.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 3:38 pm Mr Bradford

Makes me feel like I need to comb my hair and straighten my tie.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:17 am Makes me feel like I need to comb my hair and straighten my tie.

Bradfordzzz wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:17 am Makes me feel like I need to comb my hair and straighten my tie.

I felt weird calling you directly as Bradford, so I figured I'd add a Mr.

Makes you take a few years in age upon reading it eh