Solidworks 2024 - "Save As" Previous versions.....

[Arthur NY]

This is one of the biggest sore spots when it comes to Parametric modeling. It's greatest strength is also one of it's biggest weaknesses which is backwards compatibility. Some look at it as a way to keep users/companies hooked on having to get the new version in order to stay compatible with what others are using. While there may be some semblance of truth here in the end it comes down to it being strictly technical..... if a new feature, that wasn't in the older version, is used in the new version then it's simply not possible to just do a "save as...older" version. But let's say it could, then there would be a feature in the tree which would not be parametric.

So here's a quick vid showing a new functionality in 2024 that allows for files to be saved as far back as 2022.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lennartt ... er_desktop

So now the question is you've made a model in 2024 version with, lets say 100 items in your tree, how do you keep track of what was not in a previous version?

Should each feature that wasn't in 2022 or 2023 be highlight and noted as such?

Will this make you model differently? Leaving things out or later in the tree so that less can possibly fail if it's taken out?

How far back will the future versions go? (i.e. will 2029 version be able to go back as far as 2022) Or will there be a "X" year limit?

Will there be a new feature will will interrogate the model, knowing what wasn't in the previous version and help reorder the tree so that those features can be deleted? (Maybe some AI assisted chatbot will tap the screen like the old M$ paperclip giving users a heads up)

Le Sigh....... It would seem that as many doors that are now open are also now going to add an additional layer of modeling stress ontop of what is already on our daily plates. Is this of big interest to anyone? Who's excited for this and why?

[AlexLachance]

I don't think it will add an additional layer of stress/issues. I see it as an addition to what was existing. If you wanted backwards compatibility, then it's somewhat possible now. If you did not care about it before and are stressed of what it could cause, simply enforce people to continue working as you previously did.

This could only become problematic/cumbersome when working with external contractors and other incidences of such nature.

It's the kind of issues I love adressing. I'm wondering how they'll make non-parametric features inside parts, like is that going to generate an additional body or will that simply be a "dumb" feature with the geometry information contained inside it?

[CarrieIves]

We have actually benefitted from this functionality. We are in SW2023. Our customer is starting to use SolidWorks and had to send us some files to work on for them. They were able to save back to SW2023 so that I could pick up the work for us.

[Arthur NY]

@AlexLachance Agreed that generally within the same company users aren't on different versions so it's definitely when working with outside vendors where this is going to start to be challenging.

@CarrieIves Do you know how things went with them saving it backwards? Like did they have to do a lot of deleting or reordering of features?

I'm also now thinking about Assemblies with, say, 20 sub-assemblies and 50 Part files in it and now having to good through this list of features in each to strip them out of what's not backwards compatible..... come on, isn't AI supposed to fix all of this!!!!

[CarrieIves]

@Arthur NY They were able to just do a "save as" on the top level assembly. They didn't have to do anything special. It probably helped that it started as a SW2023 assembly, went to my customer, they made some moderate changes in SW2024, and then did the save as to hand it back to me to work on.

[jcapriotti]

Pretty good video of how it works.

[Arthur NY]

@jcapriotti So imagine now there are 30 other items after that linear pattern existing the way it did prior to the change, with parent child relationships that are downstream and now you got yourself a good ole time having to rebuild all of the broken connections. This is kind of what I was posting about earlier which is that new modeling methods will have to happen so that you can avoid this as much as possible from happening. Which very well may fly in the face of some of the conventional methods that users have built up over the years.

[jcapriotti]

@jcapriotti So imagine now there are 30 other items after that linear pattern existing the way it did prior to the change, with parent child relationships that are downstream and now you got yourself a good ole time having to rebuild all of the broken connections. This is kind of what I was posting about earlier which is that new modeling methods will have to happen so that you can avoid this as much as possible from happening. Which very well may fly in the face of some of the conventional methods that users have built up over the years.

I think it depends on the company and your customer needs. If you share a lot between different companies that could be on different versions you might bake this into your process to not use new features and options. We don't so we just push forward with new features and options.

[dave.laban]

How far back will the future versions go? (i.e. will 2029 version be able to go back as far as 2022) Or will there be a "X" year limit?

Pretty sure one of the announcement videos said (implied?) it would be a rolling two years back limit, so 2029 save as back to 2027.

[Arthur NY]

Pretty sure one of the announcement videos said (implied?) it would be a rolling two years back limit, so 2029 save as back to 2027.

See.......... this is what drives me extra crazy.... it's like "Here, we're gonna give you this great carrot BUT if you don't eat it in two days it goes bad!!!" There can't be any reasonable reason that two years be a limitation if not to force companies to have to upgrade.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Pretty sure one of the announcement videos said (implied?) it would be a rolling two years back limit, so 2029 save as back to 2027.

To be fair, while I don't know anything about writing computer code I can see where going back farther than that could be problematic. I'm astonished they are allowing any backward compatibility.