New for SW2024

[Glenn Schroeder]

Has anyone else checked this out yet: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... e569f3#Pg0?

I just started glancing at it, and it looks like there's some good stuff in it, including something I never thought they would do: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... 551ffb#Pg0.

Now we wait to see how well these enhancements actually work.

[AlexLachance]

Best yet, SOLIDWORKS now includes access to the 3DEXPERIENCE® platform.

[DanPihlaja]

Has anyone else checked this out yet: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... e569f3#Pg0?

I just started glancing at it, and it looks like there's some good stuff in it, including something I never thought they would do: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... 551ffb#Pg0.

Now we wait to see how well these enhancements actually work.

I think that you are going to like this one:

https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... wizard.htm

And this one:

https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... nsions.htm

[Glenn Schroeder]

I think that you are going to like this one:

https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... wizard.htm

And this one:

https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... nsions.htm

This one looks interesting: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... e5dac2#Pg0

People have been asking for this one for quite a while: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... cb2c79#Pg0

I like this one: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... b7b758#Pg0. If I'm not mistaken, @gupta9665 first asked for in a few years ago in an idea submission for the Top Ten voting.

I don't need it, but here's another one that people have been asking for forever: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... dd6bbb#Pg0

Here is a good idea that I will use, but never thought to ask for: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... bcd8e4#Pg0

Overall, this year has more useful and or frequently asked for enhancements than I can remember seeing in a very long time. I'm pleasantly surprised.

[AlexLachance]

I'm surprised Alin hasn't spoke of this yet, there's a few interesting adds.

[DanPihlaja]

I'm surprised Alin hasn't spoke of this yet, there's a few interesting adds.

Don't you mean @Alin? *hint, hint, wink, wink*

[Ryan-3DS]

Best yet, SOLIDWORKS now includes access to the 3DEXPERIENCE® platform.

Just to annoy everyone, I'm going to like this comment. There is a lot of functionality in the platform if you need to collaborate with others.

[Ryan-3DS]

Best yet, SOLIDWORKS now includes access to the 3DEXPERIENCE® platform.

If you follow PTC products then you might know about their "Plus" products. Creo+, WIndchill+, etc. These are software versions based on the Atlas platform they got when they acquired Onshape. So you get Creo plus the platform.
If you look at Siemens they are doing a similar offering. Zel X, Mold Connector, etc.. they are providing functionality and a collaboration tool, too.

[AlexLachance]

Just to annoy everyone, I'm going to like this comment. There is a lot of functionality in the platform if you need to collaborate with others.

I doubt you're annoying anybody, it only pops up on my notification board and I think most people couldn't care less about the platform in it's current state. It obviously has a lot more shortcomings then benefits, browsing the platform gives a good idea of it's efficiency.

[Alin]

I'm surprised Alin hasn't spoke of this yet, there's a few interesting adds.

I am speechless of how many crazy enhancements were crammed in SW 2024. One of them is something that no one thought would ever be done - saving files to older versions!

[Glenn Schroeder]

I am speechless of how many crazy enhancements were crammed in SW 2024. One of them is something that no one thought would ever be done - saving files to older versions!

@Alin,

Have you done any testing to see if it works as advertised?

[XHawkeye]

Looks like a nice update, they didn't phone in.

[gupta9665]

Lot of crazy things to be witnessed in SW 2024.

[mp3-250]

When I see excitement from new enhancements my memory goes back to sw2018 when I was able to completely ruin its registry beyond recovery by dragging all the icons out the heads up display toolbar (pardon if the official english name is different)
SW would crash and had to wipe all the registry and reinstall SW as it was impossible to launch the program again. It was simply too hilarious to report.

The other nice one was sw2015(sp5!) when I clicked by mistake on mateXpert (or whatever Xpert it was) causing SW to crash. it simply did not work and sw was not even ashamed to admit they were not going to patch it.

So how long (how many sp) until those nice new features are going to break and nobody is going to care?

[mp3-250]

"Recommendation: If the file has incompatible items, save a copy of the file before you save it as a previous version."

oh, no automatic compatibility check before you save (overwrite) your data?
(but but but we warned you in the help file fine prints at the bottom of the page)

[mp3-250]

in the rare event someone at SW read my comments:

1 just TEST all of your stuff BEFORE every release.

2 after a double check on point 1, check if legacy data are compatible and not broken like that time you localized the description variable in weldments making 10yrs of our data go nuts overnight.

disclosure: I am the guy that made you escalate that problem from a 'localization issue - low impact" to "critical".
you sort of fixed it in sw2022 sp3 :)

But remember do not rename a legacy variable! NEVER!

translate a label in the UI = GOOD
rename the variable itself = BAD

one, two...one two

[josh]

Being able to pre-create a hole wizard sketch is huge, and should have been possible YEARS ago. My hole patterns use symmetry a LOT, and often with the origin. I wrote a macro that works like the mirror command, except that it will mirror about all selected construction lines... Or if none are selected, it draws a vertical and horizontal construction line at the origin and then mirrors about both of those. One click that saves about 6 or 7 clicks multiple times in a part, except... Macros are disabled while the hole wizard is active!

But even ignoring the macro issue, I'm pretty sure it's the only feature that requires you to activate the feature command, then sketch. Every single other command lets (or even requires) you sketch first and command after.

[Frank_Oostendorp]

This could be what I have been asking for for 20 years :
(could not test it yet)

[john@layketool.com]

Has anyone else checked this out yet: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... e569f3#Pg0?

I just started glancing at it, and it looks like there's some good stuff in it, including something I never thought they would do: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... 551ffb#Pg0.

Now we wait to see how well these enhancements actually work.

That feature does work with individual parts but it will not work with an assembly. You would have to open every part that's in the assembly and save it as a previous version in order for that to work.

[mattpeneguy]

in the rare event someone at SW read my comments:

1 just TEST all of your stuff BEFORE every release.

Pfft...That's your job!

2 after a double check on point 1, check if legacy data are compatible and not broken like that time you localized the description variable in weldments making 10yrs of our data go nuts overnight.

There's probably a 50% chance they checked this if I had to guess...

disclosure: I am the guy that made you escalate that problem from a 'localization issue - low impact" to "critical".
you sort of fixed it in sw2022 sp3

I went through something similar when they introduced this feature:

To test it all I did was create a reference that wasn't to an envelope component and it sent me into a loop having to click cancel 20 or 30 times. I posted this behavior to the old forum and they fixed it, but it should never have been released without this basic type of testing.

But remember do not rename a legacy variable! NEVER!

translate a label in the UI = GOOD
rename the variable itself = BAD

one, two...one two

Agreed, some of this new functionality is great. But, stability is much more important. And we no longer have any say into how much they focus on one and two, other than an assurance that it would continue to be a priority.

[mattpeneguy]

@Alin,

Have you done any testing to see if it works as advertised?

^^^^This.

Sorry @Alin but the SW team has limited resources and there are a lot of new features here. So, unless they increased the budget for testing, this may not be the good omen we think it is.

Don't get me wrong, I sure am hoping all of these features are great and more importantly, that the 2024 SP0 is stable and rock solid...But...they only have the resources they have and can only do with those resources what management allows them to...This indicates 1 and 2 may have slipped, to me.

This is why I try to test run any SW SP and any new functionality. I've been burned more than once and I recommend anyone reading this thread about this new functionality make sure to fully test it before implementing it in their workflow.

[Alin]

This is why I try to test run any SW SP and any new functionality. I've been burned more than once and I recommend anyone reading this thread about this new functionality make sure to fully test it before implementing it in their workflow.

Sage advice, as always.

[Cadmonkeychris]

Has anyone else checked this out yet: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... e569f3#Pg0?

I just started glancing at it, and it looks like there's some good stuff in it, including something I never thought they would do: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... 551ffb#Pg0.

Now we wait to see how well these enhancements actually work.

Just a thought: does this mean that SW is now locked into a final version of parasolid? If so, what are the implications for further development?

[Alin]

Just a thought: does this mean that SW is now locked into a final version of parasolid? If so, what are the implications for further development?

No. R&D for SW 2025-2028 is on the way.

[KennyG]

Just to annoy everyone, I'm going to like this comment. There is a lot of functionality in the platform if you need to collaborate with others.

Ryan, when you store your SolidWorks files in the 3Dexperience platform, are they stored natively or are they converted over to the CGM format used by the other 3Dexperience apps?

[Arthur NY]

This backwards compatible thing may not really be the saving grace that we would all like this hoy grail of an addition to add. Meaning that this can go one of two ways....

Option A: This means that there really won't be able new feature/tools added to the software that don't already exist. That everything will just be slight enhancements to what's already in the software. The whole idea of a parametric tree is..... that's right, it is parametric. If there is a new features that exist in the new version that didn't exist in the old version, when saved backwards, means what exactly? Will the code for that new feature be 100% editable in the old version, if so how? That it didn't exist before and isn't in other Parametric software is giving me a big pause button and has mean leaning towards the idea that only enhancements will be added. Looking through the What's New PDF of 2024 is a perfect example. All things added are areas of upgrading what existed. Example Cur Revolve has Flip Side Cut........ it's 2023!!! How was this not added 20 years ago? With it being in the older version, and if it isn't editable, that creates an entire new world of hurt. Will the older version know what it didn't know that the new version knows?

We might as well send Marty McFly back to 1995 and have him tell John H and the team to put this in the kernal/code so it will use ChatGPT to know what we are looking for in the future from the past!!!

Option B: See Option A........................

Also we ALL know to stay away from new version of SW prior to SP 2.0 at the very least. At at least make copies of Parts/Assemblies first before using SP 0 for production work....... Le Sigh!!!! Isn't this what AI is supposed to fix?!?!

[josh]

So.... If you'll check the description of the "save as previous version" function, when you try to save to old version it will analyze your model and tell you what will be incompatible with the old version. You'll then have to delete or cancel and re-model. Similar to what Excel does, but significantly more complicated I'm sure.

[Arthur NY]

So.... If you'll check the description of the "save as previous version" function, when you try to save to old version it will analyze your model and tell you what will be incompatible with the old version. You'll then have to delete or cancel and re-model. Similar to what Excel does, but significantly more complicated I'm sure.

Yea I read that and it seems like a 100% complete waste of time. Just send a STEP/Parasolid file and I'll go from there. Trying to pull apart a tree that has 100's of parent/child relationships just won't do. And imagine if it's a new file that you didn't build, someone else did, and now you have to get in their head and understand how a model was built and only then can it start to be pulled apart......

If anything the "Inter-Connect" is the more efficient way to go.........There's a reason why this hasn't been done before, and until there's time travel it's probably just not going to be possible to get the future into the past!!!

[Peter De Vlieger]

Another year without any love for 'routing'.

They added 2 things for 'piping', yep two whole things:
-Naming Wires and Cables in the FeatureManager Design Tree
-Discrete Wires with Auto Route

Once again they worked on electrical, like they do every single year, while there are even less people using Electrical than those doing actual piping/tubing and this while piping/tubing have regressions every year.

Pull the other <expletive deleted> one, it has bells on !

[Peter De Vlieger]

By the way, why is there a draftsight section in the Solidworks what's new?
Draftsight is a completely seperate product that needs to be bought on it's own. What's next, having a section about Catia ?

Who cares about Draftsight? There are far better acad clones out there and with far better LISP support. In other words, further proof that the 'what's new' is just another marketing document and not actually something that is meant to assist the customer.

[dave.laban]

So this article got linked to from Swym; https://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworks ... ve-it.html

There's a very interesting tidbit buried right at the bottom;

We are also on a mission to deliver new enhancements more frequently. Going forward, you will receive more enhancements throughout the year as our service packs will include new functionality in addition to reliability, compatibility, performance, and security improvements. Similar to the SOLIDWORKS roles in the 3DEXPERIENCE Works portfolio, which get updated every eight to 12 weeks, you will receive more value from our service pack updates to SOLIDWORKS.

So Service Packs will also be introducing new functionality...definitely no scope for drama there?

[mp3-250]

you will love it.

aka beatings will increase until morale improves

[zxys001]

Yea I read that and it seems like a 100% complete waste of time. Just send a STEP/Parasolid file and I'll go from there. Trying to pull apart a tree that has 100's of parent/child relationships just won't do. And imagine if it's a new file that you didn't build, someone else did, and now you have to get in their head and understand how a model was built and only then can it start to be pulled apart......

If anything the "Inter-Connect" is the more efficient way to go.........There's a reason why this hasn't been done before, and until there's time travel it's probably just not going to be possible to get the future into the past!!!

Exodus Strategies? Hmm...
BTW, do you or anyone know if there is a way to completely/totally remove the Feature Tree's and remove all Parametric's of SLDPRT's/SLDASM's while preserving the SLDDRW's.
Maybe a Macro to run on a set of SLDDRW's and it makes ALL SLDPRT's and SLDASM's "DUMB" (export X_T)?
Understanding some dimensions/links may be lost/dangling.

I typically LOCK everything thing but I think a FEATURE TREE STRIP would be nice to do in some situations (exodus) for a close or end of a project release.

Thoughts? (or, I/we can move this to another thread)

[DLZ_SWX_User]

This one looks interesting: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... e5dac2#Pg0

People have been asking for this one for quite a while: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... cb2c79#Pg0

I like this one: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... b7b758#Pg0. If I'm not mistaken, @gupta9665 first asked for in a few years ago in an idea submission for the Top Ten voting.

I don't need it, but here's another one that people have been asking for forever: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... dd6bbb#Pg0

Here is a good idea that I will use, but never thought to ask for: https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... bcd8e4#Pg0

Overall, this year has more useful and or frequently asked for enhancements than I can remember seeing in a very long time. I'm pleasantly surprised.

There are several here that will be a nice addition.

But if I understand things correctly I don't expect this https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... 551ffb#Pg0 to work well with the new new features which is understandable. Though it will be nice if a change needs to happen on an older part & you a working with other people that have older versions of SolidWorks, as long as the change does not include any of the features added since the version you want to save to. Now if it works as described and notifies you which features those are then maybe it could be changed that would be great! Otherwise use a STEP file to go backwards in versions.

[AlexLachance]

So this article got linked to from Swym; https://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworks ... ve-it.html

There's a very interesting tidbit buried right at the bottom;

We are also on a mission to deliver new enhancements more frequently. Going forward, you will receive more enhancements throughout the year as our service packs will include new functionality in addition to reliability, compatibility, performance, and security improvements. Similar to the SOLIDWORKS roles in the 3DEXPERIENCE Works portfolio, which get updated every eight to 12 weeks, you will receive more value from our service pack updates to SOLIDWORKS.

So Service Packs will also be introducing new functionality...definitely no scope for drama there?

This is how they currently work on the platform and it seems to be painful.

[Arthur NY]

@zxys001 Paul........ "maybe" here's a really bad hack way of doing this.

Option 1: With the Assembly and Drawings open do a save as in the Assembly and change it to a Part file. This "should" give a Part file with only bodies in it.

Option 2: Have only the Assembly open and save that as a Part file. In windows move the drawing associated with the Assembly to a different folder this way when you open it Solidworks won't be able to find the Assembly and ask you to point it to that file only in this case point it to the Part file.

I will say that Solidworks could at least update the parasolid kernal to support the new (.STEP) file format as it will bring across dimensions as part of the file that are editable....

[zxys001]

@zxys001 Paul........ "maybe" here's a really bad hack way of doing this.

Option 1: With the Assembly and Drawings open do a save as in the Assembly and change it to a Part file. This "should" give a Part file with only bodies in it.

Option 2: Have only the Assembly open and save that as a Part file. In windows move the drawing associated with the Assembly to a different folder this way when you open it Solidworks won't be able to find the Assembly and ask you to point it to that file only in this case point it to the Part file.

I will say that Solidworks could at least update the parasolid kernal to support the new (.STEP) file format as it will bring across dimensions as part of the file that are editable....

Hi Arthur,.. thanks but unfortunately that would not work for what I'm trying to do.. I need all the prts, asm's and drw's as is.. just want to remove the feature trees (dumb breps only) and preserve the drw's as much as possible.

[mp3-250]

Another year without any love for 'routing'.

They added 2 things for 'piping', yep two whole things:
-Naming Wires and Cables in the FeatureManager Design Tree
-Discrete Wires with Auto Route

Once again they worked on electrical, like they do every single year, while there are even less people using Electrical than those doing actual piping/tubing and this while piping/tubing have regressions every year.

Pull the other <expletive deleted> one, it has bells on !

we smelled that routing was a semi-finished under-supported package and we decided to develop a simpler in house tool for our modest routing needs.

[mp3-250]

Exodus Strategies? Hmm...
BTW, do you or anyone know if there is a way to completely/totally remove the Feature Tree's and remove all Parametric's of SLDPRT's/SLDASM's while preserving the SLDDRW's.
Maybe a Macro to run on a set of SLDDRW's and it makes ALL SLDPRT's and SLDASM's "DUMB" (export X_T)?
Understanding some dimensions/links may be lost/dangling.

I typically LOCK everything thing but I think a FEATURE TREE STRIP would be nice to do in some situations (exodus) for a close or end of a project release.

Thoughts? (or, I/we can move this to another thread) **

siemens NX since the unigraphics days has a nice "remove parameters" command. another nice thing is that assembly files does not exist and you could mate a part under another one.

[AL123]

That feature does work with individual parts but it will not work with an assembly. You would have to open every part that's in the assembly and save it as a previous version in order for that to work.

Actually it does work with Assemblies you can use the File -> pack and go to save as a previous version.

To be honest I found this when simulating a belt and braces pack and go as the current version as a backup (plus check it opens!) then I was confident enough pack and go as earlier version to a completely different location, adding a prefix/ suffix so no chance of overwriting the original unintentionally

Tested a fair bit and the compatability check tool seems to do a good job.

only features added to the software beyond the release you are saving to are prompted for removal.

[RichGergely]

So this article got linked to from Swym; https://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworks ... ve-it.html

There's a very interesting tidbit buried right at the bottom;

We are also on a mission to deliver new enhancements more frequently. Going forward, you will receive more enhancements throughout the year as our service packs will include new functionality in addition to reliability, compatibility, performance, and security improvements. Similar to the SOLIDWORKS roles in the 3DEXPERIENCE Works portfolio, which get updated every eight to 12 weeks, you will receive more value from our service pack updates to SOLIDWORKS.

So Service Packs will also be introducing new functionality...definitely no scope for drama there?

Well there is one thing, I guess it gives a better argument about ending subscription and what you are entitled to.

As we know at the moment if you end subs you are only entitled up to the SP version the day the subs lapse. This may leave you with a totally unusable version that was fixed on a later SP that you aren't entitled to. I am probably one of many users that think this isn't really fair.

If they now are saying they want to add more functionality through the year I guess they have a better argument why you are only entitled to the SP up to when subs stop. Though it still doesn't fix the unusable problem.

[Dwight]

Being able to pre-create a hole wizard sketch is huge . . .

I read the description and, based on the illustration, I don't think it works the way I would want it. It appears that if you preselect a sketch, it uses it as a reference sketch, not as the Hole Wizard sketch. I hope I'm wrong, since I dislike doing the reference sketch thing with Hole Wizard.

Dwight

[Dwight]

They provided a "symmetrical linear pattern" instead of a midplane option, which I've wanted for years. The symmetrical linear pattern only allows an odd number in the pattern. Granted, having an even number means you have to delete the seed, but I can't image that's such a big deal, and I'd be happy if it worked only 90% of the time.

[AlexLachance]

They provided a "symmetrical linear pattern" instead of a midplane option, which I've wanted for years. The symmetrical linear pattern only allows an odd number in the pattern. Granted, having an even number means you have to delete the seed, but I can't image that's such a big deal, and I'd be happy if it worked only 90% of the time.

Why not use two directions and have only the original occurence be repeated in the second direction..? That would give you the desired result I believe..?

[Dwight]

Why not use two directions and have only the original occurence be repeated in the second direction..? That would give you the desired result I believe..?

Kind of, but the convenient thing would be to build on center then pattern on center.

[bnemec]

Why not use two directions and have only the original occurence be repeated in the second direction..? That would give you the desired result I believe..?

I think in the case of even number of occurrences the pattern would not be centered. This doesn't sound like a big deal, just edit the feature sketch to put the seed off center. But what if the number and spacing is driven or not known up front. We run into the case where the pattern is driven in different places, (the seed feature sketch AND the pattern feature) Ideally we wouldn't need to edit the seed feature sketch for the pattern to change from odd to even number of occurrences. And if it's even number then we need to edit the offset in the sketch if the pattern spacing changes. I've run into this and I think that's what Dwight is referring to as well.

[TTevolve]

Yep, if your going in both directions off a center seed hole it's got to be an odd number of holes. I do a lot of frames that have mounting holes and run into this all the time. I almost always go from the corner a set distance and then the equations are easier to get the spacing ((overall - (end dist*2))/# of holes).

Both directions only helps you when you know you will have odd number of holes

[zwei]

Putting all the hoo-ha with 3dexperience aside

The enhancement does look interesting

My personal favorite so far
- Display override dimension in different color
- Reattach dangling dimension with a PROPER reattach command
- Highlight reference element when selecting a dimension
- Auto-save after mesh & simulation

I never thought Save As Previous Version will get implemented... how the software handle incompatible feature might be a can of worm thought

[Uncle_Hairball]

So Service Packs will also be introducing new functionality...definitely no scope for drama there?

Oh great, now there's no way to decide which service pack is acceptable for production work. SP5 will be as unastable as SP0.

[john@layketool.com]

Actually it does work with Assemblies you can use the File -> pack and go to save as a previous version.

To be honest I found this when simulating a belt and braces pack and go as the current version as a backup (plus check it opens!) then I was confident enough pack and go as earlier version to a completely different location, adding a prefix/ suffix so no chance of overwriting the original unintentionally

Tested a fair bit and the compatability check tool seems to do a good job.

only features added to the software beyond the release you are saving to are prompted for removal.

That's good to know. I don't use Pack n Go for file moving but normally do a FILE SAVE AS to transfer or move files. Doing it as a File SAVE AS and choosing a previous release does not save the part models as a previous version but just the assembly or drawing. This seems more like their normal "Do a new feature half way" type of enhancement and fix it in a later release like we're used to.