CAD Forum

That's awful.

So you buy the software but you can't use some of the features without being on subscription. Greedy Bastards

Got blocked by the paid wall, again.
Soon it'll be paid per-use.
Every single command.
Undo will be expensive. Save will be the most expensive.

At least they didn't implement it as SW-premium only.

Jim Elias wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:03 pm At least they didn't implement it as SW-premium only.

Don't give them any ideas.

Ah, yes, they are who they are...

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:57 pm Don't give them any ideas.

But maybe there could be Business Development Consulting in my future...

As a company who's hardware is useless without software, and as an owner who sees the bills for that software, I understand where they are coming from. DSS is by far the greediest company I know of. Worse than MS, Adobe, etc, but software isn't cheap, and I don't begrudge a company wanting to generate revenue from their software in order to pay for said software.

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:16 am As a company who's hardware is useless without software, and as an owner who sees the bills for that software, I understand where they are coming from. DSS is by far the greediest company I know of. Worse than MS, Adobe, etc, but software isn't cheap, and I don't begrudge a company wanting to generate revenue from their software in order to pay for said software.

True. The real historical issue has always been about paying maintenance but the product's reliability issues not getting addressed.

I've been thinking about the addition of this feature and I concluded that a reason we are seeing this now is because the addition of new features (not just new ways to achieve the same thing, ie, SW2025 sketch colour change etc...) is definitely slowing down. Has anyone had an issue with saving to an earlier version and SW not being able to achieve this because feature X in 2024 is not available in 2022?

gristle wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:40 pm I've been thinking about the addition of this feature and I concluded that a reason we are seeing this now is because the addition of new features (not just new ways to achieve the same thing, ie, SW2025 sketch colour change etc...) is definitely slowing down. Has anyone had an issue with saving to an earlier version and SW not being able to achieve this because feature X in 2024 is not available in 2022?

In theory future version features are not exported and the model butchered accordingly

Jim Elias wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:03 pm At least they didn't implement it as SW-premium only.

...or SOLIDWORKS ULTIMATE

https://www.solidworks.com/media/first- ... s-ultimate

mp3-250 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:43 pm In theory future version features are not exported and the model butchered accordingly

I've worked in 2023 in a model that was saved from 2024. No butchering present. It was a surface model. There's been 2/3rds of FA development on surface features in recent years which means it is now possible to pass a model from a newer date code backwards.

gristle wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:57 pm I've worked in 2023 in a model that was saved from 2024. No butchering present. It was a surface model. There's been 2/3rds of FA development on surface features in recent years which means it is now possible to pass a model from a newer date code backwards.

what I meant if a feature does not exist in past version it is not exported.
At least this is how it was explainaled to me

mp3-250 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 5:55 pm what I meant if a feature does not exist in past version it is not exported.
At least this is how it was explainaled to me

When was the last time they actually added a feature? I mean one that people use? Really. It's a weak argument obviously decorating over the fact that the "reverse compatibility" mockery is at root a crass financial trap. Subterfuge - even crass and obvious subterfuge - is easier and more profitable than implementing good technical ideas.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:12 pm When was the last time they actually added a feature? I mean one that people use? Really. It's a weak argument obviously decorating over the fact that the "reverse compatibility" mockery is at root a crass financial trap. Subterfuge - even crass and obvious subterfuge - is easier and more profitable than implementing good technical ideas.

To be clear, I am not trying to defend nothing here. I was stating what happen in the light of all the BAD practice sw devs used and use.

NX used to introduce new command keeping the old one hidden for maximum compatibility. SW just add and modify existing feature, the latest in 2024 with hole wizard referencing middle points or other not explicit geometry. I do not know how that behave if exported in previous versions, but it is a receipt for chaos.

I would version up only to have bug fixed, and I have a long colection in both sw and pdm...

gristle wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:40 pm I've been thinking about the addition of this feature and I concluded that a reason we are seeing this now is because the addition of new features (not just new ways to achieve the same thing, ie, SW2025 sketch colour change etc...) is definitely slowing down. Has anyone had an issue with saving to an earlier version and SW not being able to achieve this because feature X in 2024 is not available in 2022?

2024 will give you an "Incompatible items" report and won't let the save continue. So you'll (theoretically) never end up sending junk data, but you do have to be always keeping an eye on limiting operations to those of the intended target seat.

Would be nice if they had a switch that would put you into e.g. "2022 mode" to block out the 2024 commands/options that didn't exist back then.

All in all, assuming that this thing really works, it will be nice being able to deinstall two installations. I am now running 2017(!), 2020, 2022 and 2023 to serve various clients. I would also hope that future releases don't just move the "two years" bar forward, but rather will always be able to save going back to 2022.

gristle wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:57 pm I've worked in 2023 in a model that was saved from 2024. No butchering present. It was a surface model. There's been 2/3rds of FA development on surface features in recent years which means it is now possible to pass a model from a newer date code backwards.

So apropos my last post, if 2024 performed the save of this model "in 2023", it should be that the model could actually also have been created in SW2023.

mp3-250 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 11:09 pm To be clear, I am not trying to defend nothing here. I was stating what happen in the light of all the BAD practice sw devs used and use.

NX used to introduce new command keeping the old one hidden for maximum compatibility. SW just add and modify existing feature, the latest in 2024 with hole wizard referencing middle points or other not explicit geometry. I do not know how that behave if exported in previous versions, but it is a receipt for chaos.

I would version up only to have bug fixed, and I have a long colection in both sw and pdm...

I think we've all seen the bigger issue about this before, when a perfectly docile, well-behaved model falls apart inexplicably when opened in a later SW version.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 6:12 pm When was the last time they actually added a feature? I mean one that people use? Really. It's a weak argument obviously decorating over the fact that the "reverse compatibility" mockery is at root a crass financial trap. Subterfuge - even crass and obvious subterfuge - is easier and more profitable than implementing good technical ideas.

For me, paying maintenance on my perpetual seats has always been about maintaining compatibility as clients upgrade. I would have rather saved the cash going back at least 5 years otherwise. Doesn't matter if it's DS, Siemens, Autodesk -- the new stuff sometimes adds a bit more convenience, but it's been a long time since some new feature has really improved my internal bottom line. YMMV of course, as there's a lot of capability which I admittedly have never used at all.

Wow!

Quite the response.

I paid for a subscription, out of my personal checkbook, for 20+ years.

This is the poke in the eye I get in return for the ~$30k I paid DSS.

Thanks guys...

doobes wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 6:53 pm SolidWorks douchbags.JPG

oh my gawd I'm sorry but that is just a great representation of the recent failures of Dassault, hiding behind good intentions is a lack of actual effort.

Jim Elias wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:33 am 2024 will give you an "Incompatible items" report and won't let the save continue. So you'll (theoretically) never end up sending junk data, but you do have to be always keeping an eye on limiting operations to those of the intended target seat.

Would be nice if they had a switch that would put you into e.g. "2022 mode" to block out the 2024 commands/options that didn't exist back then.

All in all, assuming that this thing really works, it will be nice being able to deinstall two installations. I am now running 2017(!), 2020, 2022 and 2023 to serve various clients. I would also hope that future releases don't just move the "two years" bar forward, but rather will always be able to save going back to 2022.

We sort of unwilling "achieved" that in a odd way as we had a template made with sw 2012 that we used for almost 10 yrs before realizing all the oddballs we had in regards to cutlists and other feature that were modified during those years just happened because sw was sort of scaling back to 2012 compatibility even if we were using 2020 at that time, literally models exploding in our faces, body materials changing for god knows why at rebuild, all sort of performance issues.

Still I had "solidworks 98" file properties popping up when creating new templates: I noticed only becose sensors broke down and were unusable...

To be honest with this kind of premise I have no confidence this save as previously version is going to work 100% as expected.
Like everything SW my expectation would be some ridiculous bug or regression every other version.

Jim Elias wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 1:33 am I would also hope that future releases don't just move the "two years" bar forward, but rather will always be able to save going back to 2022.

Pretty sure when they announced it they confirmed it would be a rolling 2 years, not always back to 2022. Just can't find a link to verify.

dave.laban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 3:21 am Pretty sure when they announced it they confirmed it would be a rolling 2 years, not always back to 2022. Just can't find a link to verify.

That's correct. See https://help.solidworks.com/2024/Englis ... 7c2bc9#Pg0.