Reply

v19 cannot read v20 files


We have just recently upgraded our engineering seats to SolidEdge v20 Classic, but
our production manager uses the free 2D package to print the drafts we create.
The Free 2D package on the UGS website is still v19, which cannot read v20 draft
files. Is there a work-around for this until the v20 2D package is released?
8 REPLIES

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files

Save As DWG
--
Ken
http://grundey.blogspot.com
"Dan Corbin" wrote in message
news:47028663$1@bbsnotes.ugs.com...
>
> We have just recently upgraded our engineering seats to SolidEdge v20
> Classic, but
> our production manager uses the free 2D package to print the drafts we
> create.
> The Free 2D package on the UGS website is still v19, which cannot read v20
> draft
> files. Is there a work-around for this until the v20 2D package is
> released?


Re: v19 cannot read v20 files


Hardly Ideal from a digital integration point of view....

"PellaKen" wrote:
>Save As DWG
>
>--
>Ken
>http://grundey.blogspot.com

www.continual-motion.com

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files

True, it would be better to have at least, one version back compatible.
"Andy Southern" wrote in message
news:47036ca4$1@bbsnotes.ugs.com...
>
> Hardly Ideal from a digital integration point of view....
>
>
>
> "PellaKen" wrote:
>>Save As DWG
>>
>>--
>>Ken
>>http://grundey.blogspot.com

> www.continual-motion.com

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files

Dan,
V20 2D Drafting will be available soon. We will release all languages at the
same time.
Rick B.

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files


Yes, but there are practical reasons (as well as commercial reasons) why CAD companies
do this.
I think everyone in the industry has just learnt to accept it, and in the case of
SE2d free, the free side of things does make me accept it in this case, though a
little prompter upgrade would have been appreciated!
If every version were able to link to every other version, then the software companies
would struggle to bring in new features to the software (specifically those that
require saving within the part or assembly files) and so no progress would ever
be made, hence no need to upgrade, hence a sale of a seat would depend solely on
the market for the software expanding, so the software house would probably go shi-to-sky.
therefore I can tolerate the backward compatibility issue.
-AS
(not a VAR, not a UGS employee)

"T-H Lim" wrote:
>True, it would be better to have at least, one version back compatible.
>
>"Andy Southern" wrote in message
>news:47036ca4$1@bbsnotes.ugs.com...
>>
>> Hardly Ideal from a digital integration point of view....
>>
>>

www.continual-motion.com

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files

Dear Andy,
I think that as a user and customer who use these products that forces you
to move forward, you have resigned to the fact that you have no option but
to swallow whatever they shove down your throat. Of course they do this so
that continued revenue from existing customers base is ensured. However,
these companies are overlooking or perhaps ignoring one important fact.
Customers want flexibility. It may be due to budget constrain or some other
reasons that some customers may not or could not upgrade some seats or all
seats. Because software like SE does not allow users to save their work in
older versions, other stations that need to work on data generated by newer
versions will either have to upgrade or loose the job. Not great for the
user but good business for the vendor as long as there is an understanding
across the industry that this would be the standard business practice. If we
look at some freeware like progeCAD, it not only allows you to save in 2004
dwg but goes all the way back to Release 2.5 dxf. One fine day, a 3D upstart
will refuse to play the game and make their software back compatible. That
upstart will rule the 3D market.
My 2 cents,
Lim

"Andy Southern" wrote in message
news:4703b103$1@bbsnotes.ugs.com...
>
> Yes, but there are practical reasons (as well as commercial reasons) why
> CAD companies
> do this.
>
> I think everyone in the industry has just learnt to accept it, and in the
> case of
> SE2d free, the free side of things does make me accept it in this case,
> though a
> little prompter upgrade would have been appreciated!
>
> If every version were able to link to every other version, then the
> software companies
> would struggle to bring in new features to the software (specifically
> those that
> require saving within the part or assembly files) and so no progress would
> ever
> be made, hence no need to upgrade, hence a sale of a seat would depend
> solely on
> the market for the software expanding, so the software house would
> probably go shi-to-sky.
> therefore I can tolerate the backward compatibility issue.
>
> -AS
>
> (not a VAR, not a UGS employee)
>
>
>
> "T-H Lim" wrote:
>>True, it would be better to have at least, one version back compatible.
>>
>>"Andy Southern" wrote in message
>>news:47036ca4$1@bbsnotes.ugs.com...
>>>
>>> Hardly Ideal from a digital integration point of view....
>>>
>>>

> www.continual-motion.com

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files

I can assure you that there is not some phylisophical reason that current
versions cannot save to older version. Enhancements are made from release to
release for performance and other reasons that require updates to the file
format. New object types are created that require updates to the file
format. Would you want new object types to be stripped out of the file if
the older versions did not support it. So it is strictly progressive moving
forward.
Regards,
Rick B.

Re: v19 cannot read v20 files

Thanks for the explanation, Rick. But users will still remain unconvinced. I
am not commenting specifically on SE alone but other players as well. It is
not your fault so don't take it too personally. This is a natural result of
free enterprise and capitalism. That is why there are laws against
monopolism and uncompetitive business practices. No other company knows this
better than microsoft. However, even microsoft products allow users to save
work in older versions. But doing so will evoke a message informing the user
that some features and formatting will be lost. Some programs will even
generate a report indicating which data was not converted. Rick, even you
can't argue the logic that it should be left to the user if they want to go
ahead with the conversion to an older format despite some deficiencies. In
most cases, the essential data will be preserved and other parties should be
able to continue working with it. In the case of 3D CAD data, I think we
have come to a stage where how solids are encoded are more or less settled.
Unless, working with complex surface features I think, there are little
variables in solids data that would make backward compatibility absolutely
impossible. It would appear that there is no satisfactory explanation other
than commercial interest in not providing the option for saving in older
formats.
To understand this behaviour further we have to look back at how the 3D
market evolved since the days of Computervision. That company not only sold
3D software but also the hardware required to run it. The hardware were
based on the defunct digital machines. When a maverick in that company
suggested that their software should be made open to operate across popular
platforms the top management would have nothing of it because they didn't
want to loose the hardware business. So, the maverick left and started PTC.
Pro/Engineer not only operated on the digital platform but sun microsystem,
silicon graphics, hp, ibm and other unix based machines. That was the time
when all those workstations were already running on 64 bit microprocessors
and Intel was still struggling to keep up with Motorola's 32 bit chip.
Pro/Engineer was such a success that it spelt the death of Computervision.
Then a few guys at PTC decided to follow the same formula and tried to
introduce a package that will work on the ubiquitous Windows platform. Their
heads filled with dreams of how many licenses will be sold because just
about everyone was using a Windows machine. That was how Solidworks started.
But PTC saw the danger and was quick to respond. PTC too introduced a
version ported for the Windows platform. Because PTC was quick to adapt, it
did not meet the fate that felled Computervision. There is a lesson to be
learnt from this story. Computervision forced its customers to use their
proprietary machine and it died because of that. PTC didn't tie its
customers to unix but overlooked the Windows market. As a result of that
oversight Solidworks became a major player in the mid-range 3D market
competing with PTC's core modules. With each turn of events, we see an
important effect that favoured the new player. It broke the barrier that
tied users to limited choices. I do not know if the option to save in an
older format is the last barrier to be broken where 3D software is concern
but I look forward to the knight who will break the shackle that prevents us
from working with older software. That upstart will have my support and am
sure the market at large will too.
My 2 more cents,
Lim

"Ricky Black" wrote in message
news:4704eaca@bbsnotes.ugs.com...
>I can assure you that there is not some phylisophical reason that current
>versions cannot save to older version. Enhancements are made from release
>to release for performance and other reasons that require updates to the
>file format. New object types are created that require updates to the file
>format. Would you want new object types to be stripped out of the file if
>the older versions did not support it. So it is strictly progressive moving
>forward.
>
> Regards,
> Rick B.
>