How is everyone liking Solidworks 2022 SP1?

[AlexLachance]

Thanks!

I have already done that actually. and I have sent a follow up one as well.
I was hoping to get more feedback and reaction to this issue, but I don't know if our VAR's hands are tied?
They went thru the issue with me .. and can see the problem, and have met with Solidworks team to discuss
but since then, I have only been met with .. "we are looking into it"
followed by .. we are continuing to look into it.

You'll eventually be met with a "We've fixed it in SolidWorks 202X!", most likely only to be bit by a different bug that affects you similarly. Sorry for the pessimism.

[Bradfordzzz]

You'll eventually be met with a "We've fixed it in SolidWorks 202X!", most likely only to be bit by a different bug that affects you similarly. Sorry for the pessimism.

I don't think we can call it pessimism. Let's just call it what it is ... Experience.

[AlexLachance]

I don't think we can call it pessimism. Let's just call it what it is ... Experience.

Showstoppers like what you're dealing with are a great reason to upgrade, I haven't ran into a showstopper in each version I've used, but each showstopper that I've ran into and that has been fixed, has had other issues, which might not be showstoppers but are still major ones, to deal with.

It's a little love hate relation. I'm staying on 2019 right now because I know most of the bugs that are on that version and have work-arounds for some of them. If I upgrade, then all that 'knowledge' is gone and has to start over.

But I certainly wish I could upgrade without worries, or with less at the very least.

[Bradfordzzz]

Honestly .. the only 2 things that are problems for us in this version are the mirroring, and the packandgo.
packandgo is workable. it takes extra time, but we can manage until a patch resolved that issue.

The mirroring on the other hand .. any work around that we have tried is just not ridiculously painstaking.
we are losing a lot of time, and we need to work extra overtime, to prevent our customers deliveries from being affected because of it.
our software issues cannot be our customers problems. I really hope this fix happens quickly.

[Bradfordzzz]

So .. one of our designers has discovered something that kind of works ish..

Here is the work flow.


1. Select the items you want to mirror, and form new subassembly with those items
2. Mirror that subassembly , and select the “create opposite hand version” as normal
3. You will see now that the mirror works.
4. Now dissolve the mirror
5. Try to dissolve the subassembly now … Solidworks wants you to rename all of the components.

If we could find a way to not have to rename .. this method could be a good work around and would likely be the best solution until the issue is resolved.

Any ideas on how to avoid having to rename all the mirrored components?
Its not bad on small jobs, but when the job has hundreds of details, its just not practical.

[AlexLachance]

Keep the sub-assembly and have it promoted? Don't know just spitballing here haha

[SPerman]

I'm a big fan of sub-assemblies. I would already have the original group of parts being mirrored in a sub assembly.

[Bradfordzzz]

Im fine with sub assemblies really .. in these cases however, it just messes with how items appear in our BOM's.
totally workable .. just out of the normal way .. and therefore .. more work.

[AlexLachance]

Having it promoted will have the assembly not show in your BOM, but the parts inside it will. Wouldn't that solve your issue?

[Bradfordzzz]

Having it promoted will have the assembly not show in your BOM, but the parts inside it will. Wouldn't that solve your issue?

Well yes .. of course it would ... which solves that issue.

Now we just need to figure out why I'm a meathead and didn't think of that myself. LOL

Thanks Alex. That helps out quite a bit. Will get us by until there is an actual bug fix. Really saves us a lot of time.

[AlexLachance]

Well yes .. of course it would ... which solves that issue.

Now we just need to figure out why I'm a meathead and didn't think of that myself. LOL

Thanks Alex. That helps out quite a bit. Will get us by until there is an actual bug fix. Really saves us a lot of time.

Hey when we're having an issue we often end up having horse blinkers and not seeing obvious routes to solutions, it happens to all of us. Just glad to know you have a working solution to an issue that seemed to have been causing you major headaches!

I think it would be a good idea for you to have a seperate thread explaining the solution, if anyone ever ends up having the same issue and searching how to work around it.

[Bradfordzzz]

Hey when we're having an issue we often end up having horse blinkers and not seeing obvious routes to solutions, it happens to all of us. Just glad to know you have a working solution to an issue that seemed to have been causing you major headaches!

I think it would be a good idea for you to have a seperate thread explaining the solution, if anyone ever ends up having the same issue and searching how to work around it.

Done.

[SPerman]

It looks like SP2 is available to the masses.

[Bradfordzzz]

It looks like SP2 is available to the masses.

image.png

We see it there too. doesn't fix the mirroring issue, but hopefully it does fix some of the other bugs.

[Damo]

As you know if you follow this or other SW forums, I'm quick to scream and holler if I think a new enhancement is implemented poorly,

Ummm. Yes, indeed I have noticed this about you..

but I will strongly disagree with you about this one. First, while I don't know that I'll use it much, I can see where it would be helpful for some people. Modeling a leg on a table, then adding it to the other three corners with one operation would be a big help.

This is also a very fair point... For those that model this way, or design products that can be modelled this way.. Usually for me, symmetry only exists "across" the model, rarely "along"..

Second, there's no need to change your workflow. If you'll click on the caret to close the "Secondary Mirror Face/Plane" section of the property manager then you can use your previous workflow until/unless you open it again.

This is helpful. And it works as you say.. I am pleased again.

Cheers..

[IndianaDave]

THIS IS STOOPID. I cannot believe anyone would ask for this.
If someone could please explain the benefit of a problematic new feature, that has very few (if any at all) real-world application, for me at least, that supposedly saves a single extra feature, at the expense of years of muscle memory thrown out by a new workflow required for an existing tool. I am literally dumbfounded..!!?!?!
Surely something like this can be added to the bottom of the feature input dialog as an option that can be engaged if desired, rather than the secondary plane being a box automatically populating within the existing workflow. I hate these arbitrary changes. They do not save time, another example of creating more work in undoing what I have now done "wrong" because what used to work one way now does not.
Or, am I missing something here...?!

I also voted for this function...
Pro-E had it, and I used it often. I miss it in Solidworks...
We often have parts that are symmetrical across both planes, and this saves time.
Just because it's there, doesn't mean you have to use it.

[Jasong2111]

Our company IT suggested to upgrade revision until SP4 or 5 come out. For past years, SW always ends up stable revision on SP4 or 5

[jcapriotti]

Our company IT suggested to upgrade revision until SP4 or 5 come out. For past years, SW always ends up stable revision on SP4 or 5
image.png

We usually start testing sp2 and 3 with intent to rollout sp4. On occasion I've rolled out sp3 if I don't encounter issues in our files or features. I prefer to rollout a little early if I can since its easier to get a hotfix and sp fix if needed since they are still working on service packs.

[Bradfordzzz]

There really hasn't been much that has impacted us with regards to the various Service packs. They have been features that are low use for us ... until they broke mirroring and packngo. 2 very major features for us, with no fix in site.

I guess we are only going to be building cars that don't have a passenger side anymore. I suppose the roads can be smaller now .. will be less fuel used with the cars being only half the weight now ... maybe that's the plan?

[SimmoCini]

Hi Bradfordzzz,

I always thought I am doing something wrong with pack and go and now found this forum that clearly proves it's a bug.
What is your workaround if I may ask?

I do not use a PDM so I rely on creating revisions via pack and go.
It creates a new folder with all the parts I need and chose and gives them new names. However, apart from the assemblies all other components remain the old ones and are not updated to the ones I created.

Many thanks :-)

Honestly .. the only 2 things that are problems for us in this version are the mirroring, and the packandgo.
packandgo is workable. it takes extra time, but we can manage until a patch resolved that issue.

The mirroring on the other hand .. any work around that we have tried is just not ridiculously painstaking.
we are losing a lot of time, and we need to work extra overtime, to prevent our customers deliveries from being affected because of it.
our software issues cannot be our customers problems. I really hope this fix happens quickly.

[Bradfordzzz]

Hi Bradfordzzz,

I always thought I am doing something wrong with pack and go and now found this forum that clearly proves it's a bug.
What is your workaround if I may ask?

I do not use a PDM so I rely on creating revisions via pack and go.
It creates a new folder with all the parts I need and chose and gives them new names. However, apart from the assemblies all other components remain the old ones and are not updated to the ones I created.

Many thanks :-)

We just do it manually, instead of relying on the automation of packngo. its time consuming .. but it works.

[SimmoCini]

Update:

after speaking to an SW service provider and support hotline, I solved my pack-and-go issue. SP02 update helped but also breaking the link to all .stp files that I have in my SW assembly.
The initial error message in pack and go I got was that there were multiple files that were named the same. The prompt to change the red file names of duplicate files was misleading as not all files were marked red at all or otherwise highlighted. There was also no reference that this was related to .stp files at all.

Hi Bradfordzzz,

I always thought I am doing something wrong with pack and go and now found this forum that clearly proves it's a bug.
What is your workaround if I may ask?

I do not use a PDM so I rely on creating revisions via pack and go.
It creates a new folder with all the parts I need and chose and gives them new names. However, apart from the assemblies all other components remain the old ones and are not updated to the ones I created.

Many thanks :-)

[AlexLachance]

Update:

after speaking to an SW service provider and support hotline, I solved my pack-and-go issue. SP02 update helped but also breaking the link to all .stp files that I have in my SW assembly.
The initial error message in pack and go I got was that there were multiple files that were named the same. The prompt to change the red file names of duplicate files was misleading as not all files were marked red at all or otherwise highlighted. There was also no reference that this was related to .stp files at all.

Glad to hear you found a solution to your issue mate! Thanks for sharing it with us for anyone who stumbles upon the same issue!

[SimmoCini]

I had another play around with Pack and Go.

It seems that there is a bug so you have to apply a suffix. By doing so, I seem to have no issue with P&G.
I keep my working files with no suffix now and any P&G backup gets its own suffix.

We just do it manually, instead of relying on the automation of packngo. its time consuming .. but it works.

[AlexLachance]

@Bradfordzzz Have a try with @SimmoCini 's solution!

@Alin you might want to know this workaround also for your clients.

[Bradfordzzz]

I had another play around with Pack and Go.

It seems that there is a bug so you have to apply a suffix. By doing so, I seem to have no issue with P&G.
I keep my working files with no suffix now and any P&G backup gets its own suffix.

That work around seems to be working here for me as well. Thanks @SimmoCini

[SimmoCini]

That's great, glad to hear.

Does anyone know by any chance if it is possible to give a suffix to only some selected files of the P&G?

I noticed that this solution works intermittently if you have to remove the suffix from a large number of files that should maintain their original name and also when you adjust too many of the suggested 'minimal folder structure' locations.

That work around seems to be working here for me as well. Thanks @SimmoCini

[AlexLachance]

That's great, glad to hear.

Does anyone know by any chance if it is possible to give a suffix to only some selected files of the P&G?

I noticed that this solution works intermittently if you have to remove the suffix from a large number of files that should maintain their original name and also when you adjust too many of the suggested 'minimal folder structure' locations.

Hey Simmo, if you're using the Pack and Go from SolidWorks, you can use the Select/Replace tool, perhaps that could do what you require

[SimmoCini]

I just received confirmation from Solidworks directly that this issue will be resolved in SP3, which is to be expected soon.

I might get my hand on an early release version to test if this will actually be the case.

I'll keep you posted.

[SimmoCini]

Hi Alex,

Yes, that works to an extent. Most of the files for which I do not want to have a suffix are 3rd party files and the labelling is not always consistent. Therefore, I don't benefit from mass relabeling.

Thank you though.

I thought to remember that past versions of SW actually had a tick option to only apply suffix to selected files.

Hey Simmo, if you're using the Pack and Go from SolidWorks, you can use the Select/Replace tool, perhaps that could do what you require

image.png

[Dwight]

Does anyone know by any chance if it is possible to give a suffix to only some selected files of the P&G?

SimmoCini

I've been following this thread and am not 100% sure you have tried editing individual file names. Maybe you have too many items to do it this way, but then maybe you have only have a few. I ask because I find the interface for this feature is a little odd, having an edit box instead of editing directly. Anyway, thought I'd ask.

Dwight

[SimmoCini]

Hi All,

I have now installed the early release of the Sw SP3 and the Pack and Go seems to be working fine.

The main issue I had was that P&G was not able to:
- renaming multiple 20+ file names (with the 'select/replace' function)
- replacing various 'save to folder' locations as they were not chosen well by the SW function to keep the minimal folder structure
- various error messages due to 3rd-party .STP files in the assembly

Some but not all caused the P&G process from proceeding.
Sometimes, the newly created files did not have a reference to each other; E.g. the new P&G assembly opened under the new name but the parts with were still the parts still the original/ initial once.

The initial workaround was to:
- "always" add a suffix
- keep the folder structure as suggested through 'Flatten to minimal folders'
- "break all links" off imported .STP files (error comes through the import option "")


-----------------With SP3.0 I am now able to run a P&G ----------------

- replace parts of file names; E.g. 2001-AB-CK-1001_LDia (take the LDia and use 'select/replace' to rename) 2001-AB-CK-1001_BAK
- no need to use a suffix
- P&G also works now with the .STP files that previously cause error messages

So hang tight for the release of SP03 for this fix.
I have not tested if the mirror function has improved in this version yet.