Solidworks 2023 SP0.1 is available

[Bradfordzzz]

Solidworks 2023 SP0.1 is available! Who's in?

[DennisD]

Solidworks 2023 SP0.1 is available! Who's in?

Wow! In the 28 year history of SWX, or more specifically, in the 20+ years they've been doing numbered SP's, there have only been a few times that I can recall where a .1 SP was issued. I can recall maybe five or six times that has happened. Here we have one right after the initial release, SP0.1.

I understand that the software gets more complicated, that dealing with legacy code is very difficult. I understand it is not possible to test for every possible hardware configuration, software setting, and user technique.

I have met the top people in charge of quality at SWX and I have great respect for their personal integrity. But that just makes this even more of a WOW of disappointment that this "patch" is even necessary.

Instead of SP standing for Service Pack, maybe it should stand for Service Patch.

[AlexLachance]

Solidworks 2023 SP0.1 is available! Who's in?

Please tell me you didn't!

[AlexLachance]

Wow! In the 28 year history of SWX, or more specifically, in the 20+ years they've been doing numbered SP's, there have only been a few times that I can recall where a .1 SP was issued. I can recall maybe five or six times that has happened. Here we have one right after the initial release, SP0.1.

I understand that the software gets more complicated, that dealing with legacy code is very difficult. I understand it is not possible to test for every possible hardware configuration, software setting, and user technique.

I have met the top people in charge of quality at SWX and I have great respect for their personal integrity. But that just makes this even more of a WOW of disappointment that this "patch" is even necessary.

Instead of SP standing for Service Pack, maybe it should stand for Service Patch.

OR maybe they should just scratch this whole SP thing and just release hotfixes of a "complete product", rather then SP0 through 5 with all those .1 happening since 2021 or 2020.

But then they'll just point to the Cloud and say "That's what you want!"

[Bradfordzzz]

Please tell me you didn't!

NO! I did the last one ... its your turn Alex !

[SPerman]

@Alin explained this a while ago. The EV releases are now x.0. If no changes are required between the EV and the release, it remains .0. If changes are required, it becomes .1. As I understand it, this now means problems were found in EV that were corrected before the initial release.

[SPerman]

image.png (57.1 KiB) Viewed 9463 times

From

https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=21185#p21185

[bnemec]

Using software like this causes me to reflect on how the CS/SE professors were so strict on the processes of software development.

[DennisD]

image.png

From

https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=21185#p21185

Thanks for the reminder. I vaguely remember that thread. That does paint a little different picture, but I also think that numbering system is lousy; The EV is now SP0 and the full non-EV is SP0.1. This just invites the conclusion I came up with. Perhaps they are just trying to soften us up to get used to more .1 SP's so we don't bash them as hard. SMH.

My attitude toward updates is summed up as "Not unless there is a compelling reason".
This can be:
1. Version Update - Someone I am exchanging files with is on a later version (2023) than me (2021) and I need to open their files.
2. SP Update - If I've had a problem that is addressed by the SP. This is extremely rare for me.
3. Version Update to SP3.0 or higher - I've become mostly satisfied with the reports of stability and the version has a few new features I'd like to start using.

SWX is very mature. I don't have any significant ideas for improvements (but that is NOT the reason I do not participate in the TTL anymore - that is a different issue entirely). I watch the What's New each year. I see some things that look like they would be nice to use, but I have lived without them and managed just fine so I do not feel the need to rush into them. I have also learned that some of the things they make a big deal out of aren't fully developed or are just somebody trying to make it seem like a great thing, but in reality aren't that big a deal, at least not for me. I still have a bad taste in my mouth when I went to SWX2017 and then ran into a problem that forced me to revert to 2016 and all the files I had to recreate.

Now I follow my own product design mantra that you have to give the customer a compelling reason to change.

[Glenn Schroeder]

My attitude toward updates is summed up as "Not unless there is a compelling reason".

I found a compelling reason (at least for me it was). See the replies at https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... Wz0TBHOFFw.

[berg_lauritz]

I found a compelling reason (at least for me it was). See the replies at https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... Wz0TBHOFFw.

It was.... implemented??? NO WAY!

[Glenn Schroeder]

It was.... implemented??? NO WAY!

It was. I was also afraid it was too good to be true, but I downloaded it, changed that new setting in Document Properties, and saved the drawing template. It works as advertised.

[zxys001]

Wow, it's 16 gigs! Ok, will have some fun and install it.

[jcapriotti]

Thanks for the reminder. I vaguely remember that thread. That does paint a little different picture, but I also think that numbering system is lousy; The EV is now SP0 and the full non-EV is SP0.1. This just invites the conclusion I came up with. Perhaps they are just trying to soften us up to get used to more .1 SP's so we don't bash them as hard. SMH.

I prefer this way compared to the previous EV method, which required still doing an update. A limited group that volunteers can get early access to the SP to potentially catch any critical bugs before it goes out to the masses. Cell phone OS updates work in much the same way except you often don't get to volunteer.......they just select you.

Not sure what the big deal about point releases are....nearly every software I've ever used has them.

image.png (44.18 KiB) Viewed 9175 times

Word has so many points I don't know what version I have

[bnemec]

I prefer this way compared to the previous EV method, which required still doing an update. A limited group that volunteers can get early access to the SP to potentially catch any critical bugs before it goes out to the masses. Cell phone OS updates work in much the same way except you often don't get to volunteer.......they just select you.

Not sure what the big deal about point releases are....nearly every software I've ever used has them.

I feel that the the problem with the point version is the implied "fix it" attribute. I think the point versions only show up on SPs with regression(s). Usually that SP is removed from the downloads page until the point version is released. Maybe I'm mistaken though.

[jcapriotti]

I feel that the the problem with the point version is the implied "fix it" attribute. I think the point versions only show up on SPs with regression(s). Usually that SP is removed from the downloads page until the point version is released. Maybe I'm mistaken though.

No you're right.....typically a point release is to fix a critical regression issue which often means they pull the previous release. For other software it's a combination of both....I've seen some pull a previous release and later release a point patch fix....and sometimes a point release is just minor updates. Most CAD tools don't seem to do smaller point releases often...maybe because the installation packages are so large.

There are hotfixes as well but those are on request. We get tons of point fixes and hotfixes for Windchill because of issues we run across. Seems like its being patched every other week.

This doesn't count the CAD management plugin (Workgroup Manager) which has its own release and patch schedule.

image.png (3.19 KiB) Viewed 9134 times

[XHawkeye]

Upgrading from SW2021, is 2023 stable or should we update to 2022 instead?

[AlexLachance]

Upgrading from SW2021, is 2023 stable or should we update to 2022 instead?

If you can wait a bit, wait until SP2 or SP3(while still looking for user feedback on 2023's status) before upgrading. Rarely a good idea to update to SP0 if you ask me, not much to gain for what you risk to lose.

[Glenn Schroeder]

I've had good luck with SW2023 so far, but I can't promise you will have the same results.

[XHawkeye]

Updated to 2023 SP0.1 and two days in it's been so far so good.

[Frederick_Law]

Most CAD tools don't seem to do smaller point releases often...maybe because the installation packages are so large.

Because everything linked to everything and can't be split up.

Google took a while to split up Android so they can update what needed update and not the whole OS.
It'll take much longer while for other software companies to catch up, if they are going to.

[Frederick_Law]

Don't need to "update" 2022 to 2023.
Both can run on same computer, at the same time (I had 4).
Just keep files in different folders (SW2022, SW2023).

[Bradfordzzz]

Updated to 2023 SP0.1 and two days in it's been so far so good.

2023 SP1 EV has been released yesterday .. so you should see the full release in a few weeks.
345 SPR's were fixed for this release.

[AlexLachance]

Figured I'd post this here for those interested. A video comparative of opening files in 2022 vs 2023.

[Alin]

Figured I'd post this here for those interested. A video comparative of opening files in 2022 vs 2023.

And this is why: https://www.engineersrule.com/new-in-so ... es-faster/

[AlexLachance]

And this is why: https://www.engineersrule.com/new-in-so ... es-faster/

My apologies, forgot to link the article as well.

[doobes]

Like many others, I'll wait until at least SP2.0.

I'm definitely not an early adopter.

[Bradfordzzz]

Like many others, I'll wait until at least SP2.0.

I'm definitely not an early adopter.

I'll wait till at least SP5.1

[Per S]

I just shift to 2023 1.0 from 2022 5.0 and feel blown away with graphic performance. It feels so much faster in large assembly.

[Bradfordzzz]

I just shift to 2023 1.0 from 2022 5.0 and feel blown away with graphic performance. It feels so much faster in large assembly.

That's really good to know. Thanks for sharing that. How is the rest of it running?

[SteveH]

I upgraded to 2023 SP1.0.

Opened an existing part, started a new drawing of that part. The first circular cutout I selected with the smart dimension tool placed the text "<MOD-DIAM>" instead of the diameter symbol (circle with a slash through it).

[SPerman]

https://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2015/ ... er-symbol/

[SteveH]

Thanks for the link.
I remember this same issue a few releases back and note that the date on the blog is 2015.
I uninstalled 2023 and went back to 2022 SP5.0. Didn't have the desire to start troubleshooting this issue and I expect other issues will appear. At least I'm familiar with the quirks of the 2022 release.

[doobes]

Thanks for the link.
I remember this same issue a few releases back and note that the date on the blog is 2015.
I uninstalled 2023 and went back to 2022 SP5.0. Didn't have the desire to start troubleshooting this issue and I expect other issues will appear. At least I'm familiar with the quirks of the 2022 release.

Thanks. Mine was doing the same thing...

[jcapriotti]

Thanks for the link.
I remember this same issue a few releases back and note that the date on the blog is 2015.
I uninstalled 2023 and went back to 2022 SP5.0. Didn't have the desire to start troubleshooting this issue and I expect other issues will appear. At least I'm familiar with the quirks of the 2022 release.

Why not just fix the path, it's fairly simple?

This seem to result from "Upgrading" a version instead of uninstall and install. Seems like it leaves the old path locations in place in some cases. We've moved most of the default file locations to a central location that doesn't change or contain a version number, so don't really have this issue.

[SteveH]

I did do an upgrade. If I reinstall 2023 at some later date I'll check that path.
Moving default file locations to my server sounds like a good idea.

[jcapriotti]

I did do an upgrade. If I reinstall 2023 at some later date I'll check that path.
Moving default file locations to my server sounds like a good idea.

Even if you keep it local, I would add them to a different single folder local. SolidWorks like them scattered to the winds....some in the c:\Program data, some under c:\program files\SolidWorks corp\ in various sub folders.

[gerard]

Even if you keep it local, I would add them to a different single folder local. SolidWorks like them scattered to the winds....some in the c:\Program data, some under c:\program files\SolidWorks corp\ in various sub folders.

Oh man this.

We're in a corporate networked environment without the benefit of a PDM. I've been trying to develop a folder structure for data to reside on the network and then have all the users pull from the same data.

What an amazing pain in the backside.

I built an Excel VBA macro that sets all the various folder locations to the ones on the network.

Unfortunately, my "friends" at SolidWorks feel the need to change/add the data folders at upgrades, so I've had the luxury of refactoring the tool twice now.

Luckily, I'm retiring in April and this will be someone else's problem...

[XHawkeye]

Since our config name equals P/N this is a nice to have option in 2023

[DanPihlaja]

I get that this is available. I honestly do not understand why anyone would bother to use this though...

[SPerman]

What if I want my part number to be my part number?

[jcapriotti]

We use "User Specified Name", why isn't that available?

While we do name our configurations the part number, there are cases where we have more than one configuration representing a part number and name it the part number plus a suffix.....so "user specified name" is the only option.