SW 2022 SP3 - First Thoughts

[Bradfordzzz]

None of the features we use daily that are broken have been fixed yet.

So my first thought is basically just this ...

[bentlybobcat]

Please let me know the consensus. I've been dragging my feet getting my admin to update users to v2022 due to the sp2 issues.

if sp3 is 'da bomb, I'll get that going.

[AlexLachance]

None of the features we use daily that are broken have been fixed yet.

So my first thought is basically just this ...

I'm kind of more eager about the SP5. SP3 is generally in the third phase when SP1 is released, so it was most likely already too far into it's release stage to be altered.

[SPerman]

Yes. By SP5 the software is free of bugs and regression.

[AlexLachance]

Yes. By SP5 the software is free of bugs and regression.

SP5 is generally the final version of that year. Sometimes there's SP5.1 but generally SP5 is the most stable of all.

We're still on 2019, if 2022 SP5 turns out to have the ridiculous bugs such as mirror bug fixed, then maybe we'll be transitioning to 2022, to try and stay "up to date", but to be honest we're all very fine with sticking with 2019 because we know most of it's workarounds lol. I had high hopes for 2022, maybe there is still some left.

[SPerman]

Being the most stable is a relative term.

I am like you. I had high hopes for switching to 2022, but I'm perfectly fine staying at 2020.

[Glenn Schroeder]

I'm downloading sp 3 now. We'll see how it goes.

[AlexLachance]

Sometimes, I wish SolidWorks would just throw me a licence so I could install it at home and play around with it while always keeping it up to date to report bugs to them as I find them. I could run my work set-up at home on the most recent version to test it out actively. Bring in some model from work, work around a bit on it just to see how it reacts to certain things.

It would benefit both parties in the end. I'd be able to do some testing at home for them, and I'd be able to test for the company I work for if it's worth the switch at the same time, rather then having to rely on people's opinions and then getting bit because they weren't representative of our situation.

[mattpeneguy]

Sometimes, I wish SolidWorks would just throw me a licence so I could install it at home and play around with it while always keeping it up to date to report bugs to them as I find them. I could run my work set-up at home on the most recent version to test it out actively. Bring in some model from work, work around a bit on it just to see how it reacts to certain things.

It would benefit both parties in the end. I'd be able to do some testing at home for them, and I'd be able to test for the company I work for if it's worth the switch at the same time, rather then having to rely on people's opinions and then getting bit because they weren't representative of our situation.

Just move all your business to the 3DXP cloud and you won't have this problem.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Just move all your business to the 3DXP cloud and you won't have this problem.

Great idea. What could go wrong?

[bentlybobcat]

Didn't v2021 go to SP5?

The progression used to be one year it got to SP5, and the following to SP3.

Methinks SP3 might be it for v2022

[SPerman]

AFAIK, they always go to SP5. 2021 had a bonus 4.1 and 5.1.

[jcapriotti]

AFAIK, they always go to SP5. 2021 had a bonus 4.1 and 5.1.

Freebies for your subscription?

[mattpeneguy]

Freebies for your subscription?

No, that's when they mess up and have to fix it immediately.
The way it should work, if you buy a license in a year you get all the updates for that year. It's not like they are issuing new features. And they've introduced regressive bugs in SPs more than once.
Though, everything will be solved when they move SW over to 3DXP...

[jcapriotti]

No, that's when they mess up and have to fix it immediately.
The way it should work, if you buy a license in a year you get all the updates for that year. It's not like they are issuing new features. And they've introduced regressive bugs in SPs more than once.
Though, everything will be solved when they move SW over to 3DXP...

I know.... forgot the purple text

[Tera]

None of the features we use daily that are broken have been fixed yet.

So my first thought is basically just this ...

Forget about the fixes. What else is broken?

[Bradfordzzz]

Forget about the fixes. What else is broken?

Every New version and every new service pack is like a piñata of broken tools.

[TRKemp]

Really wish they'd ditch the annual upgrade platform, stop labeling it "Solidworks 20XX", and just allow users and company's to build functionality from a base platform ( just simply call it Solidworks ) by allowing the purchase of individual enhancements that look appealing to that specific user / company each year they roll them out. That way you get what you want, the version you're running that you are happy with doesn't need to be constantly scrapped and reloaded with the myriad of broken functions that used to work because of new features that you aren't even going to use.. etc.. etc.. etc..

Hate feeling out-of-date every 2 years, then being guilted into installing new versions that cause me and my colleagues more headaches than happiness. Doesn't help that you know unless you upgrade you're just wasting company funds since you're on subscription.... We could easily still be running 2018, which was a solid build and only have benefitted from maybe 8-10 enhancements since then.

[AlexLachance]

Really wish they'd ditch the annual upgrade platform, stop labeling it "Solidworks 20XX", and just allow users and company's to build functionality from a base platform ( just simply call it Solidworks ) by allowing the purchase of individual enhancements that look appealing to that specific user / company each year they roll them out. That way you get what you want, the version you're running that you are happy with doesn't need to be constantly scrapped and reloaded with the myriad of broken functions that used to work because of new features that you aren't even going to use.. etc.. etc.. etc..

Hate feeling out-of-date every 2 years, then being guilted into installing new versions that cause me and my colleagues more headaches than happiness. Doesn't help that you know unless you upgrade you're just wasting company funds since you're on subscription.... We could easily still be running 2018, which was a solid build and only have benefitted from maybe 8-10 enhancements since then.

Most likely the intention with the transition to Cloud, or at least that would be the logical thing to do.

[Bradfordzzz]

I think we need to have the Mission Impossible them song play whenever we open Solidworks. at least we would open it feeling a little better, then going into it already knowing our day is just going to suck.

One of our designers (All Hail Mitch) just discovered that if you rename the part so that it doesn't have numbers after the prefix in the name, the mirror now works. FML

Example:

This doesn't mirror
6903A - 2 x 2 Riser #1.sldprt

This does mirror
6903A - Riser #1.sldprt

WHAT THE ACTUAL F$%# !!

Anyway ... hopefully this helps someone else.

[Bradfordzzz]

We have also found a new issue.

When you make a part independent and then rename the part, it automatically makes it a read only file.

then you have open it, and save it and now its not read only.

LMFAO! this is just insane.

[AlexLachance]

I think we need to have the Mission Impossible them song play whenever we open Solidworks. at least we would open it feeling a little better, then going into it already knowing our day is just going to suck.

One of our designers (All Hail Mitch) just discovered that if you rename the part so that it doesn't have numbers after the prefix in the name, the mirror now works. FML

Example:

This doesn't mirror
6903A - 2 x 2 Riser #1.sldprt

This does mirror
6903A - Riser #1.sldprt

WHAT THE ACTUAL F$%# !!

Anyway ... hopefully this helps someone else.

Wow, I can't actually figure out what could be the root cause of this, that's something. I don't understand how the middle part of a name would have an incidence on a function.

Have you shared that with your VAR? Please let us know the followup, I'm quite intrigued.

[Alin]

None of the features we use daily that are broken have been fixed yet.

So my first thought is basically just this ...

SP 3.0 has been retired, to be replaced by 3.1.

[Bradfordzzz]

SP 3.0 has been retired, to be replaced by 3.1.

Thanks Alin. Fingers crossed for some kind of a working product.

[SPerman]

Nothing screams quality like having unscheduled interim releases become SOP.

[Alin]

Nothing screams quality like having unscheduled interim releases become SOP.

To be fair, SP3.0 was released only as "Early Visibility" which is a type of Beta version. There was never an official release, so SP3.1 will be the first one in July.

[jmongi]

Wow, I can't actually figure out what could be the root cause of this, that's something. I don't understand how the middle part of a name would have an incidence on a function.

Have you shared that with your VAR? Please let us know the followup, I'm quite intrigued.

I dabble in a little programming on the side. This looks like the mirror failed not because of a geometry engine issue but because of an interface issue. My completely random assumption is that a majority of the frustrating bugs aren't due to the the kernel team (i.e. the math that makes things happen) but the UI team (accepting user input and then passing that input on to the kernel). I don't think it's too far to assume that they don't have consistent guidelines/testing for this part of development.

I do want to also throw a bone to SW that GOOD systemic testing is difficult to implement in the best of cases and I doubt that they are currently in the best of cases with their focus on "other" platforms.

[Frank_Oostendorp]

To be fair, SP3.0 was released only as "Early Visibility" which is a type of Beta version. There was never an official release, so SP3.1 will be the first one in July.

Well, I do not think SP3.0 can be seen as a Beta version. It is supposed so follow up SP2.0.
In SolidWorks 2018, you found Alfa, Beta 1, Beta 2, PR1 and finally SP0.0. Alfa and Beta testing is done before the release of a major version. Unless you make a mess of it, and try to improve inconsistency.

[jcapriotti]

Well, I do not think SP3.0 can be seen as a Beta version. It is supposed so follow up SP2.0.
In SolidWorks 2018, you found Alfa, Beta 1, Beta 2, PR1 and finally SP0.0. Alfa and Beta testing is done before the release of a major version. Unless you make a mess of it, and try to improve inconsistency.

Early Visibility is a pre-release to customers that sign up for it, most users don't see it. If no major issues are found, it releases to all users in a week or two. If issues are found, I believe we get a point release (sp3.1).

[Frank_Oostendorp]

Early Visibility is a pre-release to customers that sign up for it, most users don't see it. If no major issues are found, it releases to all users in a week or two. If issues are found, I believe we get a point release (sp3.1).

image.png

And 2018 was the last year proper Alfa and Beta testing was done. Sadly enough.

[Glenn Schroeder]

To be fair, SP3.0 was released only as "Early Visibility" which is a type of Beta version. There was never an official release, so SP3.1 will be the first one in July.

@Alin,

Thanks for posting that, but when I downloaded it last week it didn't show it to be EV , and I'm pretty sure the same thing happened to me with sp 2.0. Do you know what's the story on that? Should we start waiting a few weeks after a service pack is issued before actually downloading it?

[jcapriotti]

And 2018 was the last year proper Alfa and Beta testing was done. Sadly enough.
image.png

Where do these numbers come from? There are Alpha and Betas of all versions.....you can view them in the knowledge base. The information is limited and sometimes the fix applies to multiple versions which isn't evident.

[Alin]

@Alin,

Thanks for posting that, but when I downloaded it last week it didn't show it to be EV , and I'm pretty sure the same thing happened to me with sp 2.0. Do you know what's the story on that? Should we start waiting a few weeks after a service pack is issued before actually downloading it?

Glen, looks like you have been grandfathered in the old EV program. This is what I found on the SW Forum.

It is a bit dangerous for the old subscribers of the EV program, unless they are aware of this policy change. You no longer know that you are doing BETA testing...

Hello All,

There is a technical change to the type of Service Pack (SP) build released as part of the Early Visibility (EV) program starting with SOLIDWORKS 2022 SP1. Historically, the build of a Service Pack used for EV required the user to update from EV to the official release build of the Service Pack.

As of SOLIDWORKS 2022 SP1:

The SP build released at the Early Visibility milestone is now the intended full-release build of the SP and no longer a special EV build that requires updating.
A few weeks after the Early Visibility milestone, the target is to make the same build of the SP generally available to all Subscription Service clients.
The Early Visibility program access is a limited enrollment program and currently we are not generally accepting new sign-ups.

[AlexLachance]

I dabble in a little programming on the side. This looks like the mirror failed not because of a geometry engine issue but because of an interface issue. My completely random assumption is that a majority of the frustrating bugs aren't due to the the kernel team (i.e. the math that makes things happen) but the UI team (accepting user input and then passing that input on to the kernel). I don't think it's too far to assume that they don't have consistent guidelines/testing for this part of development.

I do want to also throw a bone to SW that GOOD systemic testing is difficult to implement in the best of cases and I doubt that they are currently in the best of cases with their focus on "other" platforms.

That, it certainly is!

[Glenn Schroeder]

Glen, looks like you have been grandfathered in the old EV program. This is what I found on the SW Forum.

It is a bit dangerous for the old subscribers of the EV program, unless they are aware of this policy change. You no longer know that you are doing BETA testing...

image.png

Thanks for the quick reply. The underlined statement below sounds like it isn't really a beta version, but an early release of the same service pack that will later be released to everyone. Is that not the case?

And if that's not the case, how can I be removed from the EV list so I can't download the beta version?

[Alin]

Thanks for the quick reply. The underlined statement below sounds like it isn't really a beta version, but an early release of the same service pack that will later be released to everyone. Is that not the case?

How do you interpret the latest announcement? It is the same SP that will be released to everyone... if it does not get critical bugs reported before that. It sounds like BETA to me...

During the Early Visibility period, a fault has been identified in SOLIDWORKS 2022 SP3:

SPR1236665 - File is opened as read-only after save, close and reopen with Quick Access in the same session

It has been decided that the presence of this defect necessitates an SP3.1; which we are planning to make available for download on July 11.

[Alin]

And if that's not the case, how can I be removed from the EV list so I can't download the beta version?

I imagine you can start by asking your VAR...

I will ask the same question myself.

[Bradfordzzz]

our Var is saying SP3.1 to be released July 11th.

[jcapriotti]

How do you interpret the latest announcement? It is the same SP that will be released to everyone... if it does not get critical bugs reported before that. It sounds like BETA to me...

I've seen other companies do this.....in fact cell phone software upgrades follow this method. A "potential' build is released to a small set of customers and major problem discovered will warrant a delay so a new build can built that fixes the issue discovered.

The big issue here is communication to the users that this is an early release build. It's not obvious when its released to all customers.

[SPerman]

To be fair, SP3.0 was released only as "Early Visibility" which is a type of Beta version. There was never an official release, so SP3.1 will be the first one in July.

Good point. I didn't download it myself, but assumed it was a general release based on this thread. But I also think it is fair to say we've seen more x.1 releases in the last 12 months than is average.

[Glenn Schroeder]

. . . The big issue here is communication to the users that this is an early release build. It's not obvious when its released to all customers.

Absolutely. I suppose if the unwitting beta testers don't find any issues then there's no need for a updated version, so that's all until the next service pack?

[AlexLachance]

It's not a BETA version because a BETA version implies there will be another release afterwards that will be final. An early release isn't a BETA because if there's nothing major then it stays as is. Notice how on Frank's screenshot, the Early visibility is only mentionned in 2021 and 2022?

Though, I do understand what Alin refers to when he says it's in beta testing, figuratively, it's unfortunate that it's not as evident as should be, concidering the implications of having to roll back if you do encounter an issue.

[Alin]

It's not a BETA version because a BETA version implies there will be another release afterwards that will be final. An early release isn't a BETA because if there's nothing major then it stays as is. Notice how on Frank's screenshot, the Early visibility is only mentionned in 2021 and 2022?

Though, I do understand what Alin refers to when he says it's in beta testing, figuratively, it's unfortunate that it's not as evident as should be, concidering the implications of having to roll back if you do encounter an issue.

What Alex said.

[Alin]

Thanks for the quick reply. The underlined statement below sounds like it isn't really a beta version, but an early release of the same service pack that will later be released to everyone. Is that not the case?

image.png

And if that's not the case, how can I be removed from the EV list so I can't download the beta version?

If someone wants to unregister from the program, they can send that request via email to evis@solidworks.com.

[zxys001]

If someone wants to unregister from the program, they can send that request via email to evis@solidworks.com.

I always thought it was ELVIS@....

[SimmoCini]

HI @Bradfordzzz

Do you want me to try a particular file/ mirror function?

I have the SP3 early release and a very simple mock-up showed no issues mirroring a feature in a part and a part in an assembly.

I think we need to have the Mission Impossible them song play whenever we open Solidworks. at least we would open it feeling a little better, then going into it already knowing our day is just going to suck.

One of our designers (All Hail Mitch) just discovered that if you rename the part so that it doesn't have numbers after the prefix in the name, the mirror now works. FML

Example:

This doesn't mirror
6903A - 2 x 2 Riser #1.sldprt

This does mirror
6903A - Riser #1.sldprt

WHAT THE ACTUAL F$%# !!

Anyway ... hopefully this helps someone else.

[berg_lauritz]

HI @Bradfordzzz

Do you want me to try a particular file/ mirror function?

I have the SP3 early release and a very simple mock-up showed no issues mirroring a feature in a part and a part in an assembly.

Off topic:
The offer alone is so amazing. That's why I like this forum!

[SimmoCini]

I posted this in a different thread but it probably fits in here better:

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

[Bradfordzzz]

HI @Bradfordzzz

Do you want me to try a particular file/ mirror function?

I have the SP3 early release and a very simple mock-up showed no issues mirroring a feature in a part and a part in an assembly.

Thanks for the offer @SimmoCini . I have the SP3 early release as well, and we found this to be an issue with this Service release.
Files were sent to our VAR and they confirmed that they could re-create the issue and Dassault has confirmed it as well.

Hoping it will be resolved in the next service pack, but being told it will likely be service pack 5 before we see this fixed.

[Bradfordzzz]

BTW. Solidworks SP 3.1 is now available for download.

and no .. still doesn't mirror correctly.