ONE and TWO
SOLIDWORKS Forums
8 days ago

I have a request for every user attending this years SWW.

 

At every opportunity possible, start loudly chanting over and over and over again.

 

ONE and TWO, ONE and TWO, ONE and TWO...


Categories: General

Comments
Last comment By: Rick Becker   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:41:27 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

John Stoltzfus wrote:

 

There is one improvement that I would like to see happen and that is have a SolidProfessor type of help menu,

Have you looked at MySolidWorks? The Lessons in there are exactly that.

Some of them are free to anyone who makes a MySolidWorks account (even non-SOLIDWORKS users), even more are available to users on active subscription, and even more are available with a MySolidWorks profressional account. Details about what are in each of the MySolidWorks levels are here:

MySolidWorks - Official SOLIDWORKS Community

There are also eCourses which are the same as the VAR classroom courses but available online for a 3-month subscription.

 

This page has links to the Lessons, Learning Paths (which are collections of lessons for different areas of the software) and eCourses.

Training | MySolidWorks

Click into the Lessons or Learning Paths to see all the stuff available to you.

 

in SOLIDWORKS 2017, you can already search MySolidWorks from the search bar at the top. For instance, if you switch to MySolidWorks in that search bar, then search for fillets, it will come back with lots of search results across the forums, blogs, training, YouTube, etc. You can also see filters for Learning Paths (there are 6 of them for fillets) and for individual fillet lessons (there are 13 of them).

 

This is a fairly new offering and now that it is getting built up more, we are looking into integrating it further into the user interface and also the help system. Now that SOLIDWORKS 2018 has user login built in, that can help to facilitate that better.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Sat, 14 Oct 2017 13:30:27 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim,

 

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

 

....

Have you looked at MySolidWorks? The Lessons in there are exactly that.

Some of them are free to anyone who makes a MySolidWorks account (even non-SOLIDWORKS users), even more are available to users on active subscription, and even more are available with a MySolidWorks profressional account. Details about what are in each of the MySolidWorks levels are here:.....

Not shooting the messenger but, you know there was going to be a but, to my taste MySolidworks is a moneymaking operation. Nothing wrong in making money however doing so by providing elementary tutorials locked behind a pay wall is a bit rich.

 

Yes there are free ones available to all, not many but a few. And that there's more for those that are on subscription. Having anything actual going a bit further, or so it strikes me, then the most basic of stuff not available for even those on active subscription unless they fork over an additional fee feels not unlike the company is trying to nickle and dime us.

 

E.g.: I, on active subscription, can view the introduction for tubing for free, but the 3 other lessons of that path I can only see after getting a 'professional' account even although I have a Solidworks Premium license and one needs to have a Premium to even have 'tubing'.

This means that if there's anything I want to refresh about the product I have been using for years I have to pay for the privilege.

 

There is in fact hardly anything that is available to me about Routing, not without an upgrade to a 'professional' account.

I just checked, there are 20 lessons involving routing on MySolidworks. I can access 2 of them. Yup, a whole 90% are behind a pay wall.

Luckily that doesn't happen for all lesson paths, but that it happens at all is my point.

 

Somehow I think that the powers that be at Solidworks haven't heard about Youtube where there's so many tutorials for Solidworks available made by VAR's, teachers and users for free, that MySolidworks asking for money from the users for theirs becomes just silly.

 

The better the users can use the program the less problems they'll face and the happier they'll be which in turn makes for positive reinforcement and mouth to mouth advertising. Making your paying users who are actually interested in learning how to use the product better pay 360 USD a year is the opposite to that.

 

Then again, perhaps it's just my European scepticism getting the better of me.

By: Peter De Vlieger  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:05:12 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson  - Paid tutorials - I'm not even going to say what's on my mind, I was talking about the SW Help File not My Solidworks...  totally agree with Peter De Vlieger -  Here at work I use the latest and greatest, but consider this, I don't log on under that subscription, so the SW help file is still the same Bloated Blah, so all I'm saying is fix the training and the help file issue and 90% of peoples issues would go away, so most of (not all), but most of the issues would go away without having a total revamp of the Software.  That in itself would be an amazing product enhancement..... 

By: John Stoltzfus  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:25:38 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I would have to agree that a clearer help file would help to improve how the software is used. And if we used it correctly many of our problems would likely disappear.

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:14:42 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I'm probably one of the few who don't have major issues with the help file, once in a while, but not often.

By: Edward Poole  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:18:09 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

If that makes you feel any better, I don't have problems with the help file.

 

I don't use it

By: Alex Lachance  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:40:29 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Alex Lachance - is that why you're experiencing ONE TWO Issues (hehehe) just picking on ya

By: John Stoltzfus  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:24:57 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Here is the issue - Some people can read something and it sticks to the brain, the next person can very easily read something, but has a hard time comprehending it, the next person can watch a video and not get it, some people have a hard time with verbal instructions, so the spectrum is broad and again till SW helps to cover those areas, the user will be complaining that -ONE TWO- Was Never Fixed, only a big marketing hype for SWW.  But, there were enough of SW employees on here that said it will be looked on and taken care of, so we will see.. 

By: John Stoltzfus  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:40:12 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Yes I know, I was just being humorous.

By: Alex Lachance  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:50:06 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

John Stoltzfus wrote:

 

...Some people can read something and it sticks to the brain, the next person can very easily read something, but has a hard time comprehending it...

 

 

Alex Lachance wrote:

 

Yes I know, I was just being humorous.

 

John was demonstrating his point for you (John was the next person).

By: Rick Becker  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 20:02:39 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Lmao, well that worked perfectly

By: Alex Lachance  Mon, 16 Oct 2017 20:04:05 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Once in a while I step in it with both feet and open mouth

By: John Stoltzfus  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:34:06 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Peter and John,

I completely agree.  But, a problem they have is that the VARs offer training on some of the advanced topics, and I can see they are in kind of a bind.  I am not excusing the situation, just stating a reason.

By: Matt Peneguy  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:41:37 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Somebody pointed this out to me.  So, I'll pass along the favor.  When you do find a problem in a help file, there is a quick and easy way to send them feedback about it:

By: Matt Peneguy  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:44:09 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Matt Peneguy - I totally "Get" what SW is doing and why, I'm just thinking that by trying to correct ONE TWO, the SW issues aren't going to go away, only because there are a lot of many people using SW on a whim and hardware setups are totally different.. We're talking about 3 mil seats etc.  So the sample settings of 3mil users verses 45K forum members is huge.....

By: John Stoltzfus  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:49:38 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I anticipate their efforts paying off differently. If a minority of users are forum members, and we are poking holes and pointing it out for a fix, then the silent majority will benefit from stability enhancements in equal silence, and maybe less frustration.

 

Half full.

By: Tom Gagnon  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:58:15 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Tom Gagnon wrote:

 

 

 

Half full.

Under optimized.

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:05:19 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

..and from memory that capability was included some years ago thanks to SW responding to user feedback/discussion about the Help...pretty sure the Help was Jim Wilkinson's area of responsibility then. As frustrating as it is being a SW user sometimes, SW staff do take an interest in the 'user experience' and endeavour to do good. If you can define exactly what issues you have it is more useful than getting grumpy and banging on the door shouting one and two.. just sayin'

By: Neil Larsen  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:20:44 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Tom Gagnon wrote:

... then the silent majority will benefit from stability enhancements in equal silence, and maybe less frustration.

 

I would tend to agree with Tom.

 

I believe that the active participants in this forum are the 1%er's. The 1%er's seek to make their tools as good as possible because they see the potential of what is possible with said tools.

 

The 1%er's won't settle and won't give up until the job done.

 

The 1%er's also have given the effort and spent the time to explore the possibilities and the extremes of their tools. They tax the limits and discover the vulnerabilities.

 

The 1%er's develop a work flow and process that is as efficient as they can get all the while being aware that it could be better, forever seeking improvement.

 

When something reacts differently, their mussel memory lets them know immediately. Then they explore and seek answers, as they have done so many times before.

 

The learning is not kept secret. In fact, sharing the wealth is a cornerstone of the the 1%er's because they know there is a limit to their own wisdom. Growing is only possible with others. So the 1%er's seek others. Together they grow smarter, wiser,

 

The masses benefit greatly as the revisions and knowledge trickles down. The masses accept the enhancements the same way they accept the deficits, just another brick in the wall. Part of them is grateful, but they do not seek who to thank they just labor on.

 

I am thankful for the 1%er's. My work is easier because of then.

 

Thank you.

By: Rick Becker  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:47:03 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

That's for sure...Wait, Rick Becker, you're one of them! Thanks for all of your insight too!

By: Edward Poole  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:49:21 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Well done, Rick.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:27:30 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Well said Rick Becker  - also the 1% if they see a wall , they don't stop - there is a way around, underneath, over the top or right through it... That's the difference

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:30:32 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Used to fill out detailed info for crash reports, then less, then jokes, now...

 

ONEandTWO.PNG...hehehe.

By: Frank Bos  Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:47:25 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Frank, depending on the crash that could be good....I too am frustrated with filling out the form...Depending on time and if I have seen the crash before I do fill it out.  I asked if anyone reads this stuff....I had some time to kill and told em all about my day up to the crash.  the more repeatable the crash the more details I put. What to do what to do with the crash report is getting to be a bigger question every day....do we take the time to tell em why it crashed again..."I did the same thing I did last time it crashed"  I forgot to hit the save button before I tried this command and it crashes every time I don't save it first, if I save before the command everything works fine. 

      Sometimes we can crash SolidWorks here at the office cause we have a special program and if you click on the screen wrong while it is running we can get a crash 99.99% of the time.

By: David Matula  Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:12:36 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Now you can copy the Dear Helen Letters in the dialog box, then they'll have something to read...

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:17:53 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

The Master Modeler has attacked - with a flex hose - listen up people Paul Salvador has spoken

By: John Stoltzfus  Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:42:43 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Very cool, Paul

By: Christian Chu  Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:36:54 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Christian and John,.. I attached the file(s) so all may share the suk.

By: Paul Salvador  Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:48:54 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

..similar to what I have sent.... maybe sending a screen shot may help as well?

makeswsukless-z.png

 

...btw, here is the file(s),.. made back in 2008,  saved in 2014..

By: Paul Salvador  Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:02:53 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

thank you, Paul

I downloaded/viewed the models and it's amazing work you're done with that 2 parts !

By: Christian Chu  Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:56:50 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Very cool Paul! I just work on metal stamping tools, nothing of that type of caliber stuff. It's amazing to me to see what some of you guys on here are doing. I don't need to do stuff like this so I just never learned more than what I needed to do my work. Wish I had the time to "play" more and give it a try.

By: Robert Pliskat  Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:51:16 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Talk about motivation, that hose looks awesome.

 

I have a hard time finding free time, so I end up jumping on at night and start messing around. 15 min here, 20 min there

,the addiction is growing

By: Francisco Martínez  Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:00:21 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Paul is the one or you can look at the other work done by John - it'd blow your mind

By: Christian Chu  Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:02:21 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Ohhh

By: Scott Casale  Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:10:13 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there's already an SP0.1 for 2018.

 

Not a great start, guys.

By: David Mandl  Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:15:01 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

0.1 was released about 4 hours after 0, as I overheard from a VAR rep at a UG meeting last week.

By: Tom Gagnon  Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:16:44 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

It's been a couple weeks since I was paying attention, so it's new to me 

 

I suppose having them be much quicker at catching the need to redact and replace SPs is a step in the right direction.

By: David Mandl  Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:18:31 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

When you do anything for a long time, you tend to get very good at that specific thing. In this case fixing mistakes that should not have gone out the door.

By: Francisco Martínez  Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:32:36 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Oops!

By: Edward Poole  Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:30:24 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

David Mandl  wrote:

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there's already an SP0.1 for 2018.

 

Not a great start, guys.

 

Working great here

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:36:46 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Hi Tom,

 

The different results I would get were 30 seconds apart, with the same driver, not throughout the year.

 

I could get this:

 

And then I would just hit refresh on the right and get a message that would tell me that my driver hadn't been tested and therefore wasn't 100% reliable. That was the only thing it was saying failed the diagnostic. Could it have to do with a firewall on my server blocking the access to that page at that time?

 

I also had to format 2 computers about 3 months ago and still had this. Tried it today and I am not getting it at all so I don't know what is up with that.

 

We do not have side-by-side installations. I actually am the one in charge of everything computer related where I work and when we upgrade versions I make sure to do a clean wipe of the older version of SolidWorks before proceeding with the installation of the newer version.

 

Clean wipe as in :

- delete SolidWorks and eDrawings from the computer

- make sure these reporties are deleted

C:\Program Files\SolidWorks Corp\SolidWorks

C:\Program Files (x86)\SolidWorks Corp

C:\Program Files (x86)\SolidWorksx86

- Delete the toolbox folder in C:\SolidWorks Data

- Erase all SolidWorks related folders in C:\Users

- Make sure to clean the registry to make sure that there are not traces left of the old versions by going thorugh the following:

 

    • HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SolidWorks
    • HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SolidWorks BackOffice
    • HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SRAC
    • HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SolidWorks Corporation
    • HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\SRAC

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

My system if a HP WorkStation and not a homebuilt one, so I ruled that out too. I am going to proceed sooner then later to upgrading versions of SolidWorks from 2016 to 2018. I had something written down from when I installed 2016 that mentionned to make sure that you didn't have the Windows updates KB3072630 and KB3139923. Does that still apply (This was only in regars to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 as far as I'm aware)

By: Alex Lachance  Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:30:58 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Alex Lachance wrote:

 

Sometimes, my SolidWorks RX says my driver is out of date or not certified, other times it says it's certified and the most up to date. Honestly, I don't really understand what SolidWorks qualifies as certified.

Hi Alex, the Diagnostics tab (in SOLIDWORKS Rx) checks your system against what's in our graphics card driver database for the specific version of SOLIDWORKS Rx you're running. It automates the process of visiting this webpage and choosing the correct combination of filters.

 

This database is constantly updated throughout the year, and as a result, the Diagnostics tab may report different results for you throughout the year. Updates to the database could be one explanation for the different results you see. E.g. you have driver XYZ installed, 2018 is released in October, you install it, and 2018 Rx tells you your system is out of date or not certified. A couple months later, you still have driver XYZ installed, run Rx again, and now it reports that your system is up to date. In this example, that means driver XYZ was tested and added to our database during that time.

 

Another explanation is side-by-side (SxS) installations of SOLIDWORKS. See the attached image for an example. Consider a Dell Precision Tower 5810, with an NVIDIA Quadro K2200, running Windows 10, that has SOLIDWORKS 2016, 2017, and 2018 installed. As shown on the right side of the image, this specific configuration has 1 certified* graphics driver for 2016, 2 for 2017, and 1 for 2018. Depending on what graphics card driver is installed and what version of SOLIDWORKS Rx you run, the Diagnostics tab results will differ. In this example, SOLIDWORKS Rx 2018 reports that everything is OK, and 2017/2016 report that the card is supported, but the driver has not been tested. Clicking the Download Latest Driver button in 2017 will download the 375.63 driver - clicking the same button in 2016 will download the 354.56 driver. If either of those drivers were installed, then 2018 would report that the driver is not up to date (and a Download Latest Driver button would display and would download 377.11). In this scenario, you could have any of these drivers installed and all 3 versions of SOLIDWORKS should function correctly. If you were to experience a graphics problem, then the course of action would be to install the latest driver that's certified, for the newest version of SOLIDWORKS you have installed.

 

If your system is not in our database (e.g. a home-built system), the Diagnostics check only filters by graphics card vendor, and the same SxS situation applies.

 

In any situation, if you see unexpected or wrong diagnostic results, then please report that problem to your reseller so we can work with them to investigate what's wrong.

 

*Certified means that our R&D team has validated the driver for use with a specific system configuration, and there are no known issues with that driver. It does not mean that the driver is error or bug free. If a driver problem is identified, then we'll report the problem to the graphics card vendor, they'll implement a fix in a newer driver, we'll test the new driver at their request, post it to our database (if validated), and remove the older driver. If there are multiple drivers for a specific configuration/version, then that typically means that a long enough period of time has passed whereby the vendor now recommends a newer driver, and any can be used.

By: Tom Siemaszko  Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:10:54 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

     I would like to remind everyone that the promised meeting on Nov. 15 is approaching. There were several good ideas presented for concrete suggestions but let's not stop. Is there anything we can think of that we can suggest that will provide clear ideas as to what would let us know we are being listened to beyond "make it more stable and fix the bugs"? The more I learn about how to navigate the knowledge base, the more I see they actually do get some things done. Of course I also see a lot of issues that have been raised that have been sitting for a while. Part of that is that we need to become more comfortable with the SPR system and vote more for issues that we see needing changes.

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:28:45 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I personally feel the VAR are responsible of letting us know about the knowledge base and how to use it. Perhaps they could call their clients to give them a brief training on how to use the knowledge base. At the same time, that would let people know that they are indeed looking at those.

 

Up until last week, I had no idea it existed, had never heard of it and had never used it up until I read about it on this forum. There were some things that were hinting towards some kind of database of some sort like the SPRs, but I never knew where to go to find all the SPR's or how to search for them, only find the ones I had reported. Thankfully, the thread(or post) made by Jim helped me to ease myself into the search and navigation.

 

You shouldn't have to dig through everything to find the database, it should be one of the first thing mentionned by VAR's. Perhaps they could modify their generic e-mails for SPR's to add something along the line of:

 

Please note that you can view and search for any SPR in our Knowledge Base by accessing SolidWork's website with the following link:

<Insert link to Knowledge base>

 

That could be right under the part that tells you where you can find your own SPR.

 

My 2 cents.

By: Alex Lachance  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:45:44 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

You are to be commended Alex Lachance for suggesting adding a link, whether it be with the VARS, or at the Customer Portal level, that would really increase traffic on voting and posting! Bravo!

By: Edward Poole  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:50:37 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I fully agree that the knowledge base needs to be more prominent and easier to navigate.

      Recently there have been many posts suggesting we vote for a particular SPR. To do that I need to open a new window and navigate to the Resource Center, next I select the page for customer and follow the link, now I need to log in again (with the ID and password that I am already logged into the forum with), now I need to determine what in the heck I am looking for ( I am becoming more familiar with the terminology but a new user will have questions) and then use the search, don't forger to search for just the number as I wasted much frustration searching for SPR ##### and not being able to find it.

     Do you suppose we can put it behind a few more doors?

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:58:57 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Let's forget the part about the precision of the search. As far as I'm aware, everything on that side is totally out of their control and there is nothing as of now that they can do to change that and I'm willing to bet to be able to have control over it, they'd have to do a major over-haul and rebuild it entirely.

 

I believe we should focus on the part that it is not being promoted enough right now. The more people that are aware that exists, the more people that will use it, the more bugs that will be fixed.

By: Alex Lachance  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 20:04:56 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Steinmeyer wrote:

 

I would like to remind everyone that the promised meeting on Nov. 15 is approaching. There were several good ideas presented for concrete suggestions but let's not stop. Is there anything we can think of that we can suggest that will provide clear ideas as to what would let us know we are being listened to beyond "make it more stable and fix the bugs"? The more I learn about how to navigate the knowledge base, the more I see they actually do get some things done. Of course I also see a lot of issues that have been raised that have been sitting for a while. Part of that is that we need to become more comfortable with the SPR system and vote more for issues that we see needing changes.

Well, here is a concrete suggestion, but I'm sure it can't be implemented anytime soon unless it is already in the works.  SWX crashes.  We get that and aren't happy about it, hence this whole thread.  SWX2017 did a nice improvement to the crash report and statistics system, but it could be dramatically improved even more.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is so much in the news now because of its dramatic strides.  How about implementing some AI to monitor the happenings within our use of SWX, and for it to trigger on a crash?  It could almost have a black-box overwrite function where it is internally recording our actions for the last xx steps or minutes of actual use.  On the event of a crash the AI system would review this data and figure out what we were doing and compare those steps to its internal information system.  When we restart SWX this AI system could present a message to us saying it has detected a problem associated with or similar to one already logged in the corporate system and here is its information with a link to default to adding us to that problem.  If the problem is not close to an existing one then it could say that and offer to create an SPR for us.  That would save us the trouble of having to search the KB and try to guess what words might be key to describing our problem in a way that has already been described.  By adding us to the already known problem it increases the count for that problem.  It also puts us in the system to be notified when that particular problem is resolved.

 

The inspiration for this comes from my own laziness.  I have work to do and I sure do not have time to wade through the KB system looking to see if the problem I just encountered has already been logged.  It might not even be in there.  Even if it is in there it might be described in totally different words and I might not find the existing one(s).  Jim Wilkinson has already provided examples of just how common this is.

 

Years ago I worked for a major defense contractor and was on a project for quality improvement.  We had a huge stack of NR's (Non-conformance Report).  These were formal documents written up in fabrication or assembly when there was a problem, usually parts or assemblies not fitting together properly.  The NR's could be written against any of the parts involved.  An assembly of only thee parts could have the NR written against any of the three parts or the assembly itself.  That's four possibilities right there.  As a result, the NR's were in many small piles because everyone had always sorted them by part number.  We had the groups take these and NR's and re-sort them based on the problem, not the part number.  The piles became fewer and taller.  Now they made sense.  We got them to understand that by looking at it this way they were better able to see the forest instead of just a whole bunch of small trees.  We got them to understand they were solving problems, not solving parts.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 21:34:30 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I like this suggestion and think it would go a long way toward bringing back SW's reputation for being a very user friendly system.

 

     My only problem is I'm not sure my Commodore 64 can run a program like that.

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Thu, 02 Nov 2017 21:44:14 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

It's SW 2018 SP0.1 (doh!) and Pack n Go it's still broken...

 

just saying.

ONE, TWO, ONE, TWO...

By: Umberto Zanola  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 02:29:11 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Umberto Zanola  wrote:

 

It's SW 2018 SP0.1 (doh!) and Pack n Go it's still broken...

 

just saying.

ONE, TWO, ONE, TWO...

 

You say Pack & Go is Broken, in what way - it's working well here, could you explain the process you're using and also explain what you're expecting needs to happen

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:18:53 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

The inspiration for this comes from my own laziness...

 

Dennis, I don't believe that for a second.

 

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

I have work to do and I sure do not have time to wade through the KB system looking to see if the problem I just encountered has already been logged...

 

I believe that it actually takes a considerable amount of time to search the database. Just having to log in again (I'm already logged in) guess at search terms, sort the hits, read the synopsis, click over, read the complete SPR, decide if it actually applies or maybe there is a better, closer one if I just look a bit longer, click on the misnomer radio button and wonder if I am actually part of the hope list (how about an email confirmation that I am part of the SPRxxxxxx wish group).

None of us should have this level of time to search.

 

If this system of popularity votes is what Dassault is using to determine what gets fixed in the future, may I humble suggest a revamp of the database front page and voting UI?

 

Dennis, I am all for adding AI on the workstation level. I am also all for the KISS method. Better error messages and crash reporting with an acknowledging email from SW that my report has been received.would be a good simple start. Please.

By: Rick Becker  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 11:37:52 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

That is indeed a good idea. By proceeding that way, you include everyone in the equation without exceptions instead of relying on people's will.

 

I do think though that it would be a major improvement, not only for the users but for SolidWorks employees. Think of it this way, they would need a lot less people to moderate the KB, a lot less people to take care of crash reports and so on. Eventually, the money saved could be redirected towards development in an ideal world.

By: Alex Lachance  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 11:49:20 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

K.I.S.S. rules!

By: Edward Poole  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:35:39 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson - Thanks for your explination :-)

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:16:11 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

....................

Since crash dialog reports do not include part/assembly/drawing files, it is often very difficult for us to reproduce the problem (see near the bottom of this post for information about reporting problems WITH part/assembly/drawing files). A brief description of what you were doing, and anything unique to your model or workflow, can help us reproduce the problem. You don't have to write a novel here. At a minimum, please put in the last few things that you have done. Knowing that the last step was to rotate the model with the mouse, or that you changed a part size in an assembly document and then switched back to the drawing (with just a couple of the steps before that since often it is a few steps in sequence that causes the problem) is way better than having no information at all.

 

 

........................................................

 

All of this is dependent upon users sending in crash reports, and the results of us fixing what might seem like random crashes improves dramatically as more users add a few steps to help us troubleshoot.

 

And I'll finally say, there is NO substitute for having a reproducible case with part/assembly/drawing data. So, if something is reproducible, be sure to report it to your reseller with the data. If you are getting a lot of frequent crashes and they seem to be random and non-reproducible, get your reseller involved. There is very likely something that they can troubleshoot and either fix on your machine or find the common thread to get it to be reproducible so it can be sent to our teams to fix.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Jim Wilkinson,

Wow that was a mouthful. Thank you very much for the details though. This lets me know that what I have been typing in the crash report is too general to be of help. I will attempt to add more information in the future. If something like this could be made available in the requests for crash reports users might provide better information for you. I have just been adding something like "attempted to save and boom" or something like that. Now I will add much more.

 

Thank you

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:20:23 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I officially get nervous every time I get notifications about this thread. I'm never sure what's going to be discussed as broken...

By: Scott Casale  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:20:32 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Hi Dennis,

 

More will be explained at the Nov. 15th meeting, but SOLIDWORKS already does a lot of what you are talking about.

SOLIDWORKS is always recording …

 

we will assign one of our experts to work with your reseller to help troubleshoot and resolve the problem.

 

Thanks,

Jim

This.  This is what I want to send to all of my colleagues that like to gripe about crashes.

By: David Mandl  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:30:21 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Solidworks is always recording?

 

Did they make a deal with the nsa or something?

By: Francisco Martínez  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 20:14:06 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Francisco Martínez wrote:

 

Solidworks is always recording?

 

Did they make a deal with the nsa or something?

Where do you think NSA got the idea?

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 20:18:31 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

When I saw sldworks_fs.exe and sldProcMon.exe running in the background using my price inflated ram I knew something was up.

 

I was going to say myspace but naa, that sounds better

By: Francisco Martínez  Sat, 04 Nov 2017 01:47:09 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

 

Well, here is a concrete suggestion, but I'm sure it can't be implemented anytime soon unless it is already in the works. SWX crashes. We get that and aren't happy about it, hence this whole thread. SWX2017 did a nice improvement to the crash report and statistics system, but it could be dramatically improved even more.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is so much in the news now because of its dramatic strides. How about implementing some AI to monitor the happenings within our use of SWX, and for it to trigger on a crash? It could almost have a black-box overwrite function where it is internally recording our actions for the last xx steps or minutes of actual use. On the event of a crash the AI system would review this data and figure out what we were doing and compare those steps to its internal information system. When we restart SWX this AI system could present a message to us saying it has detected a problem associated with or similar to one already logged in the corporate system and here is its information with a link to default to adding us to that problem. If the problem is not close to an existing one then it could say that and offer to create an SPR for us. That would save us the trouble of having to search the KB and try to guess what words might be key to describing our problem in a way that has already been described. By adding us to the already known problem it increases the count for that problem. It also puts us in the system to be notified when that particular problem is resolved.

 

The inspiration for this comes from my own laziness. I have work to do and I sure do not have time to wade through the KB system looking to see if the problem I just encountered has already been logged. It might not even be in there. Even if it is in there it might be described in totally different words and I might not find the existing one(s). Jim Wilkinson has already provided examples of just how common this is.

 

Years ago I worked for a major defense contractor and was on a project for quality improvement. We had a huge stack of NR's (Non-conformance Report). These were formal documents written up in fabrication or assembly when there was a problem, usually parts or assemblies not fitting together properly. The NR's could be written against any of the parts involved. An assembly of only thee parts could have the NR written against any of the three parts or the assembly itself. That's four possibilities right there. As a result, the NR's were in many small piles because everyone had always sorted them by part number. We had the groups take these and NR's and re-sort them based on the problem, not the part number. The piles became fewer and taller. Now they made sense. We got them to understand that by looking at it this way they were better able to see the forest instead of just a whole bunch of small trees. We got them to understand they were solving problems, not solving parts.

Hi Dennis,

 

More will be explained at the Nov. 15th meeting, but SOLIDWORKS already does a lot of what you are talking about.

SOLIDWORKS is always recording information locally on your machine about command usage, OS information, video card information, UI setup, etc. It is just not sent to SOLIDWORKS unless the user opts into the SOLIDWORKS Customer Experience Improvement Program. You can do this at install time, from the crash dialog, or at any time in Tools, Options, System Settings, General. This web page below that is linked from the installation,Tools/Options, and the crash dialog where those options are presented describes what is collected and what is not collected for privacy reasons and the fact that this does not negatively affect the performance of running the software:

SolidWorks Customer Experience Improvement Program | SOLIDWORKS

 

In addition, if you opt into the program, the crash reports are automatically sent when you crash. The crash dialog looks like this if you have opted into the program:

FeatureWorksCrash-feedbackon.png

And it looks like this if you have not opted into the program:

FeatureWorksCrash-feedbackoff.png

 

And the crash reporting system already does something similar to what you are talking about. Every crash report that is sent in through the crash dialog goes into a database and includes a "mini-dump" which includes information about the crash, including what module crashed and where in the module it crashed, along with other data like what commands were last run, etc. With this information, we can group like crashes together to automatically understand how many times the same crash has happened. The key factors which drive the priority within development are the total hit count on a given crash and the number of customers encountering that crash (some customers may hit the same crash multiple times, so the hit count can be higher than the number of customers).

 

Along with this crash data in the database, we also store the steps that the user has written into the crash dialog. You may ask why it is important to have the users manually enter steps if we already have information about what commands the user has run. The reason is because we can't capture the same level of detail in the data being automatically sent to us about command usage. For instance, the automatic data sent will indicate that the extrude command was run, but it won't have all of the information about what options were set, what selections were made, and certainly won't have information like what the user was doing at the moment of the crash (for example, if the user was selecting a plane for input within the extrude command). If we automatically captured this level of information it could potentially impact performance and would be huge amounts of data to send when it actually wouldn't be as useful as the user describing the problem.

 

Users have asked in this thread if these steps that users write down are ever read by SOLIDWORKS...the answer is YES. No, we don't read every single one as they come in, but as our development team is investigating the crashes with multiple occurrences, the user steps are instrumental in helping track down the problem. Since crash dialog reports do not include part/assembly/drawing files, it is often very difficult for us to reproduce the problem (see near the bottom of this post for information about reporting problems WITH part/assembly/drawing files). A brief description of what you were doing, and anything unique to your model or workflow, can help us reproduce the problem. You don't have to write a novel here. At a minimum, please put in the last few things that you have done. Knowing that the last step was to rotate the model with the mouse, or that you changed a part size in an assembly document and then switched back to the drawing (with just a couple of the steps before that since often it is a few steps in sequence that causes the problem) is way better than having no information at all. If no users have put in any steps, it's potentially like looking for a needle in a haystack...the developer is just staring at code trying to figure out what might be going wrong; sometimes there is something obviously wrong in the code, but often times, it is the complex path through the code before it got to this part of the code that causes the problem. If multiple users have submitted steps, and there is no consistency to the steps, then that may lead the developer in one direction of investigation. If multiple users have reported very similar, or the same steps, then the haystack gets smaller and smaller or the needle is just sitting there in plain sight.

 

You may ask why every single crash isn't looked at. Well, crashes can be caused by many things, and many of them aren't actually caused by SOLIDWORKS. They can be caused by issues in the OS, with the graphics card or driver, with the hardware, running out of memory, etc. If a crash log only ever comes in once, it very likely isn't caused by SOLIDWORKS. If it comes in multiple times, then there is more chance it is something that we can address in our code or figure out that it is caused by a particular driver or OS DLL or something like that and then report to our partners for them to fix it.

 

The question came up as to whether it is important for users running older versions to send crash reports. The answer is yes. While a SP may not be released to address a problem in an older version since that version is no longer maintained, the data helps the developer to analyze the problem if it is still occurring on a version that is actively being maintained. It helps for the developer to know how long the problem has been in the code so they know what change introduced the problem since they can look at the code and see what changed in the code at the time the problem started occurring. The additional crash reports (especially when users have added steps), help the developer troubleshoot the problem, even if those steps are from an older version since the problem would probably still occur with those steps on the new version. In the database, they can also tell how many occurrences come from each release which is additional useful information.

 

For reporting back to the user, starting with SOLIDWORKS 2018, you'll notice that we are reporting the fault module in the crash dialog (see the images above). This can be helpful to the user since if it is reporting some module frequently, especially one that might be "human recognizable" like a module name that is clearly related to the graphics card or something else in the OS, then they can pursue looking into that. As already mentioned in this thread earlier, a collection of this information over time is available in SOLIDWORK Rx under the Reliability tab. Clicking on "Terminated unexpectedly" entries shows what is called a "Call stack" which is the fault module plus some additional information. And you'll notice in the bottom right corner, it reports the number of sessions with the same call stack so something that may seem random can actually be seen as repeatable through this data. We don't expect users to become experts on this stuff, but much of this information can be very useful for VARs who are helping troubleshoot problems for users.

 

Also new to SOLIDWORKS 2018 is a confirmation message within the crash dialog that the information has been sent:

ErrorReportConfirmation.png

 

Also starting with SOLIDWORKS 2018, we have changed the crash dialog so it now has the ability to tell you if a crash is already fixed. So, if a crash occurs and it matches a crash in our database that has already been fixed, it will have information right in the crash dialog to indicate that the problem is fixed and in what version/SP. All of this is done proactively without the need for an SPR.

 

All of this is dependent upon users sending in crash reports, and the results of us fixing what might seem like random crashes improves dramatically as more users add a few steps to help us troubleshoot.

 

And I'll finally say, there is NO substitute for having a reproducible case with part/assembly/drawing data. So, if something is reproducible, be sure to report it to your reseller with the data. If you are getting a lot of frequent crashes and they seem to be random and non-reproducible, get your reseller involved. There is very likely something that they can troubleshoot and either fix on your machine or find the common thread to get it to be reproducible so it can be sent to our teams to fix.

 

In cases where a persistent crashing problem is hard to pinpoint your reseller can request a “crash investigation” from the SOLIDWORKS Technical Support team, and we will assign one of our experts to work with your reseller to help troubleshoot and resolve the problem.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:03:57 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

 

 

Me: I have always set all of our installations to do this, but a lot of folks have the attitude that it never does any good and they doubt any of these reports are read. If you broadcast this BETTER you will get more participation from some of your user base. BUT if you set these reports up to provide a verification that it HAS ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED BY SWX then you will get A LOT MORE PARTICIPATION you’re your user base.

 

That is one thing I forgot to mention in my original reply and I have now edited it to add it. In SOLIDWORKS 2018, the crash dialog now does give confirmation that the information has been sent. It looks like this:

ErrorReportConfirmation.png

Thanks,
Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Sat, 04 Nov 2017 11:04:19 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

 

SOLIDWORKS already does a lot of what you are talking about.

Me:  Cool.  Do more!

 

 

Jim:  SOLIDWORKS is always recording information locally on your machine about command usage, OS information, video card information, UI setup, etc. <snip> Along with this crash data in the database, we also store the steps that the user has written into the crash dialog. You may ask why it is important to have the users manually enter steps if we already have information about what commands the user has run. The reason is because we can't capture the same level of detail in the data being automatically sent to us about command usage. For instance, the automatic data sent will indicate that the extrude command was run, but it won't have all of the information about what options were set, what selections were made, and certainly won't have information like what the user was doing at the moment of the crash (for example, if the user was selecting a plane for input within the extrude command). If we automatically captured this level of information it could potentially impact performance and would be huge amounts of data to send when it actually wouldn't be as useful as the user describing the problem.

Me:  Is this type of data important to examining a crash?  If not then fine, but if anything is helpful to diagnosing the problem then I think SWX should find a way to capture it.  Perhaps if there is a performance impact for this stuff then the option to capture it should be turned off by default.  But if a problem is captured and the system figures out it needs more information it could prompt us to turn on the additional data capturing.  It should warn us there could be a slight performance impact, but nowadays most computers are so fast and powerful that we would be hard pressed to notice it unless we are doing something huge/intensive.

 

Jim:  Users have asked in this thread if these steps that users write down are ever read by SOLIDWORKS...the answer is YES. No, we don't read every single one as they come in, but as our development team is investigating the crashes with multiple occurrences, the user steps are instrumental in helping track down the problem.

 

The question came up as to whether it is important for users running older versions to send crash reports. The answer is yes.

Me:  This has already received a very positive response since you wrote it in this thread.  I think you should make a big deal out of broadcasting this in a separate thread on this forum, have the VARS send out a communique to all their customers, add it to the startup splash screen, and put this on the website.  You have under-communicated this and I think you cannot over communicate it.

 

Jim:  Also starting with SOLIDWORKS 2018, we have changed the crash dialog so it now has the ability to tell you if a crash is already fixed. So, if a crash occurs and it matches a crash in our database that has already been fixed, it will have information right in the crash dialog to indicate that the problem is fixed and in what version/SP. All of this is done proactively without the need for an SPR.

Me:  This is HUGE and it is about time!  Thanks!

 

Jim:  All of this is dependent upon users sending in crash reports, and the results of us fixing what might seem like random crashes improves dramatically as more users add a few steps to help us troubleshoot.

 

Me:  I have always set all of our installations to do this, but a lot of folks have the attitude that it never does any good and they doubt any of these reports are read.  If you broadcast this BETTER you will get more participation from some of your user base.  BUT if you set these reports up to provide a verification that it HAS ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED BY SWX then you will get A LOT MORE PARTICIPATION from your user base.

 

This is another thing that has been under-communicated and you cannot over communicate it.

 

I will admit to being a very vocal proponent of ONE and TWO!  You will not get an apology from me for this because I have been severely disappointed in the problems I ran into the last 18 months and the lost work my company suffered through.  I complain but I also offer suggestions.  I do this because I am angry (complaints), but also because it is in my best interests for SWX to be “successful”.  I do not mean successful as a company and I do not mean successful introducing new features.  I mean successful in giving me software that improves my productivity.  SWX is so feature-rich that our productivity is not as impacted much by new features (positive impact), but by crashes, file corruptions, and otherwise lost work (BIG negative impact).

 

Finally, THANK YOU, JIM, for another very informative and very helpful post.  It shows us that SWX really IS listening. Please note the immensely positive feedback you have gotten from ALL of your posts.  This should be a clear indication of how much we value direct feedback from SWX.  This should be a clear indication of how much SWX can do to repair its relationship with us by doing more such feedback.

 

 

By: Dennis Dohogne  Fri, 03 Nov 2017 20:19:01 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

 

 

Reading between the lines of your reference to November 15th I expect there will be some sort of big reveal that day. I am not asking you to give us a preview of that reveal and steel the thunder of that announcement.

I don't want to disappoint you, but there is no big reveal. When I said more will be explained, I simply meant that we will go into more details about internal processes that we are using to proactively go after 1 and 2 (much without customer involvement needed) and also the fact that we can go into way more detail on these things in a conversation, especially with questions and answers back and forth, than we can in a post to the forum. My post was already long enough as it was and I'm sure it put many users to sleep.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:46:48 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

 

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

 

 

Reading between the lines of your reference to November 15th I expect there will be some sort of big reveal that day. I am not asking you to give us a preview of that reveal and steel the thunder of that announcement.

I don't want to disappoint you, but there is no big reveal. When I said more will be explained, I simply meant that we will go into more details about internal processes that we are using to proactively go after 1 and 2 (much without customer involvement needed) and also the fact that we can go into way more detail on these things in a conversation, especially with questions and answers back and forth, than we can in a post to the forum. My post was already long enough as it was and I'm sure it put many users to sleep.

 

Thanks,

Jim

I highly doubt that it puts anyone to sleep!!!  It was highly informative and extremely encouraging.  Thanks again!!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:58:38 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

What happen is that I'm working on structural simulations and I would like to clone the assembly to another folder, modify it and rerun the simulation again. I have multiple CWR files 1 Gb each inside the folder and whatever I check/uncheck in Pack n Go SW ends up copying the CWR files in the new folder...

 

It is not about workflow, I expect SW to comply 100% with the options of pack n go, otherwise I have to check manually that every study in the cloned assembly is not linking to the original folder (otherwise these result get overwritten and lost): please understand that I cannot trust a program that works in spite of the options I set. I got burnt a lot with simulation to distrust even the "minor" glitches like this...

 

Since 2016 pack n go is not working properly for the third straight main release. I could forgive them if it was broken between 2 SPs, but 3 main releases are too much.

 

Sorry for venting.

By: Umberto Zanola  Sun, 05 Nov 2017 23:58:53 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

 

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

 

 

Me: I have always set all of our installations to do this, but a lot of folks have the attitude that it never does any good and they doubt any of these reports are read. If you broadcast this BETTER you will get more participation from some of your user base. BUT if you set these reports up to provide a verification that it HAS ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED BY SWX then you will get A LOT MORE PARTICIPATION you’re your user base.

 

That is one thing I forgot to mention in my original reply and I have now edited it to add it. In SOLIDWORKS 2018, the crash dialog now does give confirmation that the information has been sent. It looks like this:

ErrorReportConfirmation.png

Thanks,
Jim

Jim, these are HUGE strides!!!  Congratulations!  Thank you!  Keep it up!

 

Now, do more.

1. Implement as many of these changes as possible in SP5.0 of SWX2017.  Many of us will be using SP5.0 for a good while before converting our production work to SWX2018SPx.0 (where x>1).  After all, improved problem communication does not trump the bad taste in our mouth from recent problems that weren't ironed out until SP4.1.

2. Acknowledging that the error report has been sent does not tell us it has been read.  How about a follow-up message when the report has been read?

3. Going beyond the "read notice" of the above point, I think the most valuable thing with feedback is when we get a notice that our problem has been identified as SPR xxxxxxx (whether it is a new or a previously reported problem), and that we have been added to its count, and that we will be notified when it has been resolved.  This alone will truly and dramatically increase participation in the automatic error reporting.  People like me that don't have the time to muddle through the muddy KB system (especially since most of us are mudbloods or, shudder, muggles).  If this improved error reporting system can effectively do that for us then we users win when we are added to the SPR count, and SWX wins because we are added to the count with more data for you to work with.  I think this is where the more advanced AI will have to come into the picture.

 

Reading between the lines of your reference to November 15th I expect there will be some sort of big reveal that day.  I am not asking you to give us a preview of that reveal and steel the thunder of that announcement.  I am delighted with your information, both that you have given us so much and because it is such good news.  I hope that after that big reveal there is a big push by all of SWX and their VARS to communicate these improvements.  The majority of SWX users don't even have an account on this forum so you'll have to broadcast the news to everyone that is using SWX, perhaps with an e-mail sent out to all the e-mails associated with the registrations past and present (just an idea).

 

And keeping with the spirit of this thread, my joy at the improvements you are making to the error reporting system does not take away from the fact that I (and many, many others using SWX) would rather have a more stable and trouble-free version of SWX than more new wizbangs added to a troubled software.  I can understand bugs associated with new features.  I cannot understand new bugs hitting old tried-and-true functionality.  This really lit me up with the problems I had with early versions of SWX2017!!  (I had to revert to using SWX2016 and recreate all the work I had done in SWX2017.)  Making it easier to report bugs and getting more people to participate will definitely help, but actually fixing the problems is where we will see progress.  I am all for helping SWX fix the bugs with improved error reporting and getting more folks to join in, but ultimately I want ONE and TWO!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Sat, 04 Nov 2017 13:13:11 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Did you report your issues to your VAR, it might be a simple setting that is being overlooked or there was a change within the SW Pack & Go..

By: John Stoltzfus  Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:43:19 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim, I can't thank you enough for taking the time and write that large chapter so well documenting how our crash reports anf forum postings are handled by SW.

With the goal being getting as many users as possible to accurately and as completely as possible, participate in and send crash reports, the information you have brought us , IMHO, is crucial to us users understanding the importance of our actions.

 

I assume the page you referenced (SolidWorks Customer Experience Improvement Program | SOLIDWORKS ) will be revised and updated using much of what you have written.

 

I want to thank Dennis Dohogne for kicking off the discussion.

By: Rick Becker  Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:06:35 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Well said Rick! Jim's been doing an awesome job getting back to people on the forums!

By: Edward Poole  Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:45:22 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Knowledge Base solution S-051869 documents, in a bit more technical detail, how the graphics card check works. The check relies on a file that's downloaded to your Windows temp folder. If there's a problem downloading this file or accessing it, then you could see incorrect results. Rx re-downloads this file every time it's launched.

 

Update: Inconsistent diagnostic results when repeatedly clicking the Reload Results button is actually a problem that's been reported to us in the past. I'm unable to reproduce that problem in 2017 SP4.1 or 2018 SP0.1. I'll work with R&D, though, to get that issue looked at again. This is a bug, reported as Software Performance Report (SPR) 998265 - Login to the Customer Portal > click on Knowledge Base > search for this number (or keywords, e.g. 'diagnostic reload results') to see its status.

 

The diagnostic result you show is correct. Driver 8.14.01.6367 is not certified for use with SOLIDWORKS 2016. That driver is only certified for use with SOLIDWORKS 2015. The Download Latest Driver button should download 14.502.1032 / 8.14.01.6413 for you, which is certified for your configuration with 2015 and 2016. (AMD packages their drivers differently than NVIDIA and uses multiple version numbers for a single package - those version numbers are shown in the notes for those drivers on our graphics driver page.)

 

The problem introduced by Microsoft KB3072630 was resolved in SOLIDWORKS 2015 SP5 and newer. S-071297 discusses what you can do if you encounter a Windows Installer failure as a result of Microsoft KB3139923.

By: Tom Siemaszko  Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:17:34 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Not to be the downer of the nice party, but...

Now that we have folks like Jim Wilkinson's attention, can I ask if the advanced hole wizard is ever going to be able to work with drawings (functionality broken and removed from 2017 SP.0), or is it a feature that is going to be left broken in the software?

 

I Still haven't seen an announcement for its removal from use in drawings in a write up- besides the forums- which is pretty crappy business practice.

By: Scott Casale  Tue, 07 Nov 2017 20:52:15 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson and Tom Siemaszko,

I can't participate in the Customer Experience Improvement Program because I am behind a firewall (at least that is what I believe).  I never opened a service ticket with the VAR about it.  Is that the route to fix the problem?

By: Matt Peneguy  Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:15:58 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Francisco Martínez wrote:

 

When I saw sldworks_fs.exe and sldProcMon.exe running in the background using my price inflated ram I knew something was up.

 

I was going to say myspace but naa, that sounds better

 

  • sldworks_fs.exe is the SOLIDWORKS Fast Start process. Knowledge Base solution S-061530 provides some additional information on this process. In short, it makes SOLIDWORKS startup faster.
  • sldProcMon.exe is the SOLIDWORKS Process Monitor process. Knowledge Base solution S-050399 provides information on what this process does. In short, it's responsible for the Error Report mechanism (described previously) and the SOLIDWORKS Resource Monitor.

 

The session [performance] logging that Jim speaks of has been in place, I believe, since day 1 (and documented somewhere in the legalese of our license agreement). We've been mining that data all along. The Customer Experience Improvement Program, though, was formally started with the release of SOLIDWORKS 2007 (page 18) and has evolved quite a bit over the years, as evidenced by Jim's novella .

By: Tom Siemaszko  Tue, 07 Nov 2017 20:01:26 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Matt Peneguy wrote:

 

Jim Wilkinson and Tom Siemaszko,

I can't participate in the Customer Experience Improvement Program because I am behind a firewall (at least that is what I believe). I never opened a service ticket with the VAR about it. Is that the route to fix the problem?

Tom Siemaszko, your answer to Matt is the first I have seen that talks about how to get by/through the firewall.  I believe if you have this information pop-up when folks encounter the firewall blockage there would be more people participating in the feedback program.  Perhaps it could be a message ready for the SWX user to e-mail to their IT people so the IT people would have all the information they need to say "NO".

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:35:12 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Tom Siemaszko,

Dennis is 100% correct.  If I had that information presented in the dialog, I could have sent an email over to IT years ago.  I'm wondering how many users are in the same situation I am and how much more information SWX could be receiving if that information was included in that dialog.

Thanks for giving me the relevant information.  I opened a service ticket with our IT group to see if we can add the exclusion to our firewall.

By: Matt Peneguy  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:33:55 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Scott Casale wrote:

 

 

Now that we have folks like Jim Wilkinson's attention, can I ask if the advanced hole wizard is ever going to be able to work with drawings (functionality broken and removed from 2017 SP.0), or is it a feature that is going to be left broken in the software?

 

I Still haven't seen an announcement for its removal from use in drawings in a write up- besides the forums- which is pretty crappy business practice.

Hi Scott,

 

If you are talking about Hole Callout Support for the Advanced Hole Tool, it was removed for SOLIDWORKS 2017 Pre-Release based on issues found in testing internally and by users during Beta It was impossible to solve those issues/limitations for SOLIDWORKS 2017 SP0. The removal was documented in a blog post in the SOLIDWORKS 2017 Beta forum on September 9th. Beta is under NDA and therefore all communications about it are also under NDA and are made in the beta forum which is only accessible by individuals who have accepted the NDA. The Advanced Hole functionality was not removed entirely since there are users who can use it that don't even make drawings but manufacture by other means and users that do make drawings could choose to manually make callouts.

 

The functionality for the Hole Callouts for advanced holes has been added to SOLIDWORKS 2018 as documented here:

2018 What's New in SOLIDWORKS - Hole Callouts Supported in Advanced Hole Tool

and here:

2018 What's New in SOLIDWORKS - Customizing Advanced Hole Callouts

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:15:52 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

 

 

The functionality for the Hole Callouts for advanced holes has been added to SOLIDWORKS 2018 as documented here:

2018 What's New in SOLIDWORKS - Hole Callouts Supported in Advanced Hole Tool

and here:

2018 What's New in SOLIDWORKS - Customizing Advanced Hole Callouts

 

Thanks,

Jim

This is very good news.

By: Scott Casale  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:34:57 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

You can certainly contact your VAR, but I would recommend contacting your IT team instead - they'll be the most knowledgeable about your specific network configuration and how to change it.

 

Error report data (a ZIP file*) is sent to performance.solidworks.com via the HTTP protocol (port 80). The fix may be as simple as adding an exception or rule to your firewall / proxy server to allow HTTP traffic through this URL. Knowledge Base solutions S-065417 and S-061446 have instructions on how to capture the data transmission, which may be useful for your IT team to review.

 

*The package of data that's queued to be sent can be found in '%localappdata&\SOLIDWORKS\{<a bunch of numbers and letters}upload.zip'. If you know how to reproduce the crash, you can copy that ZIP file, or simply run SOLIDWORKS Rx (which will gather that same data and more), and send it off to your VAR, along with details about how to reproduce the crash (the files, steps, etc.), for review.

By: Tom Siemaszko  Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:53:55 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Thanks guys. I'll pass along this feedback to R&D...

By: Tom Siemaszko  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:54:20 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Robert Pliskat, Jim Wilkinson, Jim Steinmeyer and everyone else,

 

I branched off the discussion concerning custom hole callouts on drawings to a new thread. (first time I used branch)

 

I don't think I got all of the discussion, but I believe I got the salient portion for a new discussion.

 

It can be found here...

Custom Hole Callout on Drawings

By: Rick Becker  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:28 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Thanks Tom I appreciate you following up and creating the SPR 1050173 for this issue.

By: Matt Peneguy  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:46 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

LOL!, I just finished  posting it in drawings and detailing about 1 minute after you branched it.

By: Robert Pliskat  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:03:34 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Robert Pliskat wrote:

 

LOL!, I just finished posting it in drawings and detailing about 1 minute after you branched it.

Robert, Which one do you want to use?

 

Custom Hole Callout on Drawings

or

Hole Table text suggestions

By: Rick Becker  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:09:35 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Doesn't matter to me. You pick one. I don't spend a lot of time here so maybe you would have a better insight to which would get the best results. I didn't quite go as in depth on my added version but enough (I thought) to get the point across. I think your title is better.

By: Robert Pliskat  Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:22:08 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson - I had posted that my 2018 toolbars are still moving around even after they are locked down, is anyone else seeing that?  Also I did find an issue with the flyout tool bar that we were able to reproduce, where you can add feature icons and they will stay till SW is closed, when you open SW they are all gone.  I reported this to our VAR and they will push it up.  The flyout toolbar is fine in the Parts and Assembly environment.

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:03:07 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

John Stoltzfus wrote:

 

Jim Wilkinson - I had posted that my 2018 toolbars are still moving around even after they are locked down, is anyone else seeing that? Also I did find an issue with the flyout tool bar that we were able to reproduce, where you can add feature icons and they will stay till SW is closed, when you open SW they are all gone. I reported this to our VAR and they will push it up. The flyout toolbar is fine in the Parts and Assembly environment.

Hi John,

 

As I've mentioned before, locking the toolbars only prevents USERS from moving them inadvertantely. If there is some behavior in the system that causes them to move, they will move. The known cases of these types of behaviors are:

  • If you have space between your toolbars and you either resize the window to be smaller by dragging, the toolbars will push together to the left if horizontally positioned or to the top if vertically positioned. The same will happen if you minimize the SOLIDWORKS window and then restore it again. I'd really like us to fix at least the second behavior, but the first behavior may be harder to solve. Even solving the second behavior is difficult (hence why we haven't solved it yet). This is logged as SPR 565227 if users want to vote for it.
  • The visibility of toolbars between the 3 document environments (part, assembly, drawings) is stored separately but the positions are not. So, for example, a user could have the selection filter toolbar set to be visible in both the part and assembly environment. If the user moves the selection filter toolbar to a position in the assembly environment that is "free space" but is actually occupied space in the part environment, when they switch to the part environment, the toolbars are going to push each other around because they are trying to occupy the same space. Depending on how toolbars interfere with one another, what other toolbars are on the line, etc. they may just push on the same row/column or may jump to another row/column.
  • The length of the CommandManager (if you are docking toolbars next to the CommandManager, as I can see you are) is determined  in the particular environment (part, assembly, or drawing) by the tab that has the widest content. So, similar to the bullet point above, if the CommandManager is shorter in the drawing environment and you put a toolbar right up against the right edge of it in drawings, and that toolbar is also visible in parts or assemblies, and the CommandManager is longer there, then the toolbar will push (and again, depending on what else is on the row to interfere with it, toolbars may jump rows).

So the first bullet point is a limitation of resizing SOLIDWORKS; again, I'd like to see those limitations go away someday, but they are technically difficult to solve.

The next two bullet points are expected behavior; it is physically impossible to have two toolbars occupy the same space so they are going to push each other around under those conditions.

There may be other conditions that cause toolbars to move similar to above that I'm not thinking of. There may also be bugs that cause it that we are not aware of. If you can reproduce cases other than those listed above, certainly report them.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:01:38 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Thanks for the explination Jim Wilkinson - that makes sense - But I tried to make them exactly the same from parts, assemblies and drawings..

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:15:55 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

John Stoltzfus wrote:

 

Thanks for the explination Jim Wilkinson - that makes sense - But I tried to make them exactly the same from parts, assemblies and drawings..

Is it possibly the case of the shifting happening when you are minimizing the app or showing the desktop (which automatically minimizes it)? Perhaps instead of just pushing toolbars together, they are jumping rows in your case too. We don't know of any reproducible cases of that, but if that is indeed what is happening, I could take a look at your registry and try to replicate it (although you have a bunch of custom icons too, so trying to replicate exactly may be difficult).

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:20:32 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Based on what you described above I think it could be with my add in Alpha Cam which only shows in the assembly and part files and not the drawing environment - I will be watching it closely and hopefully I'll notice it right away.  The other possibility that I was thinking about was opening older files, because I noticed that the toolbars were changed after I was working on some older files, but not 100% sure.

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:32:44 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Hi John,

 

Is the Alpha Cam toolbar customizable (i.e. does it show up in the categories list in Tools, Customize, Commands)? If not, they are likely using very old APIs to define their toolbars and those toolbars could possibly cause issues due to limitations in their architecture. I think we've had the new toolbar APIs which make the buttons compatible with the CommandManager, etc. since SOLIDWORKS 2008. Unfortunately not all partners have upgraded their code to use the new toolbars. I am not sure if Alpha Cam falls into this category or not.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:45:30 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

It's just a one button Toolbar

 

 

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:50:50 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

John Stoltzfus wrote:

 

It's just a one button Toolbar

 

 

But does it show in the categories of Tools, Customize, Commands allowing that one button to be put anywhere in the UI you would like? That is the main thing that will tell us if it uses the old toolbar APIs or the new ones. And if it is the old one, regardless of whether it is just one button or not, just that fact that it is a toolbar using the old APIs may be the cause of toolbar position issues.

If it is an old style toolbar, try running with it undocked somewhere on the screen instead of docked and see if the toolbar moving problems go away.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 17:33:03 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Ok - When I get a chance - thanks - Jim Wilkinson

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 10 Nov 2017 17:47:09 GMT
ONE and TWO

I have a request for every user attending this years SWW.

 

At every opportunity possible, start loudly chanting over and over and over again.

 

ONE and TWO, ONE and TWO, ONE and TWO...

By: Rick Becker  Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:43:08 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I just noticed Solidworks is closing SPRs like crazy marking them as fixed in 2017 SP4.

 

When searching KB with "2017 SP4" there is at the moment more than 4000 SPRs marked as fixed at 2017 SP4. Checking earlier SPs and versions, the typical total SPR count seems to be around 300-1000 per SP. I recall the SPR count being alot lower some weeks earlier. Also the published Fixed SPRs list is alot smaller than the SPR count is showing at the KB.

 

To me this looks like Solidworks is reviewing and closing alot of old tickets and marking them as fixed in 2017 SP4. Some of the SPRs might be just outdated tickets that are being cleaned away though.

 

Either way it feels like Solidworks has finally gotten some more resources for handling SPRs and is cleaning old redundant/obsolete SPRs out of the way to better focus on the current issues.

 

Great direction, keep up the good work!

By: Ville Makinen  Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:32:34 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Agreed, that's a good sign to see.

By: David Mandl  Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:35:25 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Ville Makinen wrote:

 

I just noticed Solidworks is closing SPRs like crazy marking them as fixed in 2017 SP4...

 

Great direction, keep up the good work!

 

+1

By: Rick Becker  Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:41:27 GMT
You are not authorized to view this page No results found! Suggestions: Check spelling, try a different search, or browse topics below.