ONE and TWO
SOLIDWORKS Forums
6 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: Dennis Dohogne   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:09:42 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
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
Re: ONE and TWO

Rick, are you going?  You've got my proxy if you are!

 

==> 11/28/2017  Edit:  Rick and I were invited to talk with the developers of SolidWorks. On November 15, 2017 we spent a good long day with these guys representing the issues and passion that spawned this ONE and TWO thread.

 

You can find our trip reports here:

Trip Report to SW Headquarters Representing ONE and TWO - 11/15/17

 

A Visit with SolidWorks’ Leadership, Nov 15, 2017

End edit <==

By: Dennis Dohogne  Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:56:59 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Richard Doyle wrote:

 

Hi Everyone,

There have been a lot of SOLIDWORKS people following this thread for a long time, and there have been a lot of internal discussions around it. We get it, so please, let's stop the barrage of PM's.

 

It isn't easy to reply to all (or even most) of the posts, but our limited participation in the thread does not mean we aren't paying attention. We have also been taking action; we've set a meeting between a couple of key customers and multiple SOLIDWORKS teams for November 15th to discuss ONE and TWO. We will report back here with the results of the meeting(s).

 

Please continue to participate in the thread. We take all criticism very seriously. Please do your best to keep things constructive.

 

Richard

 

Dennis Dohogne and myself are the "couple of key customers". A meeting was held on November 15, 2017.

 

Full Trip Reports can be found here...

A Visit with SolidWorks’ Leadership, Nov 15, 2017

and

Trip Report to SW Headquarters Representing ONE and TWO - 11/15/17

 

Both of these reports are detailed and well worth the time to read then.

By: Rick Becker  Tue, 28 Nov 2017 15:30:11 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Hi guys,

Having been a avid supporter of ONE & TWO I was delighted to read both reports from Rick and Dennis on the discussions held in SW Headquarters. Obviously this is a very positive thing indeed. It did want me to raise a couple of questions though.

 

I'm guessing that you guys are now the forum delegates in this matter and I was wondering if any conversion was had in regards to regular communications with HQ on progress, ideas, feedback etc. that you would then post to the forum? We need to ensure that we keep this channel that has been created OPEN and not let it stagnate.

 

Secondly, is it worth creating another clean thread (linked to this one) that you guys would/could use to relay what discussions you have with HQ and report back to forum members? For example, call it "THREE - What We See". You could both place you trip reports in the one place and any further discussions or negotiations. Therefore, ONE & TWO become the somewhat complaint parlour and THREE becomes your feedback medium, all within two linked threads. Both of which need to obviously be kept constructive to be productive.

 

Just thinking out loud guys................

 

Dave.

By: Dave Bear  Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:18:29 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dave Bear wrote:

 

Hi guys,

Having been a avid supporter of ONE & TWO I was delighted to read both reports from Rick and Dennis on the discussions held in SW Headquarters. Obviously this is a very positive thing indeed. It did want me to raise a couple of questions though.

 

I'm guessing that you guys are now the forum delegates in this matter and I was wondering if any conversion was had in regards to regular communications with HQ on progress, ideas, feedback etc. that you would then post to the forum? We need to ensure that we keep this channel that has been created OPEN and not let it stagnate.

 

Secondly, is it worth creating another clean thread (linked to this one) that you guys would/could use to relay what discussions you have with HQ and report back to forum members? For example, call it "THREE - What We See". You could both place you trip reports in the one place and any further discussions or negotiations. Therefore, ONE & TWO become the somewhat complaint parlour and THREE becomes your feedback medium, all within two linked threads. Both of which need to obviously be kept constructive to be productive.

 

Just thinking out loud guys................

 

Dave.

Sorry to disappoint you, Dave, but we are in no way any kind of official "delegates".  We happened to collect a few e-mails of the likes of Jim Wilkinson and Richard Doyle, but we were not asked nor expected to be their shills (not that you insinuated that, but someone might think it).  Frankly, that isn't even necessary.  SWX has been paying attention to these forums, probably more in the last year or so than before.  AND several of them, Jim in particular, have heard our pleas for their involvement and have given terrific contributions to this forum.  As much as we appreciate the terrific input Jim has given us, he is a VP and his job is to oversee the software development, not be our tech support.

 

At that meeting we had a good discussion about the forums.  We stressed the value of their input and how it has improved the information and general tone of the forum.  We clearly got our message across about that, but there was also plenty of discussion about the clutter that goes on.  When a thread goes into the weeds it makes it hard for anyone to find the gems of information.  "The weeds" can really be a time suck, for us as well as for the folks at SWX.  Rick Becker and I agreed to try to take this message back to the forum, that we need to use the forums better and be respectful of everyone's time.  We can still have our fun, but sometimes we need to reign it in a bit, and sometimes we need to reign it in A LOT!  I have really cut down on my own posts as a result of this.  Before posting I ask if what I am about to write is helpful or clarifying, or is it just growing the weeds.

 

I am in total agreement with you that we (the users on the forum) want to keep the lines of communication open with the good folks at SWX.  We already stressed to them to do a better job of communicating with the users (reference the blue/grey icons, among other things) and pointed out the various avenues they can use for that, but we can do our part to keep the communications clear by cutting out the weeds.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Wed, 29 Nov 2017 01:43:34 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dave Bear wrote:

...I'm guessing that you guys are now the forum delegates in this matter and I was wondering if any conversion was had in regards to regular communications with HQ on progress, ideas, feedback etc. that you would then post to the forum? ...

Delegates (a person sent or authorized to represent others) is not the right word. Concerned citizen, contributor and pundit of all things SolidWorks may be a better description.

 

Getting to meet with the movers and shakers. Putting a face to a name. Having a common goal (bettering SW).

These do give Dennis and I a voice that we will use.

It is a responsibility of a sort and I accept it for what it is.

 

Dave Bear wrote:

... We need to ensure that we keep this channel that has been created OPEN and not let it stagnate...

That is my intention.

By: Rick Becker  Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:40:12 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

 

We can still have our fun, but sometimes we need to reign it in a bit, and sometimes we need to reign it in A LOT! I have really cut down on my own posts as a result of this. Before posting I ask if what I am about to write is helpful or clarifying, or is it just growing the weeds.

 

 

The forum has gone through Waves from good to really blah to not good, so it is refreshing that there are more people on board to keep the trash segregated and want to clean out the weeds etc...  But we all know it's a cycle of events, so reigning in on each side of the spectrum will be needed..  

By: John Stoltzfus  Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:46:05 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I, for one, am happy to see anything that helps to keep complaints minimized and (more importantly) constructive.

By: David Mandl  Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:47:03 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

..kind of like... this?

ByY-2RhIIAE5Z3R.jpg

By: Paul Salvador  Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:53:37 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Paul Salvador - Exactly....

By: John Stoltzfus  Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:40:56 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

If you are reading this post please Bookmark these Focus more on fixing bugs and Substantially increase stability in SOLIDWORKS so that when it comes time to vote you can easily find them.

 

Until ONE and TWO diminishes to a non-issue it will remain a BIG ISSUE and we must keep the attention on it!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:06:33 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Hello,

 

Dennis Dohogne's reply reminded me of this survey at (SOLIDWORKS World 2018 Top Ten List )

You have two sliders to adjust to set your preference for these three categories.

Move left/right to set your leaning and spread/tighten the two to adjust functionality.

As you can see, you may optionally insert your wisdom.

Please go here, if you already haven't, and slide for ONE TWO:

 

I think this spot will go al long way toward this issue, so please share this with your SW compadres.

 

Cheers,

 

Kevin

By: Kevin Chandler  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:39:06 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Kevin Chandler wrote:

 

Hello,

 

Dennis Dohogne's reply reminded me of this survey at (SOLIDWORKS World 2018 Top Ten List )

You have two sliders to adjust to set your preference for these three categories.

Move left/right to set your leaning and spread/tighten the two to adjust functionality.

As you can see, you may optionally insert your wisdom.

Please go here, if you already haven't, and slide for ONE TWO:

 

I think this spot will go al long way toward this issue, so please share this with your SW compadres.

 

Cheers,

 

Kevin

Kevin,

That is precisely what the folks at SWX had in mind.  They told me and Rick Becker that they were implementing this for the Top Ten list so that we wouldn't have to "waste" a vote on ONE and TWO.  We appreciate that, but also pointed out that since we can vote for as many ideas as we want we aren't actually wasting a vote.  Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some embarrassment to having the Top Ten list last year dominated by those two issues and this slider bar "vote" is an attempt to avoid a repeat.

 

As I've said before, I'm from Missouri, both literally and figuratively, so I will have to be shown before I am convinced.  Rick and I did get a peek behind the curtain and we do believe the good folks at SWX are seriously working to make things better, but we also told them we were not letting up on the pressure to fix this.  They agreed that we need to keep the pressure on!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:56:52 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

This is how I "attempted" to vote but of course, it's broken! Not surprised.

 

By: Tim Webb  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:04:28 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Tim Webb wrote:

 

This is how I "attempted" to vote but of course, it's broken! Not surprised.

 

Hi Tim,

 

Are you using Microsoft Edge? If so, the forum software doesn't support it. If you try another browser, it should work.

 

Thanks,

Jim

By: Jim Wilkinson  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:08:01 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I use Chrome. I know the forums don't support it. I edited and shortened my vote and it worked.

By: Tim Webb  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:17:10 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Jim Wilkinson wrote:

Hi Tim,

Are you using Microsoft Edge? If so, the forum software doesn't support it. If you try another browser, it should work.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, perhaps it would be good to put a big note there stating that the forum requires Chrome or Firefox browsers and explicitly state that Edge is not supported.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:17:14 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Tim Webb, I too use Chrome, and it works fine for me.

By: Edward Poole  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:56:06 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Thank you for your continued support for these goals.  All customer input on the One and Two discussion is very valuable to us.  As a result, we have made a change to the SOLIDWORKS World 2018 Top Ten.

 

The goal of the Top Ten has always been to empower users to propose specific enhancement ideas and vote on them in an open forum. Over the years we’ve implemented many of these ideas.  Last year we included two general ideas related to bugs which quickly became one and two.  The message came through loud and clear and we shifted resources as a result.  We will continue to focus more in this area until the feedback shows we’ve sufficiently addressed the issue.  The question we’d like users to answer this year is “how much we should shift resources” hence this year we created a new widget for this.

 

interface6.jpg

 

There is no need to use the ideas section in addition to this.  One and Two are still at the top of our list.  In essence we want you to use the sliders to tell us how much more should we focus on One and Two over all other ideas and performance improvements.

By: Matthew Lorono  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:25:16 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis, there was no concern regarding the placement of "fix bugs" and "improve stability" ideas on last year's Top Ten.  As you may remember, I filled those ideas myself.  We are always seeking customer input.  Last year, using Ideas was the best method available for immediate feedback.  We now have developed the slider that literally everyone must vote upon before submitting an idea.  Basically, all of the ideas submitted to 2018's Top Ten falls under the middle category of the slider, "Improve Functionality".  The "one and two" falls under "Increase Reliably".  Not everyone needs to add ideas or vote upon them, but everyone should answer this question.  This is a better tool to determine how you wish see SOLIDWORKS resources applied.  Last year, the general ideas of "fix bugs" and "improve stability" where mixed in with a large number of specific ideas. This was OK, but the new tool provides more detailed information from you in context overall customer needs.

By: Matthew Lorono  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:37:14 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I don't remember which thread has had all the comments about fixing the process and people requesting some notification that our comments be responded to so I will post this here.    

    

     It is happening, I commented on if a help document was helpful a couple of days ago and just received this:

 

Capture.PNG

 

Two big thumbs up to the SW team for their responsiveness!!

By: Jim Steinmeyer  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:37:39 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Matthew Lorono wrote:

.... All customer input on the One and Two discussion is very valuable to us. ...

The message came through loud and clear and we shifted resources as a result. We will continue to focus more in this area until the feedback shows we’ve sufficiently addressed the issue.

Thank you Matthew, this is GREAT to here from you that ONE and TWO are still front and center.

 

Matthew Lorono wrote:

...There is no need to use the ideas section in addition to this...

I am the originator of ONE and TWO. I also posted the exact Ideas to this years Top Ten.

Are you suggesting I delete the 2 Ideas? If yes, how can you keep them from coming back?

By: Rick Becker  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:41:01 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Hey Matthew,

 

Would you like us to have everyone from our companies voting upon these or does one person representing the entire company suffice? I've voted on it but nobody else I work with has, which is why I ask.

By: Alex Lachance  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:41:54 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Alex Lachance wrote:

 

Hey Matthew,

 

Would you like us to have everyone from our companies voting upon these or does one person representing the entire company suffice? I've voted on it but nobody else I work with has, which is why I ask.

Alex, get everyone you know to vote using that slider bar.    As Matthew said ONE and TWO is included in the Increase Reliability section.  I personally set that to 85% and split the other two categories evenly.  As far as adding your votes to the individual ideas that is a separate thing and the ideas aren't even open for that voting until January.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:49:09 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

As noted by Dennis, yes, everyone should vote on the slider.  This is user question for participants (submitters/voters/pursuers)  in the 2018 Top Ten.

By: Matthew Lorono  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:56:55 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Rick, no worries.  Typically we will remove non-enhancement requests this year.  However, in the case of these two, I've archived them for reference, but they won't be available for voting in January.

By: Matthew Lorono  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:58:40 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Matthew Lorono wrote:

 

Dennis, there was no concern regarding the placement of "fix bugs" and "improve stability" ideas on last year's Top Ten. As you may remember, I filled those ideas myself. We are always seeking customer input. Last year, using Ideas was the best method available for immediate feedback. We now have developed the slider that literally everyone must vote upon before submitting an idea. Basically, all of the ideas submitted to 2018's Top Ten falls under the middle category of the slider, "Improve Functionality". The "one and two" falls under "Increase Reliably". Not everyone needs to add ideas or vote upon them, but everyone should answer this question. This is a better tool to determine how you wish see SOLIDWORKS resources applied. Last year, the general ideas of "fix bugs" and "improve stability" where mixed in with a large number of specific ideas. This was OK, but the new tool provides more detailed information from you in context overall customer needs.

Yep, I understand and appreciate that, Matthew.  I remember that it was you that originated those ideas and was a little surprised that it came from a SWX employee.  ONE and TWO was shouted very loudly both on this forum and at SWW with the results of the voting.  If I recall correctly the idea that was in third place only had about half the votes of the second place!

 

I do know and do respect that you guys at corporate have heard this.  You are going to continue to hear it until we we no longer have a need to scream our dissatisfaction with the bugs and instability.  You know, perhaps better than most, that SWX has seen a decline in folks participating in the Beta's, EV's and even delaying their adoption of the new versions until SP2.0 or later.  This has been driven by the problems we have encountered.  Trust is a very difficult thing to get back.  I have been a very vocal advocate for SWX and have been personally responsible for bringing it into several companies.  But when I had to revert back to SWX2016 due to file corruption problems with 2017 I about went to my boss to advocate we change to a competitor product.  Yes, it was that serious!

 

I don't care if you (SWX) ask for the current versions of ONE and TWO (Focus More on Fixing Bugs, and Substantially Increase Stability in SOLIDWORKS) to be removed, if you guys decide to remove its votes from the final tally, or just leave them alone, so long as you keep the essence of these issues FRONT AND CENTER!  Frankly, I think you (SWX) needs to keep telling us, every week, that this issue is your #1 priority and then back that up by issuing bullet-proof Service Packs that fix more and more bugs than ever before.

 

I really enjoy using this software, but I don't like being apprehensive that it will ruin some of my work.  SW has some serious work to do to earn my trust back.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:06:23 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

sub-d (#10) would be great

By: JC Biggs  Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:37:34 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

JC Biggs wrote:

sub-d (#10) would be great

 

JC, please go to SOLIDWORKS World 2018 Top Ten List and post this enhancement request for this year.

By: Rick Becker  Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:41:13 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Matthew,

 

Yes, if nothing else everyone should vote on the slider..... but.... how about making it more visible?

 

I only found out about it because of this thread. Then I had to search to find the page where the slider was located because not everyone is chomping on the bits to vote on the list of ideas on which one can only vote in a limited time frame and which get thrown out each year anyways.

 

The search by the way took me a few minutes to find a link to the actual page.

I guess it would be to easy to just put a link straight to it in the 'Tech News' section of the home page or having something to actual draw permanent attention to. If even I have to search for it, and I'm on here often, then what chance is there for those that very infrequently visit the forum to end up voting on the slider ?

 

By the way having 2 entries (scheduled maintenance friday AND Siebel & Analytics) linking to the same page doesn't do much especially if it's to notify about maintenance things that happened over a month and two months ago.

By: Peter De Vlieger  Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:15:21 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

PROGRAMMER'S DRINKING SONG

100 little bugs in the code,

100 bugs in the code,

fix one bug, compile it again,

101 little bugs in the code.

101 little bugs in the code.....

Repeat until BUGS = 0

By: Dennis Dohogne  Sun, 24 Dec 2017 12:40:07 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Thank you for the chuckle.

Kevin

By: Kevin Chandler  Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:15:25 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Of course, a real programmer would argue these numbers are in binary, thus starting with four bugs and incrementing to five.  Merry Christmas, everyone!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Sun, 24 Dec 2017 18:41:44 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

Rick Becker wrote:

 

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...

Or we can wear ONE and TWO on our clothing, such as a spiffy shirt or hat.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:53:20 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

What about the beautiful sign I made for you?

 

Richard

By: Richard Doyle  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:56:44 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Richard Doyle wrote:

What about the beautiful sign I made for you?

Richard

I think I still have it, but if I pin it to my shirt people will just think I am a contestant in a race!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:04:30 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Richard Doyle wrote:

What about the beautiful sign I made for you?

 

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

...if I pin it to my shirt people will just think I am a contestant in a race!

 

I'm good with wearing Richard's sign. Pin it to our shirts like a bib.

There is a walking/running group at SWW and I would be proud to be mistaken for a World-Class Runner...

 

 

It might look something like this...

runners bib.jpg

( I will delete this after a day or so)

By: Rick Becker  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:07:00 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Rick Becker wrote:

 

Richard Doyle wrote:

What about the beautiful sign I made for you?

 

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

...if I pin it to my shirt people will just think I am a contestant in a race!

 

I'm good with wearing Richard's sign. Pin it to our shirts like a bib.

There is a walking/running group at SWW and I would be proud to be mistaken for a World-Class Runner...

 

 

It might look something like this...

runners bib.jpg

( I will delete this after a day or so)

Well, Rick, if you wear it like that you will certainly draw a lot of attention to the cause!

 

By the way, is that one the Geico cavemen?  You know, fifteen minutes could save you a lot of money.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:16:52 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Dennis Dohogne wrote:

...By the way, is that one the Geico cavemen? ...

 

SHHHHHH. I was trying to pass that off as a picture of you and me...

By: Rick Becker  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:45:06 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

And anyone that has met either of us knows you are the one with the beard.

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:50:23 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

..yeah, the guy wearing that red (maga) hat is way too much for some of us to stomach.

By: Paul Salvador  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:52:32 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

Perhaps we need a hat with

Make SolidWorks Great Again:  ONE and TWO!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:56:54 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I got half of that covered...

By: Rick Becker  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:03:59 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

 

By: Dennis Dohogne  Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:08:09 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

I don't know about anyone else, but this year I am attending SWW.  Even though they have removed the opportunity for the same items to be ONE and TWO, I intend to meet with the folks at SWX and keep the pressure on.

 

I did not get a final tally of the items that made this years Top Ten list, but I highly doubt the top items got anywhere close to this number of votes.

 

SWW 2017 Top 10:

  1. Focus more on fixing bugs, 212, Matthew Lorono, 18576 Views
  2. Substantially increase stability in SOLIDWORKS, 150, Matthew Lorono, 480 Views
By: Dennis Dohogne  Sat, 03 Feb 2018 01:15:00 GMT
Re: ONE and TWO

For those of you following this thread be sure to read my update here:  Follow-up to Top Ten and ONE and TWO from SWW2018

 

Rick will be posting his follow-up at some point, but he told me something lame like "My job is getting in the way. . ."  Some people will always find some sort of excuse!

By: Dennis Dohogne  Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:09:42 GMT
You are not authorized to view this page No results found! Suggestions: Check spelling, try a different search, or browse topics below.