Roman Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I'm collaborating with a freelance architect on a project. He just upgraded to 2013, I'm still on 2012 (bought in July). We're using VW solely for drafting. No half ass BIM, no 3d modeling, no specialized geometry. Our entire workflow is broken, his 2013 files won't open in my 2012 What has changed so much in 2013? And why won't VW make a 2012 Sp5 compatible with the "new" file format? Just one year and everything breaks? Yes, that's how they force people to pay, it's standard policy in the software industry, but this ridiculous. Pick a file format, amend to it, but keep it consistent for 5 years. Quote Link to comment
Roman Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) Thanks for whitewashing my ing ing post Nemetshek. Edited September 26, 2012 by Roman Quote Link to comment
CipesDesign Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Roman, there is a very easy solution: Ask your associate to use the Export to Version 2012 command before sending you his files. And FWIW, this has been true of every version change I can recall (back some 20 years). Quote Link to comment
Roman Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 Hi Peter, yes that makes sense, but the project is constant progress so we're opening and saving all the time. One thing that makes very little sense is how quickly VW breaks format compatibility. As a courtesy NMK could at least allow VW 2013 to save natively in 2012. Just one year back compatibility would be a minimum. Seriously, what other software out there breaks file format every year? Furthermore, I doubt the mirrored symbol bug will be addressed in 2012, as they have already moved on with a new version. The upgrade cycle is frustrating and I think the market is ripe for a SketchUp-like innovator to enter the drafting world. Quote Link to comment
Bob Holtzmann Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Seriously, what other software out there breaks file format every year? To answer your question, Revit - it truly does break file formats, in a big way. I've read posts from professionals and students, agonizing how the person with the Revit 2013 is effectively cut off from the rest of the users using Revit 2012, because Revit can't save its files to previous versions - not even the PREVIOUS YEAR. Quote Link to comment
taoist Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Funny, no mention of Microsoft file changes for Office Products. VW is not alone in this. FWIW Quote Link to comment
mike m oz Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Roman, nearly all CAD programs have a new file format with each new version and older versions can never open the newer one. To work effectively you both need to be using the same version. Therefore you need to either get your associate to work in Vw 2012 instead or you need to upgrade your license to Vw 2013. Quote Link to comment
VincentCuclair Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) As a courtesy NMK could at least allow VW 2013 to save natively in 2012. Just one year back compatibility would be a minimum. Seriously, what other software out there breaks file format every year? Revit doesn't allow export or saving to older versions at all not even to a one year old previous version. Edited September 27, 2012 by Vincent C Quote Link to comment
Christiaan Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 If s/he's open to the idea I'd encourage the freelancer to work in v2012 for this collaboration. Converting files can introduce many problems. In saying that, however, if you're using a simple 2D workflow with no workgroup referencing you'll probably be fine converting back and forth. Quote Link to comment
digitalcarbon Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Roman, i do freelance vw for architects and the first thing i do is find out what version they are working in. then i work in that version only. so that is where your problem lies. this means that a freelance operator would have to have at least vw2013, 2012 & 2011 on his machine. hope this helps also christian has a valid point Quote Link to comment
Roman Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share Posted September 27, 2012 Thanks for responses, not the flame war I was expecting, but one can hope. My point is that the file compatibility is an artificial one, created in order to keep people in the upgrade pattern. And the freelancer I work with can no longer work in 2012... his license is for 2013 only. So exporting is the only option. Quote Link to comment
VincentCuclair Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) My point is that the file compatibility is an artificial one, created in order to keep people in the upgrade pattern. Don't know if this is true, perhaps partly, but each time a new feature is developed (i.e.. the slab tool) which the previous version didn't have it is understandable that these cannot be 'understood' by previous versions.......thus they need to be 'converted to an understandable but dumb format to be opened....thus conversion or export is needed. Even if this conversion took place on opening in an older version the object would loose its intelligence anyway. Basically what you are asking is that they continue developing old versions to be able to open newer version files. Edited September 28, 2012 by Vincent C Quote Link to comment
mike m oz Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Good precis Vincent. Roman just because your associate has upgraded to Vw 2013 that doesn't mean he no longer has Vw 2012 (unless of course he deleted it). He just can't run both versions concurrently - he has to have either Vw 2012 open or Vw 2013 open. Quote Link to comment
Christiaan Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Yeah well put Vincent. I dread a world of backwards compatibility. You just end up piling hill on hill. And then you end up with things like Windows ME. Quote Link to comment
mike m oz Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I could live with no backwards compatibility if it meant faster development going forward. Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I could live with no backwards compatibility if it meant faster development going forward. Of course it would speed up the development! for every new thing now, they have to make sure they don't break existing drawings and a way to convert to older stuff. This is a huge job that is better spend on uniforming VW more. Quote Link to comment
Christiaan Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I could live with no backwards compatibility if it meant faster development going forward. But of course it means the opposite. That's the reason they don't concentrate on backwards compatibility. Quote Link to comment
Roman Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 How about designing a file format that doesn't have to be re-written every year? If BIM objects have parametric features that can't be read by v2012, they are ignored and simply opened as 2D & 3D geometry. This doesn't have to be an inch-by-inch progression of features and file formats. In my scenario we are dealing exclusively with 2d geometry, references, and symbols. Please don't tell me that stuff is perpetually being refined to the point of "breaking" with each version of VW... Quote Link to comment
Ozzie Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 I could live with no backwards compatibility if it meant faster development going forward Me to Just right now doing some revisions that were started in VW 2010 in VW 2010 My rule is never work in an old file in a newer VW version I would prefer development resources went into new stuff not backwards compatibility I have still installed VW 2008 through to VW 2012 Quote Link to comment
Christiaan Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I could live with no backwards compatibility if it meant faster development going forward. But of course it means the opposite. That's the reason they don't concentrate on backwards compatibility. Clearly I was being blind to the word "no" in your sentence Mike. Apologies. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.