Any SOLIDWORKS users dropping maintenance?

caradon

OK, in my company we're just in the middle of an SW 2014 to 2015 upgrade. That's 4 SW installations + an EPDM implementation.
So far, the experience has been less than satisfying...
Here's an overview of my aggravation:

1. Patterns in assemblies that used to resolve OK in SW2014, now have instances missing in SW2015. VAR can't resolve it > service request dropped in SOLIDWORKS' bottomless hole...
2. There's actually not that much improvement in areas that would benefit me.
3. A scheduled EPDM upgrade has been delayed because something was up on the VAR side. (now still running EPDM2014, which isn't compatible with upgraded workstations running SW2015 already...)

So it begs the question: Why should we pay for maintenance if all we get is troubles while upgrading?
are any of you SOLIDWORKS users actually considering dropping maintenance entirely?

Dries

jonathan_stedman

Dries - I think its time to get down to the fish monger and buy the biggest fish you can get.  

I stopped maintenance in 2013 after 16 years.  My god - rats learn faster !!  If the definition of insanity is repeating something hoping for a different result we're all insane - however I'm 3 years into my recovery !

Jon

billy2

I had a customer using SW 2006. Worked in it for over a year without any issues or lack of functionality. I'd say if you have this or later, pull the plug and save $$$.

Dries- you may want to look in the api documentation and lookup that function to see what changes they've made. Typically if SW changes a function they number it. So circle, circle1, circle2 are 3 different ways to create circles with circle2 being the most recent with the greatest capability. The others are there for backwards compatibility. Look up patterns and see what number they are at and did they bump it.

In your case, they made a change to the pattern function and probably should have bumped the pattern function to the next number. They've lost backwards capability. It's easy to find and well documented in the api documentation. Sounds like they didn't update it properly. You can call your VAR and tell them what's wrong. Hell you live close to France, can't you just jump on a train, and show up at Dassault's door step and show them what they did wrong.

Make a video of your trip and then post it, I'd like to see it.

BTW SW doesn't eat their own garbage meaning the code you use as a user and api code are not the same. It has always been a criticism of SW. They are tightly coupled though.





 

3dcad

I'm interacting with companies running sw, they all go about a year late on updates because of the update problems in past. I'm running Alibre / Geomagic, I usually wait for first update/hotfix after major version change and that has been enough.
I'm amazed to hear all the problems with sw. I would have bought it 10 years ago if I had thicker wallet - now I'm happy I didn't. It's not easy to move from cad to another having to convert all the old stuff.

david_sohlstrom

3dcad
I too use Alibre/Geomagic, have from day 1 of Alibre launch. My maintenance is good till end of 2017. At this point I'm not sure I will pay for any more. So far I am liking what I am seeing here with Onshape.

Dave

3dcad

@David_Sohlstrom12345 Have you always updated immediately after new version came out? Did you encounter any problems with new versions in the beginning?

+1 for liking whats happening in cad.onshape.com 

david_sohlstrom

@3dcad Yes I even beta tested 17 before it released. I have not seen any bugs yet. I do make small rather simple parts and assemblies so it takes a while for me to run across a bug.

Dave

kevin_quigley

Flying against the wind here a bit but, hey, thats what I'm used to. No. I have no plans to drop SolidWorks maintenance yet on the licences we run. Why? Well SolidWorks is our core money making platform. Everything else depends on it. 

Sure when I get the bill I gulp but to me it is just a business overhead. I like being on the latest version. I can promote this to customers, and use it to push the fact that we invest in the latest and greatest, and we are 100% legit, not some back bedroom pirate ship. 

But the reality is for the last few years I think we have, in fact, had features added that we use constantly. 

Perhaps one day we will phase to something else like OnShape, but not now. The harsh reality for Fusion360 and OnShape is that if you already have SolidWorks etc, and are already on maintenance, you are already (effectively) on a subscription model at more or less the same cost. But the difference is, the system in use is FAR more capable across the board.

What keeps me interested in the new systems is growth. I want to grow my business by adding people, but in the traditional model each bum on seat is costing around £10K in startup costs (buy CAD seat, workstation, etc etc). What Fusion and OnShape offer is a much lower entry cost to growth. That, I think is the real benefit. 

So far, all the mainstream CAD vendors (aside from Autodesk) seem incapable of grasping this essential fact, by sticking to the old sales approach. Big capex with upfront subs running on high end hardware. That is the change we will see.

berne

Dropped Maintenance this year on SW and Mastercam. Tired of spending big bucks for nothing much. Its not like they gave me the software... they made their cash on the sale, they can pay for their own development.

JJ

Our shop dropped it this year, before Onshape released. We adopted Fusion 360 Ultimate at the $300/year deal. Solidworks World last year started me on the desperate alternative search. OnShape is looking very good too so excited some companies are starting to cater to small business users.

billy2

Kevin you are a noble man and a wonderful customer. I hope your VAR appreciates you.

andrew_troup

I got off the Solidworks treadmill in 2009; when the authorised VAR unilaterally reneged on the routine arrangement whereby I could run my licence on a machine at home as well as at work, (not simultaneously, of course) and then treated me like a peon when I protested, I lost interest in continuing to subsidise their business model when it was orthogonal, at best, to my own.