6 Replies Latest reply on Oct 5, 2018 7:53 AM by Gordon Rigg

    Misleading status of SPR's?

    Gordon Rigg

      here is an example:

      SPR #:





      Closed (Implemented)

      Fixed in:

      2014 SP05




      Feature - Hole Wizard

      Customer Impact:






      Hole Wizard Slots do not meet standards - Length should be from center to center, not end to end.



      DS SolidWorks does not guarantee that this SPR fix will be available in the indicated future release of the
      product since at this time the SPR fix has not completed QA procedures that incorporate all SPR fixes and
      enhancements into a new version of our product.

      This issue is not yet fixed in SW2018 SP2.0

      But its status is closed (implemented) fixed in 2014 SP05.

      But that is untrue.

      The issue is discussed here: Hole Wizard slot length from center to center?

      The slot feature in the hole wizard is still almost useless to us on the latest version.

      I wonder if this SPR stuff actually has any meaning, and who is responsible for publishing the fiction that is this SPR status.

      Perhaps in protest users could post similar alternative truth type SPR status listings on this thread?

        • Re: Misleading status of SPR's?
          Jim Wilkinson

          Hi Gordon,


          Even looking at the full SPR internally, it is hard to understand exactly what happened with it. By what was written in the long description of the problem, when it was retested internally, it was marked as "not reproducible". But later, instead of the SPR being reopened, instead a follow up SPR was written which is 902703 and is still open (in the description of that one in the KB you can see "F.O. SPR 726691" which means a follow on to the original SPR#. There is also 862375 which is an open enhancement for this ability.


          So it is not intentional publication of "fiction" but something being unclear/misinterpreted with the original SPR that caused it to be closed as non-reproducible. In any case, the issue is still open with those two other SPRs so I would recommend reporting under those if you haven't already.




            • Re: Misleading status of SPR's?
              Gordon Rigg

              Thank you for taking the time to reply.


              Just operate the straight slot sketch tool and see how that works, and compare it to the hole wizard slot tool. They are different when they should not have been. Make the options for applying the the controlling dimensions the same.

              I really don't understand how anyone could fail to reproduce this problem.

              But this is merely an example, but one of perhaps many that makes us just shrug and discourages us from getting involved in SPRs. It makes it all seem like a waste of time. When we stop bothering to get involved, then your product will not evolve to operate better and bugs will multiply.


              I think this comes down to the issue that as always faced us cad users,  cad users are not treated as customers.
              However, in small to medium businesses us cad users are your customers. We users in small businesses decide if we switch cad system or if it is worth paying the renewal. But the majority of CAD seats are in big organisations where the users are not sufficiently connected with the purchase and renewal decision.


              What I mean is, if this was a car and there was a fault that meant the speedometer was calibrated wrong, you would not get away with showing your customer a document that stated it was fixed two years ago. That is not going to be tolerated by your customer who just got a speeding fine today.

              When my m8 bolt cannot move 20mm in my 20mm long slot I feel the same as that guy.


              Yet here we have info presented to customers that is very misleading. More care should be taken. SPRs should not be marked closed if they are simply replaced with one with another number. Why would the guy who submitted this, saw it closed/promised/implemented but doesn't see that change in the product (ever), bother to get involved again?


              I still think people should list any other falsely closed SPRs here!

              I you continue to respond perhaps we can eventually restore confidence and participation in the SPR system?

            • Re: Misleading status of SPR's?
              Arie Van Gelderen

              Hi Gordon,


              Last year, the status of six of my SPR's was changed to 'Closed (Inactive)' fixed in 2017 SP04. At first I was happy to see that my SPR's were fixed but then it turned out that these issues weren't fixed at all. So I called my VAR to complain about it. This is the response Solidworks gave:


              All of these SPRs have been closed with status = VER-INACTIVE. This means that, at this time, there is no plan to resolve them. The SPR will reopen if other customers report the same SPR.



              The three most important issues were reopened. But for that to happen I had to reproduce the issues (again!) and send them an RX movie.



                • Re: Misleading status of SPR's?
                  Gordon Rigg

                  I wonder how long our company would last if we sent all our customers a message that all their problems had gone away, unless they prove to us again that they exist!

                  The whole SPR system needs an update. It is not fit for purpose. For our several $1000's a year we deserve a more open system where we can see some resource being spent on our issues in exchange for our hefty annual fee.


                  The SPR system as it is works to discourage us rather than encourage us to submit issues. We feel like we are fobbed off, so we cant be bothered reporting problems any more. lt looks like nobody is managing the SPRs, so there are multiple SPRs for the same issue, years apart sometimes. Tracking SPRs and adding yourself to them is an opaque and confusing system.


                  The result is everyone loses. We don't get the issues solved that hold us up every day, solidworks cant prioritize what is important to users. The product gets worse rather than improves. New features are built on top of features that have known (but unreported) problems.


                  Within a month of using solidworks in anger, about 10 years ago, I found a glaring error in sheet metal. If you edited a hole size on a finished part, the edit was not reproduced in the flat pattern. I had a few tons of scrap in a workshop in India as a result.

                  Within a few days I had a hotfix to correct that.
                  I wonder how long it is since anyone got a response like that?