Mirroring Issue in Solidworks 2022

[Bradfordzzz]

For those of you that might not know … There is a bug in Solidworks 2022 that affects the mirroring of some details.
Not everything is affected .. but here is a little work around that might help you out until a bug fix is released.

Here is the work flow.

1. Select the items you want to mirror, and form new subassembly with those items
2. Mirror that subassembly , and select the “create opposite hand version” as normal
3. You will see now that the mirror works.
4. Now dissolve the mirror
5. click on the “configurations” tab. Next, right click on the active configuration and select “properties.” Finally, scroll down to the section marked “Child component display when used as subassembly” and click “promote.”
6. Having it promoted will have the assembly not show in your BOM, but the parts inside it will.

credits go to Mitch(our designer) for finding the subassembly solution
and to AlexLachance for suggesting to promote the subassembly so that the BOM structure would be maintained.
also .. to many others in this thread https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=19473#p19473 that helped with testing and many other suggestions.

Hope it helps!

[bnemec]

I’ve tried to follow this in the “Who likes SW2022” thread but there’s a lot of material in that thread. Is there a concise explanation of the bug behavior or what workflow(s) it affects? The work around sounds like the bug is just when mirroring parts in an assembly? Is mirroring body in part also affected?

Sorry for the dumb question if this is already obvious somewhere else.

[jcapriotti]

I’ve tried to follow this in the “Who likes SW2022” thread but there’s a lot of material in that thread. Is there a concise explanation of the bug behavior or what workflow(s) it affects? The work around sounds like the bug is just when mirroring parts in an assembly? Is mirroring body in part also affected?

Sorry for the dumb question if this is already obvious somewhere else.

It only affects it when using the option to “Create opposite hand version” We don’t allow that option so it wouldn’t be a problem.
image.png

[Bradfordzzz]

I’ve tried to follow this in the “Who likes SW2022” thread but there’s a lot of material in that thread. Is there a concise explanation of the bug behavior or what workflow(s) it affects? The work around sounds like the bug is just when mirroring parts in an assembly? Is mirroring body in part also affected?

Sorry for the dumb question if this is already obvious somewhere else.

Not a dumb question at all.

This error only happens in a assembly, and only when creating and opposite hand version.

all of the other mirroring options seems to be working as intended.

[Peter_De_Vlieger]

This error only happens in a assembly, and only when creating and opposite hand version.

Or in other words, everything works fine except for when one truly wants a mirror.
<()>

[bnemec]

Not a dumb question at all.

This error only happens in a assembly, and only when creating and opposite hand version.

all of the other mirroring options seems to be working as intended.

Thank you and jcapriotti for the clarity. We were looking at maybe updating from '19 to '22 and this issue was concerning as mirror body is our #1 tool for a part that is symmetric. We never use the assembly mirror functionality in the assembly environment; when we need right and left hand parts we use Insert Mirror Part.

Sounds like this is a mute point for our usage

[jcapriotti]

Thank you and @jcapriotti for the clarity. We were looking at maybe updating from '19 to '22 and this issue was concerning as mirror body is our #1 tool for a part that is symmetric. We never use the assembly mirror functionality in the assembly environment; when we need right and left hand parts we use Insert Mirror Part.

Sounds like this is a mute point for our usage

I would use the “Create opposite hand” in an assembly mirror, but it creates a reference to the assembly I don’t want.

[Bradfordzzz]

I would use the “Create opposite hand” in an assembly mirror, but it creates a reference to the assembly I don’t want.

Wouldn’t this option take care of that reference issue for you?
image.png

[jcapriotti]

Wouldn’t this option take care of that reference issue for you?

image.png

I want to maintain a link between a left hand part and right hand part…I just don’t want any assembly involved.

[Bradfordzzz]

I want to maintain a link between a left hand part and right hand part…I just don’t want any assembly involved.

I see. Thanks.

[Bradfordzzz]

Have just been told from my VAR that this wont be fixed until 2023 B1!

how can that be serious? WTF.

So .. did the automobile manufacturing companies decide to only make 1 sided cars?

Unbelievable. <()>

[Frank_Oostendorp]

Have just been told from my VAR that this wont be fixed until 2023 B1!

how can that be serious? WTF.

So .. did the automobile manufacturing companies decide to only make 1 sided cars?

Unbelievable. <()>

You could suggest your VAR to postpone the subscription fee until 2023 B1 as well?

[Bradfordzzz]

You could suggest your VAR to postpone the subscription fee until 2023 B1 as well?

no joke … i sent that to my VAR

“So .. since we wont have a working software until 2023 … does that mean we don’t have to pay for the yearly subscription fee until then also?
I mean .. the whole point in the yearly fees to get all of the latest updates … but if the updates don’t actually work .. I wont be charged for them right?”

[Frank_Oostendorp]

no joke … i sent that to my VAR

“So .. since we wont have a working software until 2023 … does that mean we don’t have to pay for the yearly subscription fee until then also?
I mean .. the whole point in the yearly fees to get all of the latest updates … but if the updates don’t actually work .. I wont be charged for them right?”

And the VAR answered? Something like:

• Subscription fee is not only for us, we have to share with Dassault?
• Most of the features are working?
• We try to escalate this bug to get a quick fix.
• Don’t forget to schedule your next payment

[berg_lauritz]

Have just been told from my VAR that this wont be fixed until 2023 B1!

how can that be serious? WTF.

So .. did the automobile manufacturing companies decide to only make 1 sided cars?

Unbelievable. <()>

Well… Many car companies do not use CATIA anymore… (namely Mercedes AND Kia/Hyundai switched! But ALSO Volvo did not choose D’assault…).

see here

[Bradfordzzz]

And the VAR answered? Something like:

• Subscription fee is not only for us, we have to share with Dassault?
• Most of the features are working?
• We try to escalate this bug to get a quick fix.
• Don’t forget to schedule your next payment

actually .. no response yet

[jcapriotti]

Have just been told from my VAR that this wont be fixed until 2023 B1!

how can that be serious? WTF.

So .. did the automobile manufacturing companies decide to only make 1 sided cars?

Unbelievable. <()>

I see “2023 B1” listed in the Knowledge base for your SPR but its possible its fixed in 2022. The "Fixed in: field only shows one version but I’ve had some in the past shown fixed in a future version but it was also fixed in a future service pack of the current version.

How many seats of SolidWorks do you have? Maybe push for a hotfix if you can get some management muscle to back you up.

image.png

[Bradfordzzz]

I see “2023 B1” listed in the Knowledge base for your SPR but its possible its fixed in 2022. The "Fixed in: field only shows one version but I’ve had some in the past shown fixed in a future version but it was also fixed in a future service pack of the current version.

How many seats of SolidWorks do you have? Maybe push for a hotfix if you can get some management muscle to back you up.


image.png

I hope you are right … but its definitely not fixed in 2022 SP2. And I/We have been pushing for a hotfix for well over a month now.

[Peter_De_Vlieger]

ooh… I had that happen as well in the past, getting notified that an issue I was facing was going to be fixed in some version in the future. Seeing however that it’s a Beta version it doens’t necessarily mean that the fix will actual work in the released versions.

And, in the of chance that it does get fixed in the SP0… nothing to say that by SP1 it’s not broken again.
No that is not me being unduly cynical but talking from experience.

There’s an issue in routing that I spend years on getting someone to listen… it then took a few years for them to see that the error wasn’t user inflicted but due to software… it then took +1 year for them to finally figure out what caused it, several SP’s past by without it being fixed, and since that time it’s been a crap shoot if the issue is fixed or not depending on year and SP. And yes at the moment (2021SP5) it’s broken AGAIN.

Seeing however that it’s a sub function that barely anyone uses (because it’s been broken on and off now for more then a decade) in a module that is only used by a very small sub set of users and most of those have pretty much given up on using anything more then the bare bare minimum of functions… who cares, eh? It’s not as if those user have to pay a premium to have to deal with the lack of quality control… oh wait, yes seeing that one can only experience that demonstration of utterly lack of consistency when one has bought Solidworks Premium (which roughly sells for double the price of a basic seat)

Heck, if I ever would go to the yearly event I wouldn’t be applauding but asking anyone in management including Gian Paolo Bassi to stop with their vomit inducing marketing speak and instead tell what they actually do to earn their overpaid cushy jobs because it sure isn’t making a better product.
(sorry, had to rant, just fed up with all kinds of functionalities that aren’t working as advertised, if it wasn’t that there is no viable alternative I would advice my boss to drop Solidworks like a hot rotten potato.)

[bnemec]

ooh… I had that happen as well in the past, getting notified that an issue I was facing was going to be fixed in some version in the future. Seeing however that it’s a Beta version it doens’t necessarily mean that the fix will actual work in the released versions.

And, in the of chance that it does get fixed in the SP0… nothing to say that by SP1 it’s not broken again.
No that is not me being unduly cynical but talking from experience.

There’s an issue in routing that I spend years on getting someone to listen… it then took a few years for them to see that the error wasn’t user inflicted but due to software… it then took +1 year for them to finally figure out what caused it, several SP’s past by without it being fixed, and since that time it’s been a crap shoot if the issue is fixed or not depending on year and SP. And yes at the moment (2021SP5) it’s broken AGAIN.

Seeing however that it’s a sub function that barely anyone uses (because it’s been broken on and off now for more then a decade) in a module that is only used by a very small sub set of users and most of those have pretty much given up on using anything more then the bare bare minimum of functions… who cares, eh? It’s not as if those user have to pay a premium to have to deal with the lack of quality control… oh wait, yes seeing that one can only experience that demonstration of utterly lack of consistency when one has bought Solidworks Premium (which roughly sells for double the price of a basic seat)

Heck, if I ever would go to the yearly event I wouldn’t be applauding but asking anyone in management including Gian Paolo Bassi to stop with their vomit inducing marketing speak and instead tell what they actually do to earn their overpaid cushy jobs because it sure isn’t making a better product.
(sorry, had to rant, just fed up with all kinds of functionalities that aren’t working as advertised, if it wasn’t that there is no viable alternative I would advice my boss to drop Solidworks like a hot rotten potato.)

And there we have the true DSS Experience.