build 2003160 problem

I'm having a problem with date code 2003160. We have our nmsd.exe
updated as of January, so *that* problem is taken care of within our
office.

We're using a contractor who's having typical problems with an earlier
build (2003010);

http://www.ptc.com/support/SPR1016697.htm

We've sent him our files (an assembly) in 2003160 and he's getting
crashes and sections not regenerating etc. If he updates to the
replacement 2003161 build (along with the nmsd.exe patch) then works
on the files and saves them within 2003161, will they be messed up?
Will they be likely to crash etc if he sends them back to me and I
regenerate them in my 2003160 build?

I know the answer is for all of us to upgrade to the latest build, but
we can't do that right now for various reasons.

 

Anyone, people?

 

: Anyone, people?
:
PTC would be organizing the most unbelieveable chaos if builds were incompatible
or even, if it introduced different file formats from one build to another, of the
same rev. If the problems you and the contractor experienced were not solved by
the new build, he may experience difficutlties such as you are experiencing. But
this will be because of the program code, not the difference between builds.
Generally speaking, if he gets 161, he should be better off, not worse and you
should have no *added* difficulties communicating because of this difference. His
being on 161 shouldn't change your problems with 160, at all. SOS.

David Janes

: (Gra-gra) wrote in message
: > I'm having a problem with date code 2003160. We have our nmsd.exe
: > updated as of January, so *that* problem is taken care of within our
: > office.
: >
: > We're using a contractor who's having typical problems with an earlier
: > build (2003010);
: >
: > http://www.ptc.com/support/SPR1016697.htm
: >
: > We've sent him our files (an assembly) in 2003160 and he's getting
: > crashes and sections not regenerating etc. If he updates to the
: > replacement 2003161 build (along with the nmsd.exe patch) then works
: > on the files and saves them within 2003161, will they be messed up?
: > Will they be likely to crash etc if he sends them back to me and I
: > regenerate them in my 2003160 build?
: >
: > I know the answer is for all of us to upgrade to the latest build, but
: > we can't do that right now for various reasons.

 

I think he's re-worked the offending parts. They haven't been sent
back to us yet to see how they open here. Nevertheless there *have*
been problems with different date codes of 2001 and the URL below
details this.

 

: > : > : Anyone, people?
: > :
: > PTC would be organizing the most unbelieveable chaos if builds were
incompatible
: > or even, if it introduced different file formats from one build to another, of
the
: > same rev. If the problems you and the contractor experienced were not solved
by
: > the new build, he may experience difficutlties such as you are experiencing.
But
: > this will be because of the program code, not the difference between builds.
: > Generally speaking, if he gets 161, he should be better off, not worse and you
: > should have no *added* difficulties communicating because of this difference.
His
: > being on 161 shouldn't change your problems with 160, at all. SOS.
: >
: > David Janes
:
: I think he's re-worked the offending parts. They haven't been sent
: back to us yet to see how they open here. Nevertheless there *have*
: been problems with different date codes of 2001 and the URL below
: details this.
:
:
<smack on the forehead> How could I have missed and not checked out the link you
provided!?! But, now that I've read it, the way it looks, the contractor with 161
should not have the same section regeneration problems as before and when they
open and save the files, they should be backward compatible within all builds of
2001 (including yours). So, if the contractor had an earlier build, the 161
replacement should fix the crashing problem. Good luck.

David Janes