The requirement to convert files from previous versions in order to open them in ZW3D 2027 — along with the current file compatibility management — presents a serious and unsustainable problem for professionals.
When converting various files, i have encountered errors and, most critically, the loss and destruction of the actual part history, leaving only an encapsulation of the previous history.
I work with thousands of files daily, and losing fundamental structural references is inadmissible. For someone who has been using the software and managing this volume of data for years (in my case, since 2003), this situation is untenable.
This path taken by the development team demonstrates a total disrespect for long-term users, ignoring our needs and putting years of work at risk.
Hi Manuel, I understand your sentiment. But I’m going to defend the move.
Firstly this is pre release. So it might not be fully functional.
In order for Z3 to go any further and to future proof, a major file restructure is essential. I’m hopeful that for next number of years back and forward compatibility is possible. A CAD world first perhaps!.
IF, and it’s a big IF, there was a separate app to replicate entire folder/file structures converted to WuKong format with a fully encapsulated model file for each item it is possible.that the upgrade would be a lot less painful than it is now.
I haven’t attempted to convert much at all whilst the version is Pre Release so I have not seen history destruction.
I guess it depend on how much retrospective editing is needed as to how critical history is. In real terms, once a part is in production, it’s file should be locked from further modification. A file copy as a new part should be editable with out difficulty.
A real problem here is that ZWSoft is not communicating what is happening and what are the consequences and remedies..
This something that should starting now.
FYI. I have a prospective client who is keen on Z3 due to the changes being made and its performance in large assemblies over existing software. This has never been possible before.
I hope ZWSoft are able to respond to these concerns with some good explanations and conversations.
Cheers - Paul.
Thank you for candidly sharing your experience and concerns with us. We hear you loud and clear.
As a long-term partner who has stood by VX/ZW3D since 2003, the vast data assets you have built over the past two decades are deeply precious to us. We are truly and deeply sorry for failing to provide adequate guidance and proactive risk notices during the pre-sale phase of the 2027 release. We completely understand the frustration and anxiety caused by the conversion errors you encountered, and we take full responsibility for not preparing you properly for this transition. Please rest assured that our team is working urgently to update our download notices and migration resources specifically for our legacy users.
To give you complete transparency: ZW3D 2027 incorporates a major architectural upgrade, meaning generational engine updates do require a specialized migration path. To protect the absolute stability of your daily operations, we strongly suggest a tiered approach:
Non-Parametric Conversion (Recommended): For legacy files or standard components used mainly as structural references, we strongly recommend non-parametric (direct geometry) conversion. This offers maximum stability and processing speed while fully safeguarding assembly relationships and 2D drawing/CAM references.
Parametric Conversion: For core Master templates or critical models that strictly require deep feature-level edits, parametric conversion remains available. Because outcomes depend heavily on model complexity, we kindly ask that you run small-batch test validations first to assess the results before attempting large-scale migrations.
We noticed your message in our technical support inbox, and our support engineer has already sent a reply to your email. We are eagerly awaiting your response so we can work together directly to resolve these issues for you.
Thank you again for your patience, your trust, and for holding us to the high standards you deserve after all these years. We are committed to making this right.
Thanks Gofy,
Users absolutely need to know that ZWSoft is listening AND communicating.
I also recognize that ZWSoft have a lot of really skilled coders on the team so we can expect a use-able solution.
I would like to think that the UI for this is a more user friendly than what might work for a specialist intimately familiar with the software. The same comment applies to a number of the existing file handling routines. Extensive tool tips MUST exist.
In other words do NOT leave it to coders to decide on the UI.
This might require ZWSoft to actually have a UI teamwho are competent experinced CAD users?
AND we need a comprehensive HELP with flow diagrams and explanations of everything in detail.
Cheers - Paul
Admitting responsibility for not disclosing this beforehand shows a lack of consideration for those who purchase and work with your software. You cannot justify this simply as collateral damage of a new version.
Such a structural change should not be forced onto clients abruptly from one year to the next. If you want to innovate internally, you must ensure backward compatibility.
With the 2027 version, you strip away our power of choice and force us into blind conversion. And what is the result? Entirely corrupted files and the complete loss of internal references.
To put it bluntly: it means throwing away years and years of accumulated work from a database containing thousands of old files that I depend on daily. My problem is not creating new files; my nightmare is the historical data that sustains my work.
Telling me to convert to 2027 under these conditions is the exact same thing as making me buy a competing 3D tool and having to redraw everything from scratch, you understand?
Do the ZW engineers want to innovate? I understand that completely. But long-term users cannot afford the luxury of throwing away a lifetime of vital projects just to keep up with an internal restructuring whim. Please think about this with the seriousness the issue demands.
I worked with siemens NX for a while, and i can tell that focusing too much on backward compatibility can be a bad thing. It has turned into a 40year old skeleton with bunch of cumbersome addons wrapped into modern UI.
I think ZW is taking a bit different path, direct modeling tools are good enough, and i personally can accept losing some history if that brings actual improvements
Hi Manuel, we kno you pain, but … a few questions for for you.
What percentage of your part models would be problematic as static geometry?
What percentage of your old assemblies suffer from being static geometry?
Just trying to get feel for the extent of the issue as I think Vitoldas is right.
It’s much more than a backdoor tweek, its a reality that, without acting 7years ago, ZW was doomed to become a slow death dinosaur. Thankfully ZWSoft have much bigger plans than that.
I have just had a multi license user undertake to move from a Fusion/SWx blend to ZW because of the performance that WuKong delivers(based on the pre Release Version). ZW has never technically been in that position before.
IMO the pain of doing nothing was going to be much more, just administered in a drip. This is surgery vs a slow poisoning.
Now we will see if ZW can get the legacy issue improved to a pallatable level.
My hope is that a year from now we will all be thankful for the courage and foresight ZW have shown.
Cheers - Paul