It’s an interesting and vexed question I think. The reality is that digital formats come and go over time anyway - the notion of being able to access something “forever” is probably a naive one.
Just as printed receipts fade, so do formats. Some early .psd documents won’t open in current photoshop versions for instance.
I suspect we need to view everything we do as project by project packages rather than as a holistic business archive, (Can you still open lotus 123 documents in Excel?)
I just watched a tutorial video on this and it seems like pretty cool CAD software.
I think that’s not really a fair comparison.
“Why can’t I open a file today in Excel from a different piece of software that was end of life 21 years ago?” is a bit different than “Why can’t I open a file that was saved in Solid Edge 2023 Free in my Solid Edge 2023 Paid version?”
I’m fairly certain you can still open, for instance, AutoCAD 2009 documents in the latest AutoCAD. And I can still open very early versions of .xls files from the early 2000s in the current version of Excel
That seems like a really backwards decision. You’d think they would allow paying customers to open all.
This is a valid point, and I had not considered this when pondering the rule.
This was my first way of looking at it, and why it seemed so confusing to me.
This has been true, and is becoming recognized more and more as a problem. Often the need for old digital files does not “go away” and then someone is scrambling for an old Z80 machine to boot CP/M and run WordStar… The digital files are still there, and sometimes they are still needed.
There was an initiative to specify an archival document format. What I remember was that Microsoft wanted it specified as “Word '95” which is actually a pretty ridiculous demand, but is probably a de-facto standard. By proposing and promising it though, they are basically declarjng that all future versions of MS Word will be able to open and save 1995 standard .doc files. Of course that promise is going to end up being worth whatever MS says it’s worth, which could be nothing.
Maybe, but I have had CAD shops as clients, snd while some might do that, it means they need to have one or two engjneers open and re-save all of their drawings and models, and then again every time tbe origjnal engineer makes a revision. In a 16 seat shop, that’s a full-time job for one person right there. So let’s say you train an intern or minimum wage flunky to open the documents, print the necessary drawings and re-save them every time an engineer makes a revision, the whole shop workflow gets screwed up. Pretty soon you’ve got unhappy engineers demanding their own paid version of the software, or calling the piracy hotline, and bringing down a full software licensing audit down around your ears…
I like Solid Edge, but one strike against it: it’s Windows only. No MacOS or other operating system versions are available. I am going to try it in a VM, but some users don’t do VM’s.
When I used solid edge for free when it was commercially acceptable to do so (2D only was totally free) I had to renew that license every X number of days and the software would require that I get a new license at expiration via the internet. The promise was never offline use in perpetuity.
My sister in law’s husband works for Siemens, she said they are using NX, which might be solid edge. I am meeting him this weekend and am going to ask him around 1000 questions about it. 
Tell her, to tell him, to tell them we need a very small business license!
Autodesk already did that with Fusion.
They only support real computers. 
Yes - I’ll drive over the hill to take your CAD/CAM class!
He said he normally does not work with it, only sometimes and he can’t give us any deals.
Anyone hear any updates on the Lightburn CAM Beta version? I can’t find anything on the Lightburn site. I imagine there will be a good amount of info coming from LBX in a few weeks.
I use FreeCad on Linux. the 0.1x series was workable, but very rough. the 0.2x series is significantly better, and they are slowly working on implementing the RealThunder fix to the topological naming problem (They couldn’t port the code because it was too much, given how experimental the Real Thunder Branch is).
While it has a ways to go, they’ve finally setup a foundation and ways to donate - if that gets enough momentum, it would mean that they could afford to hire people to make improvements faster. I don’t think it’s necessarily ready for even half of people now, but I’m hopeful about the progress.
There are a couple of headline/keynote speeches vaguely to do with CNC, so I am hopeful.
I think lightburn represents super value for what it is and does, so if that carries through into the CAM version I may very well be convinced to part with actual money! 
Kiri:moto is great value too (free) and very well supported, but it is rather dependent on one person, which is a weakness in the medium term I think.
That is what I was hoping. 
beta?
Looking to help support my kid’s highschool’s competitive robotics team.
The team are currently using OnShape to collaboratively design.
Curious if this is common, and/or if Students/Educators/Mentors here are happily using other collaborative CAD solutions to help their school robot Team members work effectively, while skilling up on products that’ll help open doors for whatever they pursue next?
Cheers!