Immediately regretting my exocad purchase

A

apostolis159

Member
Full Member
Messages
44
Reaction score
2
The only time I've seen an exe is for heavily modified Exo resellers like AG. Any generic Exocad resellers get the same .7zip or .zip file. Unless they package that into a self unzip via 7zip that looks and reads as an exe. copy pasta'ing works fabulously for copying libraries, if you know where they go / are. Lots of techs I've had to train can barely retain which mouse button is left and which is right. Not a lot of tech savvy techs out there.
Nope, I'm talking plain unmodified exocad in my case. Their support told me they have switched to a normal installer since 2.3 in fact. I still have the files on my home pc.
Maybe it's different in the US? I reside in Europe.
 
J

Josh Claxton

Member
Full Member
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Huh, must be for Europe. You fancy folk get an installer =( we're stuck in the mud over here
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

Idiot
Full Member
Messages
9,289
Reaction score
1,411
Nope, I'm talking plain unmodified exocad in my case. Their support told me they have switched to a normal installer since 2.3 in fact. I still have the files on my home pc.
Maybe it's different in the US? I reside in Europe.
i have a very good feeling that this is not correct.

there is an exocad framework executable which is mostly sql and .Net files that help the program run, but even the german site for exocad lists a .7z file for partners.

and exocad is one of those companies that is business-to-business, 3rd level tech support. the entity you'd have to have purchased exocad from would be your first and second level tech support.

so when you say exocad themselves sent you an executable and switched to this since pre Matera days, i don't believe you.

it also makes zero sense that a reseller would convert the executable, but also not brand the software with their logo or colour scheme.
 
A

apostolis159

Member
Full Member
Messages
44
Reaction score
2
i have a very good feeling that this is not correct.

there is an exocad framework executable which is mostly sql and .Net files that help the program run, but even the german site for exocad lists a .7z file for partners.

and exocad is one of those companies that is business-to-business, 3rd level tech support. the entity you'd have to have purchased exocad from would be your first and second level tech support.

so when you say exocad themselves sent you an executable and switched to this since pre Matera days, i don't believe you.

it also makes zero sense that a reseller would convert the executable, but also not brand the software with their logo or colour scheme.
I hear you, have no reason to doubt what you say. Especially since this is how they did my original installation of 2.2 at the lab (zip, unpack, copy-paste, framework)

Here's the story, although we are derailing the topic a bit.
I needed to work from home for 2 weeks due to getting covid.
So I contacted my reseller for them to do an installation of exo 2.2 on my home PC. My reseller is the smart optics reseller for Greece, and their version of exocad is completely unbranded. Literally zero mention of the company in the files or UI, other that the connection to their scanner software (which is done manually).
After a full day on the phone and him remotely accessing my computer, 2.2 wouldn't run on my PC (Ryzen 5 3600, RX580 8Gb, 16Gb ram).
So the next day he contacted his support, presumably smart optics or exocad support. Didn't ask. This guy team-viewers to my PC, checks, informs me that 2.2 doesn't run on AMD processors. Then proceeds to network copy installation files (exe/msi, can't remember -not at home atm-) for both 2.3 and 2.4.
2.3 turned out to have a similar issue with Ryzen. It would sometimes crash.
Then he installed 2.4, which worked flawlessly.
Framework executable is indeed a different file, I was wrong stating the opposite.

Being a business-to-business as you say, it could be a smart optics tech that did my installation. But the software is completely unbranded.

Lastly, my 2.2 installation -that is just a unzip install- doesn't show on my installed programs, while 2.4 -being an exe file- does.

I'll have a look when I get home, I'm pretty sure I have kept the files.
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

Idiot
Full Member
Messages
9,289
Reaction score
1,411
i see.

2.2 Valetta is a software from like 2017-2018ish and Matera/Plovdiv were 2018/2019

and what follows is quite correct, only plovdiv began being amd compatible. even exoplan in its current fda-sellable form (2.3) is still intel only.

if you had both Valetta and Plovdiv installed neither one should show up in the Windows control panel, because only the Framework should be in the windows registry.

the actual program executable runs outside the registry because its licensing and its settings are controlled through local .xml files instead. it means you can install all the versions of exocad along side each other without settings getting overridden by registry values.

i just went snooping on the smartoptics site, they published an installation guide, and i see what they did. they modified the Framework executeable to contain and install the 4 necessary installation folders which should have been published separately.

somehow they werent smart or prepared enough to prepare a fully integrated system for the scanner they sell though, because the same document is trying to have you overwrite some xml values on their installation to make it compatible with their scanner.

this would take 10 minutes to duplicate the install, use the right values, and have two versions ready to go. what they have done is completely override your ability to have multiple versions installed too, so whichever version you have will be the only one you can run.

i have NO idea why they are somehow still stuck on Valetta.

that will be the entire problem right there. you're on severely outdated software trying to make modern application of it. its like complaining your 46 Ford can't keep up with highway traffic. this is not an exocad problem its a smartoptics problem for selling you 4 years old software in 2020.
 
A

apostolis159

Member
Full Member
Messages
44
Reaction score
2
this is not an exocad problem its a smartoptics problem for selling you 4 years old software in 2020.
I'm not talking problem here, just discussing on the previous posts about installation methods since my experience was different.
As for them selling me old software, this is not the case.
This whole thing happened last October. 3.0 wasn't out, latest was 2.4 still. I was still on 2.2 since 2018 cause I didn't see reason to update to 2.3/2.4 since they had no features that seem to be useful to me. So they just gave me 2.4 so I can work, since the previous versions did not run properly on my AMD system.


i have NO idea why they are somehow still stuck on Valetta.
I don't think they are, since my reseller contacted me for an upgrade to 3.0 recently. Although their website seems a bit outdated.


what follows is quite correct, only plovdiv began being amd compatible. even exoplan in its current fda-sellable form (2.3) is still intel only.

if you had both Valetta and Plovdiv installed neither one should show up in the Windows control panel, because only the Framework should be in the windows registry.

the actual program executable runs outside the registry because its licensing and its settings are controlled through local .xml files instead. it means you can install all the versions of exocad along side each other without settings getting overridden by registry values.

i just went snooping on the smartoptics site, they published an installation guide, and i see what they did. they modified the Framework executeable to contain and install the 4 necessary installation folders which should have been published separately.

somehow they werent smart or prepared enough to prepare a fully integrated system for the scanner they sell though, because the same document is trying to have you overwrite some xml values on their installation to make it compatible with their scanner.

this would take 10 minutes to duplicate the install, use the right values, and have two versions ready to go. what they have done is completely override your ability to have multiple versions installed too, so whichever version you have will be the only one you can run.
I am tech savvy enough to understand what you say.
And now that you have explained this, I also see no reason why they have done it this way. They put the effort to make the installer this way, yet you have to manually integrate the scanner.

Thanks for the insight. :)
 
Top Bottom