rectangle for three vertices: kiss?

[marcof]

I noticed that the command "three-point corner of the edge" (horrendous translation of a rectangle drawn for three vertices) does not memorize the bond on the third point where I have to take it by hand every time and place the vertex.
It's a big break, succumbed because I have 15 rectangles variously arranged for every sketch.

I add that with the variant "parallelogram" the bond remains for all three clicks, while making the rectangle for the center and two true maintains the bond only for the center, forcing to put two on three by hand!!
I would like it to be a bug, or rather my mistake, but I'm afraid it's a quick written command to add new icons, then they forgot to finish it while remembering to get paid the new release and subscriprion. .
few commands but perfect, don't you?

swx 2010 64bit sp5.0

 

[Mike1967]

I noticed that the command "the corner of the edge at 3 points" (horrendous translation of a rectangle drawn for three vertices) does not store the bond on the third point so I have to take it back by hand every time and place the summit.
It's a big break, succumbed because I have 15 rectangles variously arranged for every sketch.

I add that with the variant "parallelogram" the bond remains for all three clicks, while making the rectangle for the center and two true maintains the bond only for the center, forcing to put two on three by hand!!
I would like it to be a bug, or rather my mistake, but I'm afraid it's a quick written command to add new icons, then they forgot to finish it while remembering to get paid the new release and subscriprion. .
few commands but perfect, don't you?

swx 2010 64bit sp5.0

I don't know if it's a bug... but also with sp4 I have the same behavior.
tested also on 2011 sp3.0... idem... Again, I don't know if it's a bug.

Welcome back!


Wow.... I wrote my 1000th post in your honor!!!!

 

[re_solidworks]

I noticed that the command "three-point corner of the edge" (horrendous translation of a rectangle drawn for three vertices) does not memorize the bond on the third point where I have to take it by hand every time and place the vertex.
It's a big break, succumbed because I have 15 rectangles variously arranged for every sketch.

I add that with the variant "parallelogram" the bond remains for all three clicks, while making the rectangle for the center and two true maintains the bond only for the center, forcing to put two on three by hand!!
I would like it to be a bug, or rather my mistake, but I'm afraid it's a quick written command to add new icons, then they forgot to finish it while remembering to get paid the new release and subscriprion. .

I also noticed this strangeness, and confirming what mike says the problem is surviving several sp.

few commands but perfect, don't you?

not getting married with marketing, however in my opinion 2011 has improved a lot, I find it much more stable than the previous ones and mistakes are not many.

 

[marcof]

I don't know if it's a bug... but also with sp4 I have the same behavior.
tested also on 2011 sp3.0... idem... Again, I don't know if it's a bug.

I also noticed this strangeness, and confirming what mike says the problem is surviving several sp.

Okay, I get it. are the usual bands of caxxoni programmers, those who do the cleaning, at your expense of course, banging the patrol under the carpet, those that if you ask you to change a quota together with a double click even if the part is not in the active configuration put us 10 years to implement it
These people should try a little mine, possibly in the cina.

does not marry well with marketing

there is a typing error, you write Marketing, the one made in tangential with the miniskirt, mesh stockings, showy makeup and round handbag :smile:

However in my opinion 2011 has improved a lot, I find it much more stable than the previous ones and the errors are not many.

So you say that now the pasta is cooked and at the sp3.0 it is worth installing it?

 

[marcof]

Okay, I get it. are the usual bands of caxxoni programmers, those who do the cleaning, at your expense of course, banging the patrol under the carpet, those that if you ask you to change a quota together with a double click even if the part is not in the active configuration they put 10 years to implement it
These people should try a little mine, possibly in the cina.

I checked for squrrel and there is a request to set up the bug dating back to 2009 so we are waiting for the difficult trigemellar birth of the spr #390202

waiting, the brilliant solution they proposed for the lack of automatic insertion of the bond is:
"the possible workaround is to manually add the again...":hahahah:

I confirm the history of the mine only caxxons can implement such a simple command, which is based precisely on the realization of a rectangle for three points and do not notice that while using it (they will have tried at least thirty seconds...) one or even two of the points in question do not capture the displayed bond

Hi.

p.s. of course the mine mentioned above will have several galleries, one for each software house of the various cads in circulation, because I am almost sure that for this type of behavior must have made a consortium of enterprise:frown:

 

[SolidUser]

I checked for squrrel and there is a request to set up the bug dating back to 2009 so we are waiting for the difficult trigemellar birth of the spr #390202

waiting, the brilliant solution they proposed for the lack of automatic insertion of the bond is:
"the possible workaround is to manually add the again...":hahahah:

I confirm the history of the mine only caxxons can implement such a simple command, which is based precisely on the realization of a rectangle for three points and do not notice that while using it (they will have tried at least thirty seconds...) one or even two of the points in question do not capture the displayed bond

Hi.

p.s. of course the mine mentioned above will have several galleries, one for each software house of the various cads in circulation, because I am almost sure that for this type of behavior must have made a consortium of enterprise:frown:

I write to you for two things:
1) each employee of a company has his task and cannot afford to do something that is not required by the planning of his manager.
I do the example of that programmer that should fix your bug, but that is absolutely in line with the duties of where I work.
When I start working or that programmer starts working, I know and he knows what we have to do in 8 hours of work.
at the end of the day complete or compile through a database or the pdm itself the hours dedicated to the various projects.
this because the deadlines of the project must be maintained and to know how much the project cost.
The reason is logical and I'm not here to explain it.
Even you as a craftsman, when you're commissioned a job, in advance you'll need to know how many hours to devote to it and if you don't mind, you've worked for free, right?

2) according to point one, as the programmer does to review the code (which then code, made by others by chance), without risking that the dedicated time does not lose sight of its priority.
the resolution of the code must also be tested, from the qa that he is also under planning.

then I tell you this, as written several times.
You want to fix a bug for you boring?
Join your user forces of this forum and call support by reporting this bug.
more requests, more weight will have that bug in the list of problems to be solved.
a simple thing is also this that I carry through image.

 

[marcof]

I write to you for two things:
1) each employee of a company has his task and cannot afford to do something that is not required by the planning of his manager.
(cut)
2) according to point one, as the programmer does to review the code (which then code, made by others by chance), without risking that the dedicated time does not lose sight of its priority.
the resolution of the code must also be tested, from the qa that he is also under planning.

Forgive me, but you are talking about a elementary command, not a hidden function of a deformation command that has two thousand flags for as many variants of operation.

a stupid three-point rectangle that is capable of autocad. the third point (addressing the second and third in the other variant) does not capture the bond. It's a big kiss like a house, they've been reporting it for two years, and they haven't fixed it. No, two years!! would be how to implement the circle for the central point but draws a square and fix the problem after the official dvd exit with the sp0.
if the three-point rectangle tested it on the empty schemo without verifying the acquisition of constraints, the managers of the implementation of that command are amateurs.

then I tell you this, as written several times.
You want to fix a bug for you boring?
Join your user forces of this forum and call support by reporting this bug.
more requests, more weight will have that bug in the list of problems to be solved.
a simple thing is also this that I carry through image.

Look, I always do, but I would like for a momneto to try to dismiss the sw's defender's shoes and evaluate objectively the behavior of who after two years has not solved a cock that inficiates the efficient operation of two variants of the "retangle" command.

Even you as a craftsman, when you're commissioned a job, in advance you'll need to know how many hours to devote to it and if you don't mind, you've worked for free, right?

free work not only if I run out with the hours but also (and especially) if what they commissioned me does not work exactly as it should or does not respect the chapter of the work, because in this case they do not pay me. we say that if the software houses had the criteria of control and testing of many craftsmen there would not exist the definition of "service pack"

 

[sampom]

free work not only if I run out with the hours but also (and especially) if what they commissioned me does not work exactly as it should or does not respect the chapter of the work, because in this case they do not pay me. we say that if the software houses had the criteria of control and testing of many craftsmen there would not exist the definition of "service pack"

sacred! beyond that of course and commercially logical. :finger:

I write to you for two things:
1) each employee of a company has his task and cannot afford to do something that is not required by the planning of his manager.
I do the example of that programmer that should fix your bug, but that is absolutely in line with the duties of where I work.
When I start working or that programmer starts working, I know and he knows what we have to do in 8 hours of work.
at the end of the day complete or compile through a database or the pdm itself the hours dedicated to the various projects.
this because the deadlines of the project must be maintained and to know how much the project cost.
The reason is logical and I'm not here to explain it.
Even you as a craftsman, when you're commissioned a job, in advance you'll need to know how many hours to devote to it and if you don't mind, you've worked for free, right?

2) according to point one, as the programmer does to review the code (which then code, made by others by chance), without risking that the dedicated time does not lose sight of its priority.
the resolution of the code must also be tested, from the qa that he is also under planning... .

... etc. It would be nice and easy to work like that. and with advance payment, without providing warranty etc. etc.

Je would give it to me er "planning"What the fuck are you talking about? :biggrin.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[SolidUser]

Forgive me, but you are talking about a elementary command, not a hidden function of a deformation command that has two thousand flags for as many variants of operation.

a stupid three-point rectangle that is capable of autocad. the third point (addressing the second and third in the other variant) does not capture the bond. It's a big kiss like a house, they've been reporting it for two years, and they haven't fixed it. No, two years!! would be how to implement the circle for the central point but draws a square and fix the problem after the official dvd exit with the sp0.
if the three-point rectangle tested it on the empty schemo without verifying the acquisition of constraints, the managers of the implementation of that command are amateurs.



Look, I always do, but I would like for a momneto to try to dismiss the sw's defender's shoes and evaluate objectively the behavior of who after two years has not solved a cock that inficiates the efficient operation of two variants of the "retangle" command.



free work not only if I run out with the hours but also (and especially) if what they commissioned me does not work exactly as it should or does not respect the chapter of the work, because in this case they do not pay me. we say that if the software houses had the criteria of control and testing of many craftsmen there would not exist the definition of "service pack"

I am not the office defender of solidworks, but sometimes escapes or you do not know why things are.
if in two years has not been resolved, it means that in a few have reported it.
therefore it is not blocking or heard as a problem by many users.
I remember that you have time of my registration here, required the reporting of some bugs and improvements.
How many have they answered me?
when re_solidworks asked the same for his, I answered and did.
Then stop complaining and make yourself feel.
many of you shoot at whatever you move, but then no one wants to take the blame.
This is the impression I have of many of you.
for example did you report my parents?
I did yours, even if you didn't open it.

I as others work under a manager and I am not allowed to do anything other than contemplated by the assigned works.
same thing applies to them.
judging others' work is easy.
How many products come out of the failed companies?
Do you want to put the ease with here to control your work, compared to that of a software house or a manufacturing company?

for sampom:
If my manager talks to me about planning, I interfere with him with the same language.
I don't know what you do or what company you work, but in many companies you talk like that and you work like that.
If one day you will have to work in a structured company and under a manager who will plan your work, maybe it will not seem so strange.

I also remind you that we are also planners of ourselves and our children.

 

[sampom]

for sampom:
If my manager talks to me about planning, I interfere with him with the same language.
I don't know what you do or what company you work, but in many companies you talk like that and you work like that.
If one day you will have to work in a structured company and under a manager who will plan your work, maybe it will not seem so strange.

I also remind you that we are also planners of ourselves and our children.

... azz...
on, always with the springs you have to take, you are worse than a burning tizzone:biggrin: (and this is a joke, eh..).
was a joke addressed to the programmers (who I am always convinced that design and design know nothing about it..) and especially to blessed them "responsible". certainly nothing personal, we would miss it.

Of course I know how to work and how to speak ( fortunately still not everywhere), but I tend preferably to look after the substance rather than "inglesism" or anything good just to fill the eyes and/or mouth.

I as others work under a manager and I am not allowed to do anything other than contemplated by the assigned works. .

and I, and with due planning (in the "imporable" limits of an artisan company). But I'm not a programmed machine to do just that.. If he slams against the wall he slams and fights infinity.
if I notice a caxxata, mine or others, I immediately mark it and immediately try to remedy it (to the customer I can not tell you about it planning. otherwise you know how you plan payments? ).
If I don't notice (or worse, I try because I haven't been planned) I'm a fool and as a designer (or programmer in case and more over managers) I'm worth a little... my next planning will be by the placement office:biggrin:

and the speech also applies to only one installation among the countless that I have for the world, of big or small customers is equal.. other than insufficient reports.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[SolidUser]

... azz...
on, always with the springs you have to take, you are worse than a burning tizzone:biggrin: (and this is a joke, eh..).
was a joke addressed to the programmers (who I am always convinced that design and design know nothing about it..) and especially to blessed them "responsible". certainly nothing personal, we would miss it.

Of course I know how to work and how to speak ( fortunately still not everywhere), but I tend preferably to look after the substance rather than "inglesism" or anything good just to fill the eyes and/or mouth.

and I, and with due planning (in the "imporable" limits of an artisan company). But I'm not a programmed machine to do just that.. If he slams against the wall he slams and fights infinity.
if I notice a caxxata, mine or others, I immediately mark it and immediately try to remedy it (to the customer I can not tell you about it planning. otherwise you know how you plan payments? ).
If I don't notice (or worse, I try because I haven't been planned) I'm a fool and as a designer (or programmer in case and more over managers) I'm worth a little... my next planning will be by the placement office:biggrin:

and the speech also applies to only one installation among the countless that I have for the world, of big or small customers is equal.. other than insufficient reports.

greetings
Marco:smile:

when you hire a programmer and not only in companies that develop software, it is required to know how to program, nothing more.
we produce instrumentation for cars and related software, but our programmers know nothing more than what was part of their study path.
programming a cad or a simple function within the cad, is not a little thing.
You don't know how many lines of code there are just for small functions.
the programming error there can be, nothing easier.
in the specific case, what makes solidworks is an implementation of a function of d-cubed libraries.
the two rectangles of which he complains, do not take the bond on the last point.
d-cubed function builds the data rectangle 3 inputs.
It was a choice of solidworks to turn these inputs into relationships.
so they are implementations with code lines.
Now I can't tell you if the third point that doesn't hold the bond is a programming error or because the d-cubed function waits for a size-type input that solidworks can't intercept.
If it was a problem of d-cubed, you know that it is siemens plm and therefore implementations probably follow the priorities of the mother house.
If it were a programming problem, the quality has noticed and asked its managers:
What do we do, send them forward these two rectangles or block them?
if I were in the role of the managers I would have said to send them forward, for the simple reason that the required functionality is operational even in the absence of the third bond.
If the problem was that extrusion is inexact, then I assure you that they would correct it.

the weight of the problem or the incidence should be assessed before intervention.
I think you're doing this, too.
we have assistants and retailers who assist with non-blocking problems.
if the machine does not give correct results, then we intervene personally.

 

[re_solidworks]

I put myself in the middle (to take the stones of all!!). It is true what soliduser says and it is equally sacrosanct to expect well-made tests and a stable program right away.
we all know that software has bugs, they all have them all forever. what I would expect from solidworks is a greater reactivity in the case of more or less heavy trunks. my welded kiss was solved, also and above all thanks to those who voted it, but it was resolved in 2012 alfa1.
I marked it with the 2010 sp 3.0 and water under the bridges passed a lot. It was a more expensive case in terms of time than that of marcof and that cost me a lot of extra hours (that free to tell us).
Since statistically the problems are there and it takes a few months to 2 years to solve them, maybe the swx should put some extra programmer for bug resolution.
I said that I am satisfied with the work they did with 2011, I started with the service pack 2.1 and found myself immediately well. There's some bachetto, but it's small that I'm going to report and maybe they'll fix it.

 

[Tequila]

when you hire a programmer and not only in companies that develop software, it is required to know how to program, nothing more.
we produce instrumentation for cars and related software, but our programmers know nothing more than what was part of their study path... cut

This is not true, perhaps in part, because if the programmers are not required to know anything more than what is asked to do/program, at least there will have to be a tester of the new functions and/or bug fixes that verify the correct functionality in various situations. Moreover it is not true that within the staff of programmers and software testers cad there is at least 1 person with engineering and design knowledge that knows how to control what they put on the market.

My older brother who has been programmer for more than 20 years now knows things well and both when he started under a manager that now that he manages things before releasing programs, applications etc. make a myriad of cross-checks to see if other bugs appear... You know, write a line of code that does one thing right, and at the same time it's gonna mess up another, things on the agenda.

greetings

 

[SolidUser]

I put myself in the middle (to take the stones of all!!). It is true what soliduser says and it is equally sacrosanct to expect well-made tests and a stable program right away.
we all know that software has bugs, they all have them all forever. what I would expect from solidworks is a greater reactivity in the case of more or less heavy trunks. my welded kiss was solved, also and above all thanks to those who voted it, but it was resolved in 2012 alfa1.
I marked it with the 2010 sp 3.0 and water under the bridges passed a lot. It was a more expensive case in terms of time than that of marcof and that cost me a lot of extra hours (that free to tell us).
Since statistically the problems are there and it takes a few months to 2 years to solve them, maybe the swx should put some extra programmer for bug resolution.
I said that I am satisfied with the work they did with 2011, I started with the service pack 2.1 and found myself immediately well. There's some bachetto, but it's small that I'm going to report and maybe they'll fix it.

Do you know how many active licenses there are in the world?
Do you know how many demands come to solidworks corp. from all retailers in the world?
each request should be evaluated if it is a bug, a request for improvement a problem related to the hw configuration, a problem related to the sw configuration, a problem, etc.
You know how many man hours it takes for every request?
after these thousands of hours of filtration and verification, they must be grouped with indices.
the index value is also linked to those who have reported it.

We add the fact that the crisis felt a lot in America and the solidworks corp. did not remain immune.
There have been cuts and if you remember it, especially in America and in the companies producing software we talked about a large number of cuts.

bugs bother everyone, but you need to understand before shooting judgments.

 

[SolidUser]

This is not true, perhaps in part, because if the programmers are not required to know anything more than what is asked to do/program, at least there will have to be a tester of the new functions and/or bug fixes that verify the correct functionality in various situations. Moreover it is not true that within the staff of programmers and software testers cad there is at least 1 person with engineering and design knowledge that knows how to control what they put on the market.

My older brother who has been programmer for more than 20 years now knows things well and both when he started under a manager that now that he manages things before releasing programs, applications etc. make a myriad of cross-checks to see if other bugs appear... You know, write a line of code that does one thing right, and at the same time it's gonna mess up another, things on the agenda.

greetings

Maybe you didn't read as well as I wrote.

in the intake phase, you look if the requested one knows it.
if a company looks for a c++ programmer, who worked in a software house, but they produce cards for automatic milking machines, I assure you they hire it.
experience is acquired, it is not required in certain tasks.

I also said that qa definitely found the bug (always if bug is) and rated what to do.
If I'd been in them, I'd have chosen to send those two commands.

 

[Tequila]

Maybe you didn't read as well as I wrote.

in the intake phase, you look if the requested one knows it.
if a company looks for a c++ programmer, who worked in a software house, but they produce cards for automatic milking machines, I assure you they hire it.
experience is acquired, it is not required in certain tasks.

I also said that qa definitely found the bug (always if bug is) and rated what to do.
If I'd been in them, I'd have chosen to send those two commands.

Look, I've read what you said.when you hire a programmer and not only in companies that develop software, it is required to know how to program, nothing more. ... and so I commented.

I agree that during hiring a company you value if you know how to do the job for which you present yourself for hiring, but I do not think that in dassault as well as in siemens and other softwarehouses, you put to make program one for modification to a software without that being educated on what this software does and how it does, it is all or even parts of this. same thing also for those who hire a designer or a maneuver, while working in team and under a manager he must be educated on the type of work, otherwise also knowing all the commands and being a magician of the cad, stay them to pajare keys or bring in beautiful copy things without even knowing the operation, as well as not to grow at professional level.

 

[geppetto]

According to me here is the introduction of a new command, certainly bypassable with the parallel function (which in my opinion leaves even greater freedom not automatically inserting the horizontal and vertical constraints that sometimes hang), but which in summary does not make 33% (on 3 points takes only 2 snaps) of the things that should do. that it is now the fault of cuts, a precarious programmer or a cannabinoman supervisor is not important. all the years try to make us update the software to cover their budgets some of us do it with the certainty of the advantages and others because a good commercial has been able to sell it to them. some bugs find it both the one and the others. then there are great controversy about the bugs but since we are all better than when only the tecnigraph existed, we continue our advance towards the future.
an observation to a particular person:
"You who typed the code to create a three-point sw rectangle command, didn't even pass through the antechamber of the brain to verify that your command worked 100% instead of 66%?"
it's not bad, but it's like a pivelli.

 

[SolidUser]

....but I don't think that in dassault as well as in siemens and other softwarehouses, you put yourself to program one for modifications to a software without this being educated on what this software does and how it does, it is all or even parts of it. same thing also for those who hire a designer or a maneuver, while working in team and under a manager he must be educated on the type of work, otherwise also knowing all the commands and being a magician of the cad, stay them to pajare keys or bring in beautiful copy things without even knowing the operation, as well as not to grow at professional level.

if in dassault or in siemens need a programmer on the heart of the program and do not want to move resources from other areas, you are sure that after 2 weeks they put it to work on the heart of the cad.

same thing for a designer.
will make a week between revisions and courses, but at the end of the second they already give him a project.

there will be a tutor or manager, but the insertion times are these.
training takes place in the field.

 

[SolidUser]

According to me here is the introduction of a new command, certainly bypassable with the parallel function (which in my opinion leaves even greater freedom not automatically inserting the horizontal and vertical constraints that sometimes hang), but which in summary does not make 33% (on 3 points takes only 2 snaps) of the things that should do. that it is now the fault of cuts, a precarious programmer or a cannabinoman supervisor is not important. all the years try to make us update the software to cover their budgets some of us do it with the certainty of the advantages and others because a good commercial has been able to sell it to them. some bugs find it both the one and the others. then there are great controversy about the bugs but since we are all better than when only the tecnigraph existed, we continue our advance towards the future.
an observation to a particular person:
"You who typed the code to create a three-point sw rectangle command, didn't even pass through the antechamber of the brain to verify that your command worked 100% instead of 66%?"
it's not bad, but it's like a pivelli.

My opinion is that it's not a bug.
my opinion is that the basic function made available by d-cubed is the acquisition of 2 points with x-y values and a third dimension.
then sw fails to pass at that stage the position of the click on the dimensional value.
only after the line is placed and you have all its points, you can add the bond.
This is my opinion of why.

 

[marcof]

My opinion is that it's not a bug.
my opinion is that the basic function made available by d-cubed is the acquisition of 2 points with x-y values and a third dimension.
then sw fails to pass at that stage the position of the click on the dimensional value.
only after the line is placed and you have all its points, you can add the bond.
This is my opinion of why.

I go in a hurry so I answer briefly and in part to these considerations, remembering that in the variant with the rectangle for the center and two points does not take the bond on the two final points. that is the command wrongs 66% of the inputs: two out of three.
But then the parallelogram captures all three constraints: alcohol:
My idea is that if you write a piffer command like that then to verify its basic functionality, it takes 10 minutes.
Some bugs that obviously validated those kissed commands were there. if they are not inepts it is evident that they have not taken the brigade to try the sketch draw on of the underlying geometry. at the end always of ineptitude is it.
to tonight the rest of the considerations... :wink: