Force of habit, but I like the separation between the Object Info and Feature Tree. What I don't like is that I can not see Object Data and Object Attributes at the same time, or Layers and History. I think it is high time these artificial barriers were removed. Its not 1995 and screen real estate is limited to tiny 17" CRT displays which required thousand dollar video cards to be usable in millions of colors. How hard would it be create some type of tear of tabs / windows like Adobe and Omni products have, or lets us have multiples of the same windows like Apple allows with Pages, Keynote etc.

Just my opinion here (off topic again), but before a debate on how a particular UI feature should/might work if changed, the existing one should be at least bug free and as intended by the designer.

Obviously, folks are adopting procedures to suit the vagaries of the existing UI. Given that bugs do exist, it follows that it is impossible to adopt smooth working procedures.

If I browse about this site I see many complaints about mysterious glitches. These might be down to simple misunderstanding of the UI design, or bad paradigms in the UI. Or, indeed bugs, or more likely a combination of all the above factors. Mostly, I'm finding it's bugs aggravating my understanding of an, otherwise, excellent UI.

Whatever, [RANT HERE] everyone wants to design the beast, but nobody wants to debug it. I even see suggestions that fixing the problems is a waste of the time better spent on new exotic features. This is implicit in the way this thread keeps going off topic onto what features should replace the features/glitches/bugs under discussion.

Papering more potentially indifferent GUI features over inherent bugs is, in my humble experience, doomed to failure (just produces more bugs!).

I too have views and gripes about data entry, history, layers and object info dialogs. I think that if the existing paradigms worked as they were, presumably, intended then they would be seen by the majority of users as a very good way to do what are, after all, extremely difficult compromises in a GUI implementation.

Having gone completely off topic my self, can I please make another plea to keep the suggestions out of the discussion threads. They just get in the way and make me :mad::mad::mad:

I want, no need, to discover how to use ViaCAD effectively. In the process I expect to have misunderstandings and to find bugs. If I wanted or needed to see opinions about how to improve or otherwise alter the UI I would go look in the suggestions area.

Opinion: 'Ideas are 2 a penny - Good ones are 1 in a 1,000,000 and the result of hard work not plagiarism'.[RANT OVER]

I hardly needed you to tell me that. What you are saying is that VC is useless (in this respect). I'm turned right off using VC by this kind of observation.



Which ones might they be? You seem to know! How should I? Should we perhaps demand it be put in the manual?

Are you really sure the ones that YOU know are bug free, are, in fact not bugging you somewhere else?



Mostly using the mouse to get around the bug means you end up doing the operation twice! A complaint I have with VC.

Seem you never used the speed and simplicity of command line CAD. Mostly a mouse and a GUI get in the way, unless something very clever emulates the command line. Failure here then!

If the bug, I have now spent much time pinning down, is so obvious then why did you not explain to unique early on?



A mater of luck!!! Couldn't let you near a dangerous machine tool then.



Nope I'll never accept bugs. It's the thin end of the wedge. But, then you Windoze types have been conditioned to accept them.

It's obvious (from your sarcastic remarks about bugzilla etc) that you have never used a UNIX platform and wouldn't know a bug free platform if it poked you in the eye.

To be fair most accurate 3D modelers are in the same state as VC, even the big boys insist on playing the feature bloat game at the expense of stability. I had hopped, perhaps stupidly, that VC might be different.

Have a play with something like Wings 3D if you think there's nothing powerful, feature rich and bug free. Oh it's also free open source. That's free as in freedom of thought not free as in a free lunch.

Unique

Sorry I got a bit carried away. That was a bit of an over generalization and I apologias:o.

I infer from the tone and drift of this thread, in particular, that there is more interest in features than bug fixing.

Particularly NickB is at pains to tell me, in effect, to live with it.

I have made pleas for separation of the issues and warned of my impending flaming.

If my approach is un-welcome I am happy to go elsewhere.

>>The first extrude in the tree has object info of magnitude ONLY. The >>second has magnitude and a direction vector!


>>Where is the extrude vector for the first extrude?
>>Why can't I edit the object info?

The extruded solid by vector was getting incorrectly marked as an extruded solid by distance (thanks Steve for the steps) when created through the data entry fields. The two different types have different Edit Objects page. This is fixed in 813 thanks for reporting.


Tim

I for one agree with the debugging aspect. But part of the debugging includes polishing the program to make it more clear for everyone to understand. But I can see my ideas are not welcomed by everyone. So I guess I'll just shut up then.

"Security forums"??! :eek: :confused:

Is that the baseball bat and persuasive force type security or internet security? ;) LOL!

Right on. LoL. The history of CAD is strewn with systems packed with features the average operator never uses! Because, the bugs get right in the way of our ever understanding how to.

Thanks Steve,

I guess I'll be more careful which thread I post on. I'm a site admin too, so I know what you're saying.

mike...