Skip to main content

More weirdness.

Comments

23 comments

  • Jacant

    It works for me. I would check the Geometry.

    0
  • tab...

    There has long been issues with cad face topology ... what you can or can't do etc.

    There's confusion here within the software on how to comply with the user request. DSM's action is extreme and i think it's a little discourteous - some might say obnoxious ...

    Anyway, either help DSM to clarify the intended change by either adding the bottom edge pull to the selection or pull out a little way the face, ( thus creating a wall ), then pull upto (anyhow) any feature. Both methods fast and easy enough.

     

    0
  • Me Here

    @jacant: No geometry problems:

    I'm glad Tim reproduced it, because for me it is very reproducible; happens every time even when recreated from scratch in a new tab, or even a completely new session.

    The only difference I can see between your gif and mine/tim's is that you select the vertical edge of the sidewall rather than then horizontal edge or the end face.

    0
  • Me Here

    @Tim: I had no doubt there where workarounds; but it is still a bug. And a doozy at that. Unless you can see any situation when what it does is a logical guess for DSM to make?

    The problem is that DSM 5 is rife with these problems.

    Eg. I realised that I wanted the new panel I am attempting to Pull, to only extend to the inner face of the side walls not the outer face. So I tried this:

    Huh!

    Okay, try a workaround:

    Double Huh!

    "Okay", I thought. "I'll pull the whole edge forward and then the two squares back":

    ****This comment has been removed by the moderator**** Of course, what else. Obviously I wanted to form a cube. Not!

    Okay, try pulling the full wall and then remove the bits I don't want. If I do it jacant's way it should be okayt right!?

    At this point, I've tried so many workariounds that have failed, I've forgotten what I was trying to do in the first place. And this just one tiny part of the project; and every other part throws up similar problems.

    V5 is just rubbish.

    0
  • tab...

    Me Here,

    I didn't say the 2 methods i demonstrated were 'work arounds'. In my view, they are necessary actions to use the software to produce the designs i want.

    Why do you not try the 2 methods i've taken the time and effort to show you and others reading this. Why persist in just adding more geometry and attempting to pull with the same inevitable geometry collapsing results time after time, in this, in that way etc - if you believe there's a problem here, please report it.

    0
  • Jacant

    I keep trying to replicate this, I just can't do it. I have noticed in your structure tree Buk that there is only a solid. Whereas mine has a solid and a surface. When I Pull the edge of the solid with the 'Extrude edge' option a surface is created. How have you only got a solid?

    Copy and paste the face you want to Pull, so you have a solid and a surface. to see if that will work.

    0
  • Me Here

    Tim said: "Why do you not try the 2 methods i've taken the time and effort to show you and others reading this."

    No need to shout; but...the ideas I showed in my second post, are those things I had already tried before I posted the OP in this thread. Ie. Before I had seen the product of your time and effort. So get off that high horse.

    Tim said: "I didn't say the 2 methods i demonstrated were 'work arounds'."

    True. I did!

    Tim said: "In my view, they are necessary actions to use the software to produce the designs i want."

    I call bs.

    If I Pull this, neither of your workarounds are necessary:

    Nor do I need either workaround to do this:

    Nor even to do this:

    Nor this:

    And not for this either:

    So why on earth would you consider it reasonable -- and why would I think to try it -- in order to do this:

    Or this:

    (And I'm not even going to address the blatently wrong, yet differently blatently wrong result DSM gave me that time; nor the utter inconsistancy.)

    Indeed, the only time I have ever needed to start something manually before keying the size, is if I need to use the cntrl key to cause Move to copy something.

    And I have never -- in any of the thousands of Pulls I've done -- needed to select an edge as well as a face. Nor have I seen any reference to doing so. It would never cross my mind to even try that. It goes against all logic.

    Finally, Tim said: " if you believe there's a problem here, please report it."

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to extend that 'invitation' -- maybe you're paid in some way for your role as official greeter here? -- but in any case, what would be the point?

    Have you ever seen any bug that was reported here even acknowledged? Let alone fixed. Because a few weeks ago I dug back in the archives of this place to see if I could find anything that had been reported as broken pre-V5, to see if they were still broken in V5, and I didn't find a single solitary thing that had ever been fixed.

    That's what I mean when I say: "No one is listening." You, jacant and myself and the occasional response from the ever mysterious "Official response" are the only respondants; and the latter has to my knowledge never addressed any question about the use of the program -- beyond licencing questions -- and a single response to my "Why I'm giving up on DSM" thread; which said basically nothing useful.

     

    0
  • tab...

    Me Here,

    Bugs are not reported / acknowledged / replied upon in the user forum.

    Go to your name ( top right ) and select 'submit a request' and go from there.

    You said 'And I have never -- in any of the thousands of Pulls I've done -- needed to select an edge as well as a face. Nor have I seen any reference to doing so. It would never cross my mind to even try that. It goes against all logic.'

    Lets try the official 'Help'. With DSM running, either within the Pull command selected or just hovering your mouse over the Pull icon, press  F1 for a full explanation of Pull commands. There's a quick video available with the F3 key, but the F1 has more detailed content.

    The OP was all about the collapsing / crumpling model when a single unappended face consumed 2 faces whilst simultaneously needing to insert automatically another face. The easiest way to do this is to pull the face out a small amount to add ( insert ) a wall, then continue to pull 'upto' by any means available. As i said then, reiterating that now, the collasping looks ugly.

    Arguing about why this / that doesn't work as you imagined , from your perspective of 'logic' , intellect and programming software experience isn't always of assistence in understanding how to use this program.

     

     

     

    0
  • Me Here

    Do you really think that I do not know about the hover prompts, or F1 or F3? Really?

    ****This comment has been removed by the moderator****

    I am fully aware of this use of a face and an edge:

    But rotating a face around an alt-clicked edge is entirely unrelated to the straight Pull shown failing dismally in the OP.

    Selecting one or more edges in addition to a face when Pulling:

    doesn't do a damn thing in any normal situation, and IS NOT DOCUMENTED TO DO SO!

    (My turn to shout!)

    All of which leads to how did you discover that in the OP case, selecting an extraneous edge would somehow disarm the illogic bomb that happens in the OP?

    Was it a happy, accidental mouse fumble or do you routinely go around randomly clicking on stuff to see if it will workaround the latest DSM inference failure?

    Which brings us to this gem.

    Tim said: "Arguing about why this / that doesn't work as you imagined , from your perspective of 'logic' , intellect and programming software experience isn't always of assistence in understanding how to use this program."

    Unless you can provide a direct quote -- and a link to the publically available docuentation where that quote comes from -- that clearly spells out this use of an extraneously selected edge to defeat this misinference during Pull, even trying this is illogical.

    And that is not from "my perspective", but from the perspective of logic itself. The fact that two consecutive illogical actions serve to produce the  effect that ought to be produce by the first alone; is not logical. Its a bug!

    (Careful sitting up there, its easy to fall from such a lofted position.)

    0
  • tab...

    Me Here.

    I can no longer discuss this with you.

    Goodbye.

    0
  • Me Here

    So, no direct quote of the docs then?

    0
  • tab...

    Me Here,

    0
  • Me Here

    ****This comment has been removed by the moderator****

    0
  • tab...

    Me Here,

    You said 'Selecting one or more edges in addition to a face when Pulling: doesn't do a damn thing in any normal situation, and IS NOT DOCUMENTED TO DO SO!

    Then you said ' So, no direct quote of the docs then?

    and i showed you the documentation...

    as you can see in the gif, ( as the docs say ) pulling a face with it's edges selected extrudes the face without influence from neighbouring faces...

     

    0
  • Me Here

    Hm. That may work for the examples given; but ...

    The now familiar obvious method and equally familiar obviously wrong result:

    So, try your face + 1 edge method:

    Whoops! No cigar.

    Try a face + 3 edges:

    Whoops again! Still no cigar.

    Try the face + all the edges as shown in the docs:

     

    Any other random combinations I should try?

    (Should you choose to try to recreate my scenario, the inner dimension of the square face is 40mm x 40mm; the side walls are 30mm high. The material is 0.3mm thick.)

    0
  • Jacant

    The solid on the left has a line drawn on the face. That is part of the solid. This will not Pull correctly. I don't know why.

    The solid on the right has the edge pulled in to create a Surface. This will pull correctly.

    0
  • Me Here

    I can assure you there is no line and I drew no lines:

    The face being pull was created by Pull->Copy edge.

    0
  • Me Here

    Complete construction, though I had to freeze frame the steps due to size. I can assure you there is no trickery here. You should be able to reproduce it.

    Need to slow it down. Back in a tick

     

    0
  • Me Here

    Won't let me post it as an edit.

    0
  • tab...

    This OP comment was to make this model  of any size...but i have now made the model as the sizes further requested.

    In the gif, the side cut downs of 0.3 were pull cuts from copy edge process. The extruded face again divided with a copy edge ( previously i'd been using sketch curves ).

    However, either a complete edge loop or a single edge selected with the face makes a satisfactory extrusion.

    It is unknown why this behaviour can't be reproduced. My suggestion is to attach the model along with an official support request.

     

    0
  • tab...

    Yes some weirdness...if constructing the the wall notches in another way from an already constructed extruded top, i can make the offset top edge not meet it's internal face.

    The gif shows an offset edge not meeting the internal face - it being short by 0.1mm ? Choosing the edge as the upto all was Ok...but not by selecting the face ?

    Hmm. In options i unchecked ' Offset edges by geodesic calculation' and this time selecting the face upto, there wasn't an offset.  - all OK.

    Still investigating  - i can't on the same model now reproduce it not matter the on/ off state of the 'Offset edges by geodesic calculation' setting.

    0
  • tab...

    With a new model, it's reproducible...kinda, now it's more offset than before ! If selecting an edge and not a face as the upto limit, there's never any gap - this is worth remembering...is it a Bug ?

    0
  • Me Here

    I thought you'd taken your ball and gone home. I tried to ignore this for 24 hours, but I come back and find this: "is it a Bug ?", and that has to be responded to.

    First off, I don't really care what your opinion is on the matter. Not because you aren't entitled to your opinion; but because you are -- in your unofficial, non-insider, capacity -- at best, only as good an arbiter of this as I am. And given your earlier allusion to my programming background; probably not quite as good.

    But, for me the answer to your question is very simply defined. Unless this:

    is such a commonly required result, that it makes sense to program the inference engine to produce this result in preference to any other possible outcome -- including the obvious (and required) simple Pull -- then the inference engine has been programmed such that some set of circumstances cause it to produce this obviously incorrect result in preference to the more obvious and expected result. And that is, by definition, a bug!

    It is in known in business by several names including 'a violation of user expectations' or ' principle of least astonishment', which basically states that unless there is an extremely compeling argument for doing so -- and there never is -- the results of a users actions should be inline with his expectations, given the other behaviours of the program. This result is clearly and obviously not.

    Tim said: "but i have now made the model as the sizes further requested."

    Let's get this straight, I did not "request" YOU -- or anyone -- to do anything! I responded to Jacant's post -- after you'd had said goodbye -- and any action you (or he) took as a result of my post, were your choice.

    Moving on.

    Why 40x40x0.3mm now? Because that's the size it always was. This is a real project, not something done for the sake of it. Ie.

    0.3 mm thick, because that the thickness of the material I am using:

    Why 40x40 mm? Because that's the size of the board I am enclosing:

    And this is what the prototype of the enclosure I was drawing when this whole debarcle started looks like:

    This the prototype in use:

    So why did I say "any size" in the OP? Because before posting, I had already tried several different sizes -- 40x40x2mm (to make selecting the edges easier) and then 10x10x1mm (so the whole thing fitted on screen clearly) -- and found that size didn't change the weirdness.

    Now I've found all the problems you only find when assembling things together, I can correct my design (done in a different program):

    And make a proper one from some decent material.

    The point of all this? I moved on (4) days ago; by using software that -- despite its low power, quirks and limitations --  simply does what you tell it; rather than wasting your time by "inferring" what it thinks you want to do, and getting it wrong so often that you spend 4 times longer working out how to get it to not infer the wrong darn thing.

     

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.