1.187 bug

[DickB]

I opened a project that I created some time ago and got these strange artifacts around my pattern. The same project opened in 1.186 does not have them, nor did the project when I carved it months ago. (I have 1.186 on another PC.) I don't care to post the project, but I can email it to tech support if you want to take a look.

1.186
61818


1.187
61819

[mtylerfl]

Dick,

On the screenshot of the 1.187, it appears those "edge patterns" have a feather applied. Check if they do, remove the feather (if so) and see if that clears it up. Too bad you cannot post the MPC...probably could get some good clues from it.

[DickB]

Nope, no feather. Regardless, there is a clear difference between the two versions. Bit optimization - Best nearly clears it up, but it is not needed in 1.186, and even with it there is still a difference between the Designer versions. Here is a sample mpc that you can examine.

[mtylerfl]

Dick,

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting...definite behaviour difference between the 1.186 and 1.187.

The pattern appears to have some stray pixelation around the edges, which I was only able to see clearly in 1.187 when switching the pattern bit from 3/16 to 1/16 and using Bit Optimization: BEST. I am guessing it was made from a greyscale bitmap image, which would account for the stray pixels. Makes me wonder if a change was made to 1.187 that makes this kind of issue more critical to avoid?

In 1.186, it certainly looks much better by default (leaving Bit Optimization: NONE). As a test, I added an outer feather and lo and behold, it then looks very, very similar to how it first appears by default in 1.187. It's almost as if a feather is being added "automatically" somehow...even though the menu item says there is NO feather.

Very strange, and I really have no definitive explanation why that pattern behaves differently between the two versions. I think it will be worth contacting CW and provide the developers with a link to this thread and your sample. Hopefully this will lead to a solution and/or explanation for the differences.

[farmer]

I downloaded the update and now the center line grid no longer is visable on the board I checked to make sure it was checked off in the snap menu but still does not show up? Anyone else having that problem since doing the update? So far everything else is working ok.

[lynnfrwd]

I downloaded the update and now the center line grid no longer is visable on the board I checked to make sure it was checked off in the snap menu but still does not show up? Anyone else having that problem since doing the update? So far everything else is working ok.

I see it on mine.

[mtylerfl]

I downloaded the update and now the center line grid no longer is visable on the board I checked to make sure it was checked off in the snap menu but still does not show up? Anyone else having that problem since doing the update? So far everything else is working ok.

There is no problem with the Construction Lines showing up, as far as I know.

In any case, you don't display or turn them off in the Snap menu. You can toggle the Construction Lines via the View Menu. (The Construction Lines are not part of any grid function.) Make sure you have the Construction Lines toggled "on" by visiting the View Menu and please report back if that did the trick for you.

[DickB]

Dick,

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting...definite behaviour difference between the 1.186 and 1.187.

The pattern appears to have some stray pixelation around the edges, which I was only able to see clearly in 1.187 when switching the pattern bit from 3/16 to 1/16 and using Bit Optimization: BEST. I am guessing it was made from a greyscale bitmap image, which would account for the stray pixels. Makes me wonder if a change was made to 1.187 that makes this kind of issue more critical to avoid?

In 1.186, it certainly looks much better by default (leaving Bit Optimization: NONE). As a test, I added an outer feather and lo and behold, it then looks very, very similar to how it first appears by default in 1.187. It's almost as if a feather is being added "automatically" somehow...even though the menu item says there is NO feather.

Very strange, and I really have no definitive explanation why that pattern behaves differently between the two versions. I think it will be worth contacting CW and provide the developers with a link to this thread and your sample. Hopefully this will lead to a solution and/or explanation for the differences.

Not entirely sure what you mean by stray pixels. I looked closely at the pattern (it was made from a grayscale bitmap) and noticed that the outer curved edge does not come uniformly flush with the surface of the board as it is used in the project. In other words, there is a bit of a height gap between the curved edge of the pattern and the top of the board. Is that an understandable explanation? So I opened the pattern in pattern editor, inverted it, rounded the edges, inverted again, and saved it to the library. That version of the pattern shows no undesirable artifacts. So at least I have a solution.

[farmer]

Thanks I thought it was in the snap grid for some reason it was toggled off in the view menu.

[mtylerfl]

Not entirely sure what you mean by stray pixels. I looked closely at the pattern (it was made from a grayscale bitmap) and noticed that the outer curved edge does not come uniformly flush with the surface of the board as it is used in the project. In other words, there is a bit of a height gap between the curved edge of the pattern and the top of the board. Is that an understandable explanation? So I opened the pattern in pattern editor, inverted it, rounded the edges, inverted again, and saved it to the library. That version of the pattern shows no undesirable artifacts. So at least I have a solution.


Yes, that's what I meant...the edge pixels were not the same greyscale shades and causing depth irregularities. My solution would have been similar to clean it up - probably remodel it either directly in Designer...or remodel it in another program, import as an STL, then convert to a PTN.

Excellent work using the Pattern Editor! Simpler/faster than my solution would have been.

[mtylerfl]

Thanks I thought it was in the snap grid for some reason it was toggled off in the view menu.

Glad to hear that worked for you!

[farmer]

Michael I was doing the rail sweep tutorial and when it opened the cross section there are no construction line on it they are on the face of the board is there a way to turn them on, on the cross section it shows them in the tutorial ?

[myshop1044]

Farmer, I use sweep a lot and you can set 2 different grids sets at the same time. Just click in the bottom section then set the grid settings you need. I will have one setting for the top and one for the bottom.

Perry B.

[brdad]

I've come across two issues that may or may not be attributed to the newest version, but have shown up on my latest project.

Firstly, if you draw a circle or rectangle (possibly other shapes) and make a pattern from it, the pattern is consistently .008 larger than the original shape. Or at least the dimensions boxes in the software report it as such, but I'm not sure they can believed since I have the second issue.

The second issue is if you draw a rectangle the dimensions listed on that rectangle do not always agree with the dimensions listed in the dimension boxes. Logical guess is the dimension boxes are reporting in 1/128" increments, but it still gets confusing.

61865

[myshop1044]

Brdad, I have seen the same deminsion problem in 1.187. I have also seen arcs that are mirrored have one good arc and the other mirrored one is out of shape. When I tried to correct the out of shape arc the other goes out of shape.
I had the same problem btwn 1.185 and 1.186 too , so I just readjusted the plaques with the arcs in 1.186.
I had to redraw the morrored arcs in 1.187 to fix the problem..

Perry B.

[mtylerfl]

The second issue is if you draw a rectangle the dimensions listed on that rectangle do not always agree with the dimensions listed in the dimension boxes. Logical guess is the dimension boxes are reporting in 1/128" increments, but it still gets confusing.



I drew a "zillion" rectangles after reading this. The label dimensions as well as the input dimensions are matching every time for me. I cannot reproduce what you are experiencing. Is there a step-by-step way this discrepency between stated dimensions can be reproduced?

[bergerud]

I tried it and every rectangle I drew had the numbers disagreeing. Even simply moving the rectangle without resizing causes the numbers in the edit window to change. Since I always use snap to grid, I cannot say for sure whether this is new or not. My feeling is that it was always this way.

[bergerud]

With the square, the sides even disagree with each other on the drawing but not in the edit windows. If you move the square, however, it is the numbers in the edit widow which change. Makes no sense to me!

[brdad]

I drew a "zillion" rectangles after reading this. The label dimensions as well as the input dimensions are matching every time for me. I cannot reproduce what you are experiencing. Is there a step-by-step way this discrepency between stated dimensions can be reproduced?

Just drag a rectangle (snap to grid off) and size it to some other number than rounded 1/128" increments. Happens every time for me.

Bergerud - I didn't try the square until now, but you are correct. Very weird.

[mtylerfl]

Thank you. I see now. I had Snap turned on at 0.125" grid intervals. Now with it off, the dimension displays differ (as you said).

[mtylerfl]

I thought a little more about the dimension discrepency display between the input boxes and the labeled ones on the drawn items themselves.

I THINK I may have an explanation. Correction is invited and encouraged if I'm wrong!

In a pixel-based software program (Designer, Aspire, ArtCAM, etc.) the resolution and placement may influence an item's displayed dimensions (drawn or modeled). They might appear to be different because of "pixel rounding". In other words, if a square is drawn, it occupies a region of pixels....move the square, and a different region of pixels is occupied. If the placement is overlapping on "half-pixels", a math-rounding occurs...either rounded up...or rounded down to the nearest "whole-pixel".

Perhaps this is what we are seeing - a "math-rounding". Maybe the calculations are not exactly the same between the selected item labels and the input boxes? I don't know.

Maybe this is a poor theory, but it seemed to make sense to me at this moment! :D

[brdad]

That theory makes sense to me.

Personally, since the machine's resolution is 1/128", I'd be happy with an option to only report those increments. I often catch myself trying to be precise only to later realize it's going to round one direction of the other anyway. I made a spreadsheet of the rounded decimal equivalents (since designer does not let you enter in, for example, 0.0078125" for 1/128". I imagine it'd be even more frustrating for someone trying to create something using the metric system.

[bergerud]

The round off makes sense, but, why not report the same data object in both places? Is the data stored in two different memory locations or is it rounded differently before it is displayed? In any case, I think it is a minor programming detail to clean up.

[mtylerfl]

... Is the data stored in two different memory locations or is it rounded differently before it is displayed?...

I don't know. Another interesting thing I noticed...

Draw a 2"x2" square, Carve Region, Group/Make Pattern. Bring the PTN onto the board...it will show dimensions of 2.008"x2.008" (as mentioned previously, the rounding occurs at 0.008" intervals...or 1/128").

Now, open it in the Pattern Editor and look at the displayed dimensions...they will be shown as 2"x2"...just as originally created.

[brdad]

You are correct -it just gets wackier. And if you save the pattern in pattern editor it maintains the 2" X 2" dimensions. In reality 1/128" is not going to make a difference, but that does not keep it from being annoying when you're trying to make something of decent precision.

[farmer]

Thanks for the info on the cross section grid lines Perry B. Has anyone had a problem with the error gui.exe not responding? I am running win 8 and keep getting that error when I am drawing in designer. I have to close designer and of coarse I loose everything I am working on!

[CNC Carver]

Farmer is there anything else running in background? Antivirus scan possibly?

[farmer]

I have Web Root running.

[fwharris]

How many patterns do you have loaded into your pattern list? If you have a lot of patterns it will bog down designer..

[farmer]

only about 10 plus the basic it came with

[brdad]

Another bug in this newest version is on the bit selection list, there are two entries for '3/8" KeyholeNeck'. The second of the two shows a wider bit, so I would guess it's supposed to be '1/2" KeyholeNeck'.

[SharonB]

I haven't designed anything for several weeks but have uploaded the new 1.187 and I find when I click on a feature on the board it does not highlight that item in the carving list and/or in the Select Bit list. In a project I had designed a couple of weeks ago I needed to go back and change the depth of the bit (I didn't remember if I had assigned the 60-V or the 90-V) and it did not highlight the item in the select bit list (there is no way to tell which bit was assigned to anything). With the carving list...if you click on item in carving list it highlights the item on the board. But if you highlight the item on the board it does not highlight the item in the list like in the past. Anyone else seen this problem?

[bergerud]

That does not happen to me. All seems well and the same with the carving list and bit selection. The highlight, however, is faint. Maybe you need to adjust your monitor contrast.

[chief2007]

The item in the carving list is highlighted when you select the item on the board, but is a light gray shadow highlight. Same with the bit selection - but an even lighter shade of gray.

[SharonB]

I do not see any shading at all. I did have this feature before the upgrade. I will look into the monitor contrast.

[bergerud]

You might also play with the number of video driver colors?

[SharonB]

Bergerud..... I have Windows 8 on my new computer and I can't find much of anything but I did try and adjust the color on the monitor and that didn't help at all. I just now deleted and then re-installed Designer 1.187 and that didn't change a thing as I still have no indication of the item(s) selected on the board showing in the carving list or the select bit list(s).

[brdad]

I've been away for a few days and came back home to an expired license message. Not sure if it is from the upgrade or what happened. I bought a new computer back in August of 2012 and got my new license at that time, still have the file in fact, but it does not work, nor does downloading a new one. And I have not changed any hardware. And unfortunately my second license is already used up on another PC that I can't access right now.

[fwharris]

Did windows do any auto updates??

[brdad]

Did windows do any auto updates??
That is a good possibility! I sent an email asking for a reset, I'll just have to wait to play with some other tool until then...

[lynnfrwd]

Sounds like ur computer ID changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[henry1]

I had DELL teck work on mine and comp ID changed so had to have LHR reset it at their end all ok now

[brdad]

My license problem is fixed, here is another dimensional 'bug' that probably is connected to the other errors.


The image was created by using the snap to grid, one set of lines created with 1/8" spacing, and a duplicate set using 1/6" spacing, which Designer rounds to .063. The weird part is, I can't seem to recreate this every time, and I have not figured out what I am doing differently. We're only talking .005, but again is frustrating trying to lay something out consistently.

[bergerud]

I think there are two things involved. One is the round off of 1/16 to 0.063 and the other is centering of the grid. I always keep the grid centered and have no issues. I think that when you center the grid it uses the rounded off 0.063 instead of the 1/16. I could reproduce your problem by creating a centered 1/16 grid, drawing a line, uncenter and then recenter. Doing this gives the line off the grid. I assume the re-centering uses the round off. If you now retype the 1/16, you are back.

I would say that this is a bug.