#Serious PS Deficiencies
17 messages in this thread
Can anybody please tell me why autodesk has designed paperspace so
that display list zooms don't work in paperspace but do in
modelspace? If I am correct, a modelspace viewport should be set and
no zoom should occur there. Thus a modelspace (tilemode 0)
displaylist is completely worthless and there is no paperspace
display list. Really, I don't understand!!!
To make matters worse, when I do try to zoom in modelspace
(tilemode 0) because I know that there is no paperspace display list,
the zoom doesn't work right (Rel 11 AND 12) and the zoom window will
not be the same as I have selected, it will zoom somewhere else!!!
Please, I have been using Autocad for a long time and I am
throuroughly discusted with this completely NON FEATURE!!!
Please, Autocad, wake up and rewrite your program.
You posted your message in the ASOFT Forum, buttcheese! 3D Studio,
Animator Pro and other non-AutoCad packages are discussed (not to be
confused with "discusted" as you put it) in this forum. Try trimming
off the attitude from your message, genius, and somebody in the ACAD
forum may help you.
This is a family forum. Please watch your language. Also, personal
attacks are inappropriate here. The fact that Bacci's message was
strident and posted in the wrong forum does not justify an ad hominem
attack.
That was very diplomatically put! I for one appreciate the tact. It
makes a big difference. Thankyou.
Tact, diplomacy, sensitivity, admittedly I have little or none.
Anything that has ever stirred an emotion has lacked these
attributes. To many these things are qualities, to me they are a
recipe for boredom. The forum message in question was sent to
"anybody" among others and therefore I felt compelled to respond.
I'll respond via e-mail if it is preferred not to see words like
"buttcheese" or my personal counter-attacks. (I admit to watching
and enjoying Beavis and Butthead.) Several forum members have sent
me notes that state they enjoyed my message. So far only one has
been on the forum (Cool message, Gus, heh heh). I think you two
missed the boat on the "buttcheese" comment and over-reacted. Things
get a bit saccharin around here sometimes. I know how much you
(John) like controversy, it tends to be very educational if not
entertaining. One thing that I have found is that without seeing
someone's facial gestures it is hard to tell it they are joking
around. I will provide more :-] and <g> to eliminate the ambiguity.
My comments to Evan really had nothing to do with your response but
were specifically directed at Evan because he and I have exchanged
words and I felt at the time that his handling of the situation was a
little heavy handed. At the time he apologised and said that he would
try to be more diplomatic in the future. Noticing that in fact he had
made the effort in his response to you I felt that it warranted
acknowledgement.
So seriously it had no direct correlation with your comments. As far
as tact and diplomacy go that's something you can develope if you
want to. Its not very difficult just takes a little more effort. I
don't know what your mindset is, but quite frankly how you express
yourself is your bussiness, and my comments with regard to Evan
should be considered independent and not relating to you or your
position at all. In other words I wasn't congratulating Evan for
putting you straight but rather for how he approached it. I trust you
understand the distinction. Whether you agree with it or not its his
job to keep things from getting out of hand, and I would prefer to
see it handled as diplomatically as possible. I don't like to see
anyone chatised for taking a position on something but in this case
you have to admit his points are well founded. Nothing personal Bob.
I have on many occasions appreciated your viewpoint and on occasion
chuckled at some of your comments like the "nuke" one. <g>
See what Beavis will make you do? Next thing you know, you'll be setting fire
to your trailer. Now take a lesson from Ellis, and remember that when you're
being offensive, it's important to use clean language. 🙂
>> Now take a lesson from Ellis, and remember that when you're being offensive,
it's important to use clean language. <<
Thanks for the compliment John, I had no idea you appreciated my finesse. And
BTW I'm not arbitrarily offensive, just to people who beg for it; you know the
kind, the arrogant conceited ones.
-JE
I guess that your expertise in arrogance allows you to give it to
those that 'seem' arrogant? C'mon! Any kind of rudeness is
unexcusable. — Oh well, at least you can't get shot around here for
asking the wrong question in the wrong side of town, eh? There, my
two cents worth.
>> I guess that your expertise in arrogance allows you to give it to
those that 'seem' arrogant. <<
I don't recall ever having communicated with you on any level, so I
think its a little more than presumptuous for you to make a statement
like that. Obviously all you have to offer is your two cents worth,
which is about par for the kind of people I'm talking about.
>> C'mon! Any kind of rudeness is unexecusable. <<
I guess your kind of an expert, huh?!
John:
Here's a bit of a quote from a guy named Carl Fick, an unknown writer of some
strange spy thriller I read a whole bunch of years ago:
"Why should all our lives be disturbed?
Isn't it possible that's what lives are about?
And I was afraid that was what lives were about, and kind of glad. Disturbed
lives are the interesting lives and the loving lives.
'DO NOT DISTURB' is the most disturbing sign I have ever seen.
Invite lovingly thy disturbances. And if ever there is a time: BE A
DISTURBANCE."
I guess you could say that I've taken the words to heart.
Bob
Hey Evan, I actually enjoyed both messages. It made me believe I was
watching Beavis and Butthead. I did miss the hehehe though… <g>
Nahh… Don't pay attention, I'm warped and you know it…
Sorry about the spelling, but I am using a line type editor on compuserve, and
these things in the interest of log on time have to be sometimes overlooked. I
have been in the CAD Drafting profession for many years and I have heard a lot
of complaints from others and have myself had to deal with deficiencies in
Autocad for many years. They had a good product in the early '80's and got
the market but they really lagged behind in some improvements while developing
others. I think anybody who has to work with Paperspace on a daily basis and
who is familiar with other professional cad packages would agree that there is
something terribly wrong with this part of the product. There are other areas
that I think are good, including AME in general. I also think that 3D Studio
is excellant and Autodesk could learn something from these programmers. Because
I am apparantly in the wrong forum I guess this is not relavant anyway, whoops,
spelled wrong again, please forgive me.
Ronald:
Your complaint obviously had you quite irritated and by the responses it would
appear you are bringing up some sore points worthy of Autodesk's attention.
For opinions not unlike your own, my firm has never used AutoCad for CADD
drafting (We do have a copy in-house to use for many daily translations). I
like to keep up with the various features of CADD packages and the lack therof
and I can tell you that you are not alone in your opinion of Paperspace.
>>> I think anybody who has to work with Paperspace on a daily basis and who
is familiar with other professional cad packages would agree that there is
something terribly wrong with this part of the product.<<<
Couldn't agree with you more.
Bob
Thanks for you input on the paperspace problem.
Personally, I think your concern is well founded. Autodesk is aware
of the problem, and is indeed re-writing their program. However,
discussion of AutoCAD is in the ACAD forum.
Thanks for the tip, must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.