TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: Mark on July 27, 2009, 03:05:01 PM
-
This is why I love working with C3D ....
Notice the output from the inquiry -> angle information (cgang). LOL
-
It took the scenic route :-D
-
and what are your Ambient Settings in regards angular information? (that is what controls the inquiry output)
Select first line or [Points]:
Second line:
The acute angle is 90° 30' 53"
The obtuse angle is 269° 29' 07"
-
and what are your Ambient Settings in regards angular information? (that is what controls the inquiry output)
as in ...
-
To my knowledge, C3D always reports it so that acute + obtuse = 360 degrees, regardless of what you pick. I'm not aware of any way to change that.
-
yes...I think I was 'only' looking at how format of the dimension string and the inquiry output did not match in formatting...
not how cute or obtuse the angle was...
-
Looks like the programmers forgot their dictionary. An obtuse angle is an angle that is greater then 90 but less then 180 degrees. What this is reporting is the reflex angle.
-
For those who missed it, the output from the the CGANG command should have been 90.2404. It doesn't matter which lines you pick the command will only return two correct angles.
-
Looks like the programmers forgot their dictionary. An obtuse angle is an angle that is greater then 90 but less then 180 degrees. What this is reporting is the reflex angle.
You can outsource your programming, however you can not make them learn English....
my favorite BAD grammar is the prompt for creating ones, design profile...
Select profile view to create profile:
this prompt would be much easier for the user if it had proper grammar
as in:
Select THE profile view to create THE profile IN:
this doesn't even require good programming skills....however it would add greater usability to the application.
-
For those who missed it, the output from the the CGANG command should have been 90.2404. It doesn't matter which lines you pick the command will only return two correct angles.
I have constructed similar geometry here, and can not get it to give the 'wrong' answer you have there irrespective of the pick order of the objects.
-
this prompt would be much easier for the user if it had proper grammar
as in:
Select THE profile view to create THE profile IN:
I don't care much about that. Shorter prompts are sometimes convenient.
It's the things like this (from the Transformation Tab help) that get me:
The sea level scale factor relates the distances on the geoid to the distances on the ellipsoid.
Ummm... That's so wrong... We do not use scale factors to get from geoid to ellipsoid, EVER. It really makes me worry about the internal programming.
Not any worse, however, than this blurb explaining the grid scale factor, also from the help for the Transformation Tab:
Prismoidal Formula: Uses the prismoidal formula to calculate the grid scale factor. This method is recommended because it accounts for the fact that every point has a different scale factor. The following equation is used to calculate prismoidal scale factor.
The Help then gives the equation we use to approximate ellipsoid distances when using grid coordinate systems. This equation has no place at all in coordinate transformations, and should not even be there.
And people wonder why they have a hard time understanding the Transformation Tab... :-o
-
For those who missed it, the output from the the CGANG command should have been 90.2404. It doesn't matter which lines you pick the command will only return two correct angles.
I have constructed similar geometry here, and can not get it to give the 'wrong' answer you have there irrespective of the pick order of the objects.
try this.
-
At least they're consistently wrong, as in the attached image (which does NOT have an acute angle in it).
-
For those who missed it, the output from the the CGANG command should have been 90.2404. It doesn't matter which lines you pick the command will only return two correct angles.
I have constructed similar geometry here, and can not get it to give the 'wrong' answer you have there irrespective of the pick order of the objects.
try this.
That isn't crazy....
it's just WRONG! :-o
OMG!!
If I had any faith in autodesk; this would have shattered it all to pieces! :lmao:
-
For those who missed it, the output from the the CGANG command should have been 90.2404. It doesn't matter which lines you pick the command will only return two correct angles.
I have constructed similar geometry here, and can not get it to give the 'wrong' answer you have there irrespective of the pick order of the objects.
try this.
That isn't crazy....
it's just WRONG! :-o
OMG!!
If I had any faith in autodesk; this would have shattered it all to pieces! :lmao:
Not sure how you meant that to come across but ... to me it looks like you're mocking me, which I don't find the least bit humorous.
The fact that one autocad command (dimension) can accurately describe the angle and the other (gcang part of the civil package) cannot makes me skeptical of all things Civil3D. Of course it _only_ costs $7,995 so if it gets an angle wrong here of there its really no big deal!!
Now Michael what were you saying about using the right software for the job? LOL
-
Mark, not mocking you..stating a fact...that the answer it gave is WRONG (confirming your observation).
Uh, it would be the 'right' software for the job, should autodesk chose to actually TEST and FIX the problems as they were discovered. Even if that discovery was made by the users, and not met with a wall of denial that problems do exists in the application.
-
Mark, not mocking you..stating a fact...that the answer it gave is WRONG (confirming your observation).
Thanks. I'm glad the problem doesn't exist on my computer only.
-
Mark, not mocking you..stating a fact...that the answer it gave is WRONG (confirming your observation).
Thanks. I'm glad the problem doesn't exist on my computer only.
I'm guessing we have already forwarded this issue to our local autodesk dealer, so that they can forward this to the product development team, so that they can promptly (ignore, or deny) the problem. Right?
At this point I am now mocking autodesk technical support practices.....