Poll - Database of Known Bugs - Do we need one?

[Andrew Owens]

Should IronCAD LLC publish a database/list of known bugs and workarounds for each version of IronCAD software? Would such a database/list be helpful to you? Would it allow you to use the software more effectively, and/or allow you to more intelligently make posts to the IronCAD community BBS?

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Andrew Owens

[B. Ludin]

The only question is: What is a 'known bug'? Many bugs that are reported seem to be setup specific and do not originate from IC (only). What would the criterion be? Confirmation by at least 2 other users?

 

Beat

 

 

[Andrew Owens]

Beat,

 

I think that all the bugs that the IronCAD staff knows about should be included in the database/list. It should have categories for all IronCAD software by version number. Each version should also have sub-categories for setup specific problems. I also think that the database/list should be completely maintained by the IronCAD staff, after all, they are the only ones that really know all the confirmed bugs that are in the products.

 

By the way, what ever happened to the Bug Hunt category of the BBS?

 

 

Andy

 

[gbird]

I agree with Andy. We need a bug list as he proposes.

 

It should save time by aiding users who encounter a problem in IC to to determine wether the problem is a bug, a functionality issue or an operator error.

 

Also I would think that it will reduce IronCAD LLC's overhead from duplicate bug reporting and Tech Support requests.

 

Geoffrey

[Guest svangeldern]

Guys,

 

I think a list of all know bugs would be very helpful, and voted that way, but here is something I don't understand...

 

This post has been read 149 times and yet there are only 17 votes shown in the poll. I think it is going to take a few more votes to get IC's attention. As a matter of fact, the forum only has 115 members. Where are all the other IC users?

 

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest IronKevin]

A list of bugs has been considered in the past and it was decided that we wouldn't provide that. Perhaps if more users did vote that might make a difference.

 

Also, if you go the Forum Stats page you will see that there are 1037 members on the forum.

 

IronKevin

 

 

[Chris Lohman]

One comment on the members. The 1037 is only the users that we have email addresses for. It's very common for a company to purchase multiple seats but only register one user: Only that one user is represented on the forum members list. If companies would send us more names and email addresses of their users, there would be MUCH higher numbers in the member list.

 

 

[Guest svangeldern]

Whoops....I got the number of members from the bottom of the forum categories page. I guess I should have said "vocal" members

 

Steve

 

 

[dsulli]

Although this info would be helpful for us users, it could be very detrimental to IC if it were to end up in the wrong hands. This is why I believe this idea has been rejected in the past. Occasionally, I will discover one, but because of time constraints, do not report it. However, when at all possible, I do inform my VAR and in most cases, the problem is forwarded to IC.

 

The problem I have at work is getting people who remember IC V1.0 and V2.0's 2D limitations and bugs, to use the latest 2D features in 5.0. These guys actually create 2D views in IC and then export to ACAD to fully-detail all the views. Unfortunately, they don't work for me and their immediate supervisors allow the ACAD dimensioning to continue. However, I will continue to push for the shift away from ACAD. Certainly, enhancements by IC to the 2D end of CAD work is very much appreciated and can only help to convince the "diehards" to use IC's 2D more often.

[Andrew Owens]

dsulli,

 

You said, "it could be very detrimental to IC if it were to end up in the wrong hands". Please clarify this statement; under what circumstances could this happen?

 

I believe that by publishing all the bugs, it would put a continuous pressure on IronCAD to fix the existing IC functionally with each new release. Getting the existing functionality to work as advertised has been a big issue in the past, especially before IronCAD LLC, in the Alventive (cringe!) days, and its been called for again recently; Dont add new stuff until the old stuff works properly! Many new features have been added and don't work properly, and all too often, fall short of a complete implementation, as is the case with many of the functions of IC. The existing code base has many bugs, of which many have existed since version 3 or earlier. A bug that is swept under the rug will stay there and accumulate with rest. We all know the old saying out of sight -- out of mind. Bad code doesnt fix itself or go away if left alone, it comes back to haunt you! It is in the best interests of IronCAD get these issues resolved ASAP. Then, and only then, will it make sense to add new features! If IronCAD would do this, it could only be for the better, and publishing a bug database would be a good first step.

 

Alventive and IronCAD have two disturbing parallels; the way this bug issue is handled, and the fact that new code continues to be released without fixing old bugs. We all know what a joy IC is to use, lets dont do an Alventive, lets be proactive and make IC even better!

 

Sincerely,

Andy Owens

 

 

[cborer]

Andrew

As I see we all hate Alventive, maybe we should sue them?

 

 

[B. Ludin]

What for?

I know jurisdiction in the US is evolving in direction where that question becomes irrelevant, but to date, I think you still need a cause of some sort

;-)

 

 

[pdomenicali]

Ironcad is like the little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead (US children's nursery rhyme): when it's good, it's very good, but when it's bad, it's horrid.

 

Or it's like a high-performance Italian sports car. For an afficionado, it's the only way to fly, but one must live with having it in the garage a lot for repairs. Along comes Mitsubishi (SolidWorks) and makes a product a bit more staid and not quite as blood-curdling, but so very reliable and predictable (OK, I know I'm stretching the point a bit thin here).

 

As 5.2 is being released, I decided to go ahead and upgrade from 4.2 to 5.0 (I've had the CD sitting on my desk for months, but was in the middle of several design projects and have a rule about never upgrading CAD until the current project is finished.) Here are my observations:

 

1. Several times I've saved the current scene file, then hit the close button, only to get a dialog box telling me that linked files have changed since the last save, do I want to save them. This shouldn't happen if I've just saved. It's trivial if the scene file is small. But when it's a large assembly that takes 5 to 10 minutes to save to disk (local hard drive), waiting that long again is a real waste of time. OTOH, if I answer "No", I risk losing something that for some reason didn't get saved the first time. Isn't that the point of having the s/w track the save status for us?

 

2. Once (and it was repeatable in that circumstance) I used the zoom window command and the resulting view position did not at all correspond to the box drawn on the screen. Maybe this is some kind of graphics card bug, but I've never seen it at all in 4.2 or before. Very frustrating to not be able to zoom in to the place you're trying to see (note this was NOT a case of zooming in very small, the parts were normal size, many mm across).

 

3. There is still no saving of the scene browser status and width with the scene file. Yet all view status buttons ARE saved, such as Smart Dimensions, Intellishape Sizebox Dims, Rendering Options, etc. All other normal Windows programs save the working window conditions with the file, like Excel, Word, etc. I know this is minor, but it's been requested for years.

 

4. Still no hotkey zooming/panning in 2D mode. Having to use screen buttons for + and - zoom or zoom window is a real productivity drag. I can't believe this would be that difficult to implement. CoCreate ME10 has had it for years, as do Visio and SolidWorks (2D & 3D). I don't consider this minor, and it has been also requested for years.

 

So I think "Yes, it's very important" to have an online bug list, plus an online enhancement list. The forum section is great, but we need to see a list of which enhancement requests have been formally acknowledged, and whether or when they will get transfered to a list of those being actively pursued. Maybe users could vote periodically on the list of items acknowledged but not implemented yet, to help set priorities for the developers.

 

Regards,

Peter Domenicali

[B. Ludin]

Concerning Peter's post:

 

1. Yes. Absolutely. Very annoying. Meant to bicker and rant about that for quite some time, just never got round to do it. Furthermore, I would like to see in the Scene Browser, which assemblies/parts are externally linked (I've already asked for that in the enhancements forum) and which of these have changed. This would make working with part libraries so much easier.

 

2. Haven't come across that yet. But I never work in perspective mode, maybe that's the reason.

 

3. Minor nuisance. Which doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fixed.

 

4. I fully agree with that, too.

 

BTW, point 3 and 4 are isolated issues, i.e. they should be very easy to implement w/o having to fear that they will adversly affect other parts of the software. The same is true of many other enhancement requested, e.g. planar constraint for the tri-ball. I know, these things always look a bit simpler if you don't have to do them yourself. Still, I can't understand it takes so long to implement them. May I insinuate that this kind of simple stuff would be considered boring by most code writers and thus it gets laid off again and again?

 

Point 1 may be a bit more difficult and challenging - but certainly worth the effort.

 

Just my 0.02

 

Beat

 

 

[Andrew Owens]

Peter & Beat,

 

I'm glad that you guys feel the same about this issue as I do. About the programmers; I really cant believe that creating a proper User-Interface for IC would make any of IronCAD's programmers feel bored, on the contrary, making IC into the program it 'should be' by detailing the UI and fixing the bugs is something that the programmers should want to do. If any of their programmers (or management) think that IC is fine as is, well, they should be looking for a new job, because IronCAD and their customers dont need that kind of mindset. It's the little things, the details that can really make a difference in productivity, and it certainly makes a big difference in customer satisfaction. If IronCAD really thinks IC is giving its customers a 380 percent increase in productivity, the changes we are talking about will push that up another 100 percent.

 

The real problem probably isnt with the programmers; they just do what theyre told to do. The problem is with the people that are making the decisions. I dont want to badmouth or downplay IronCADs management; Im just stating the facts. IronCAD LLC has done a great job so far, but its time for someone at IronCAD to put the hammer down and get these things fixed! The way things are going now has the scent of Alventive written all over it, and its starting to get a bit stinky in here.

 

What I do know from my 26 years in the computer field is that customer service and satisfaction are all that matters. If IronCAD just focuses on the IC product the way it is now, thing will be much better. With clever marketing and high-pressure salesmen you can sell anything to just about anyone, but if you have a world-class product, people will flock to your doorstep to get it. IC is just about there just needs some polish.

 

Andy

 

[dsulli]

Andrew,

 

Under what circumstances would this happen? I can think of one very likely scenario: A user of IronCAD decides to buy Think 3 or Inventor (or any of a bunch of competitors). While still technically a "member" of the IronCAD user group, that person notices that a list of IC bugs, past and present is listed here in this forum. With a quick cut and paste, the "traitor" sends the info to his or her Inventor VAR and shortly thereafter, the VARs are showing the list to potential customers.

 

Hard to believe? It happens in this industry. Back a few years ago, a Mechanical Desktop/Inventor VAR told me that Autodesk had just "recruited" all of the best programmers from VDS and that IRONCAD would soon become history. This is the kind of stuff that gets passed around when sales are the ultimate goal.

 

Now I'm not at all suggesting that bugs should be excused to allow the new and exciting stuff to get implemented. It's just that you may not be able to act as IC's developement manager by constantly badgering them.

 

Before we purchased IC, I played around with SolidWorks. After creating a pyramid-shape with counterbored holes in each facet, I tried to array the holes to the other facets. The program arrayed the holes but did not turn each hole so that its axis was pointing toeard the center axis of the part. When I presented the problem to the VAR, they told me that the program couldn't perform the operation and that this "bug" was being sent to headquarters. Imagine that - SolidWorks 98 not being able to properly rotate a counterbored hole!

 

What I'm trying to say here is that every program has bugs and the more attention that is paid to fixing these bugs, the greater the chance that sales will improve. However, listing the bugs and acting as program manager may not be the best solution.

[B. Ludin]

Well, listing known bugs has nothing to do with putting pressure on IC LLC or whatever. It would simply save people from wasting a lot of time trying to figure out if they are doing something wrong or if it is just a bug.

 

Beat