I just used the new "Mirror in two Directions" feature.

[Glenn Schroeder]

It seems to work well.

[DanPihlaja]

It seems to work well.


image.png

If you create a counterbored hole or a threaded hole, does it carry through to the Hole Callout at the drawing level?

[Glenn Schroeder]

If you create a counterbored hole or a threaded hole, does it carry through to the Hole Callout at the drawing level?

I had to modify my model to check, since I never use those features, but here it is. It looks like it worked okay except for the count. (Similar to the example above, I had one instance and mirrored the others in a single feature.)

To be honest, I'd probably rarely use this feature for holes since I normally create them with the Hole Wizard. I'm not sure why I didn't this time.

[RichGergely]

Does this work on bodies?

[mattpeneguy]

Shouldn't that be 4x?

[Glenn Schroeder]

Shouldn't that be 4x?

Yes.

[mattpeneguy]

Yes.


image.png

Well it should be expected behavior...This is new functionality in SW...So, obviously nobody tested it yet.

[SPerman]

They just got it where the normal mirror features reports the correct count for hole wizard features. They will get that fixed for double mirrors before the end of the decade.

[mattpeneguy]

They just got it where the normal mirror features reports the correct count for hole wizard features. They will get that fixed for double mirrors before the end of the decade.

That is if Glenn, as part of the beta team, filed it.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Does this work on bodies?

Yes.

[Glenn Schroeder]

That is if Glenn, as part of the beta team, filed it.

I sent an email to GoEngineer, linking to this discussion. They're pretty good about checking out bugs and submitting them up the chain, so we'll see what happens.

[mattpeneguy]

Let me get the SW QA/QC program straight...

1. Hold top ten on the 3DXP platform with 0.001% of SW users participating.
2. Ignore number 1 and 2.
3. Kludge together code to implement a new feature which may or may not have been on the top ten list.
4. Confirm that feature does in fact do something.
5. Release the feature.
6. Have Beta users discover bugs in the feature.
7. Beta user then posts to a forum not affiliated with SW.
8. Beta user then points a SW VAR to the forum.
9. VAR contacts SW and SW creates a bug report.
10. SW fixes bug.
11. SW notifies VAR.
12. VAR posts to the non-affiliated forum the bug is fixed.
13. Beta user discovers bug is fixed via forum.

I'm being generous here, I'm not 100% certain they bother with step 4...

But, I'm convinced this method is more streamlined than the official bug reporting system over on 3DXP...About that, did they ever get that up and running?

[DanPihlaja]

Let me get the SW QA/QC program straight...

1. Hold top ten on the 3DXP platform with 0.001% of SW users participating.
2. Ignore number 1 and 2.
3. Kludge together code to implement a new feature which may or may not have been on the top ten list.
4. Confirm that feature does in fact do something.
5. Release the feature.
6. Have Beta users discover bugs in the feature.
7. Beta user then posts to a forum not affiliated with SW.
8. Beta user then points a SW VAR to the forum.
9. VAR contacts SW and SW creates a bug report.
10. SW fixes bug.
11. SW notifies VAR.
12. VAR posts to the non-affiliated forum the bug is fixed.
13. Beta user discovers bug is fixed via forum.

I'm being generous here, I'm not 100% certain they bother with step 4...

But, I'm convinced this method is more streamlined than the official bug reporting system over on 3DXP...About that, did they ever get that up and running?

The time distance between 9 & 10 can be decades. Not all the time.....but it can be a huge time.

[SPerman]

I feel like the 10 ten list is mostly a pointless exercise to make the users feel like they have input. The developers priorities are set by endless hours of meetings. Every once in a while one of those priorities align with the top 10 list and they get to say "See, we are listening to you."

[JSculley]

But, I'm convinced this method is more streamlined than the official bug reporting system over on 3DXP...About that, did they ever get that up and running?

I submitted a request on the new 3DEXPERIENCE|3D Dashboard 3DSupport (yes, that's what it is actually called) last Wednesday. Essentially, I asked for the machine names where several of our serial numbers are activated. We've had some user/computer churn and the status of some serial numbers is in question. I marked it with Medium urgency, just because it isn't vital, but I'd like an answer sooner rather than later.

After submittal, the status changed to 'Partner Analysis' which I assume means that it went from Dassault to our VAR. Since then it's been crickets. Zero communication from anyone. We'll see what happens.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Let me get the SW QA/QC program straight...

1. Hold top ten on the 3DXP platform with 0.001% of SW users participating.
2. Ignore number 1 and 2.
3. Kludge together code to implement a new feature which may or may not have been on the top ten list.
4. Confirm that feature does in fact do something.
5. Release the feature.
6. Have Beta users discover bugs in the feature.
7. Beta user then posts to a forum not affiliated with SW.
8. Beta user then points a SW VAR to the forum.
9. VAR contacts SW and SW creates a bug report.
10. SW fixes bug.
11. SW notifies VAR.
12. VAR posts to the non-affiliated forum the bug is fixed.
13. Beta user discovers bug is fixed via forum.

I'm being generous here, I'm not 100% certain they bother with step 4...

But, I'm convinced this method is more streamlined than the official bug reporting system over on 3DXP...About that, did they ever get that up and running?

Do you think that's what happened when they added the feature that has the pop-up relations toolbar for sketch entities in drawings? I'm asking because I'm having trouble believing that someone thought it was a good idea for it to pop up if you select a model edge and then a drawing entity, but not if you reverse the order of selection.

[mattpeneguy]

I feel like the 10 ten list is mostly a pointless exercise to make the users feel like they have input. The developers priorities are set by endless hours of meetings. Every once in a while one of those priorities align with the top 10 list and they get to say "See, we are listening to you."

I tend to think the process is more convoluted than that...But essentially you are correct as far as I can tell.

[mattpeneguy]

I submitted a request on the new 3DEXPERIENCE|3D Dashboard 3DSupport (yes, that's what it is actually called) last Wednesday. Essentially, I asked for the machine names where several of our serial numbers are activated. We've had some user/computer churn and the status of some serial numbers is in question. I marked it with Medium urgency, just because it isn't vital, but I'd like an answer sooner rather than later.

After submittal, the status changed to 'Partner Analysis' which I assume means that it went from Dassault to our VAR. Since then it's been crickets. Zero communication from anyone. We'll see what happens.

What on God's green flat earth lead you to believe that the Support module over there is working correctly? I'd assume you are the first Beta tester of it. From my experience, that's a safer assumption.

Don't worry, that license management part is under development and should be released in May...

[mattpeneguy]

Do you think that's what happened when they added the feature that has the pop-up relations toolbar for sketch entities in drawings? I'm asking because I'm having trouble believing that someone thought it was a good idea for it to pop up if you select a model edge and then a drawing entity, but not if you reverse the order of selection.

Honestly I have no idea. I haven't played with any SW past 2020. When did they add that?

Sometimes there's a reason that isn't always apparent for the way things work. Don't know if that's the case here, but it could be.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Honestly I have no idea. I haven't played with any SW past 2020. When did they add that?

Sometimes there's a reason that isn't always apparent for the way things work. Don't know if that's the case here, but it could be.

I think it was SW2022.

[Glenn Schroeder]

I heard back from GoEngineer yesterday after I had gone home. It's a known issue, and already has a SPR number.