Actually, the code for determining the Hatch origin was changed in AutoCAD
so users would have more control over it. The Details code was supposed to
react accordingly and something slipped through the cracks.
I'm not making excuses, it shouldn't have regressed. But I do want to point
out that the QA team does a fantastic job. Any large program, such as ADT,
is a combination of hundreds of libraries of code from many different groups
and companies. Changes to the underlying OS, hardware, graphics drivers,
and in this case, base platform, create an enormous number of variables to
track.
We apologize for the inconvenience, and we'll get it fixed as soon as
possible.
Jim Awe
Autodesk, Inc.
"David Kurtz" wrote in message
news:4889091@discussion.autodesk.com...
Gary Whitehill wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, Dennis and especially David. I was hoping this was
> not the case. I don't understand how something that worked fine in 2005
> does not in 2006 - seems like the code for the insertion routine was
> changed. yeah we can go through the pain of resetting all the origins but
> we should not have to do that! - It's all your fault, Dennis - Ha!
The problem is most likely poor regression testing and perhaps an
over-reliance on unpaid beta testers to report bugs. No doubt this was
introduced as they rework the DCM routine to add "edit" features, which
was a great addition, but the bug is a troublesome additional "feature".
> Thanks again David and Dennis. at least now I know where I stand.
Your welcome. Let me know if you find anything else. I plan to leverage
our expensive subscription account for all it's worth to get some timely
answers as much as possible now.
--
David Kurtz
Peckham & Wright Architects, Inc.
Columbia, Missouri