member release code incorrect

[Anonymous]

I’d expect that the member release code (e.g., xxxxxx xxxxff) would uniquely and accurately describe a member release but unfortunately this does not seem to be true.  Robot appears to have an additional “feature” I’m unfamiliar with that changes the application of a release definition based on what I’ll call the “hover-arrow” (please correct me with the right term).  For example, the figure below shows the same release (i.e., Fixed-Pinned) applied to two members but the orientation of the release is reversed for member 1.  Effectively it is what I would call Pinned-Fixed, which is not what I applied nor what the table shows. 

This was done by clicking on member 1 to assign the release when the “hover-arrow” points in a direction opposite to the member orientation as shown above.  Unfortunately, the member table indicates that member 1 is released at the far end (node 2) but this feature appears to override/modify this definition.  Further, the existence of this hover-arrow override is not reflected in the table which seems misleading/incomplete.  So then, I have the following questions:

1. What is the correct term for the “hover-arrow”?
2. Does the hover-arrow have other meaning or use beyond assigning member releases?  If so, is it aligned and corrected internally when clicking or does the same inconsistency remain in other uses (e.g., maybe member loads, or …)?  In other words, is the member release the only place where this inconsistency remains apparent in the model? 
3. How can I determine when the hover-arrow feature has been applied?  For clarity, I don’t mean scanning graphically for inconsistencies like member 1 above but how can this be checked in a “real” model?  Possibly by table or API? 
4. Is it possible to disable this feature?  In other words, can I click on a member and simply apply the release that I specified without regard to where I click on the member?  It appears that the hover-arrow feature is not active when working with a list, but that’s not the question. 
5. Is it possible to correct the release if this feature has already been used/applied?  I’m guessing the “best” suggestion is to first select all members with a given release type and then reassign it, yes?  In reassigning it though the releases may be changed.  I know it can be actually corrected by writing to str format and then reading it.  This will create new releases which are correctly aligned but obviously this has other shortcomings.  Is there anything better than these options? 
6. How can I find the actual release condition applied?  For clarity this is not graphically, which we already see above, but instead say a table.  For example, this would give the actual release for member 1 as xxxfffxxxxxx instead of what’s incorrectly shown in the table above. 

Naturally all items are of interest but the last one particularly so as Robot appears to present incorrect/incomplete information. 

Thanks,

Keith

[Rafacascudo]

Never had problems with that.

2 ways of assigning releases.

1-graphically - bar by bar - Cursor turns into a release icon. When you pass the cursor over the bar ,an arrow indicates the "direction" of the release.If fixed-pinned, fixed side will be the star of the arrow side. Arrow direction changes when you reach bar mid span. Very practical.

2- bar list inputted on release dialog. It will obey bar start and end nodes. Fixed will be on bar start node.

[Anonymous]

OMG!!  This is hilarious.  Are you familiar with the TV show Jeopardy?  Where the contestants provide the correct questions to the answers that the host gives?  My questions to your answers are:

a) have you ever had a problem with this?

b) how can I apply member releases?

Now what do I win Alex? 

For clarity none of what you said addresses my actual questions in the initial post.  Not even close.  It's as if you didn't even read it.  Beyond not asking either question, I'm not sure why you can't tell that I've already got the answer to question (b).  Is it not clear to you from the body of the post that I already know how to apply releases? (more careful reading will help you in this regard)  I appreciate your interest and dedication but frankly bad answers like this really detract from what is otherwise a decent program.  If you don't know, that's fine.  It doesn't make you less smart to remain silent when you don't know the answer.  I really appreciate and admire that you're eager to help and I'm sure you really do in many many many instances.  Unfortunately this time was a full miss, but thanks for your effort.  

Hope someone else can help ...

Thanks,

Keith

[Simau]

I could try to help you, but given your behavior with @Rafacascudo , I prefer to abstain

[Anonymous]

There is nothing wrong with my behavior.  He simply didn't answer any of the questions I asked, to which I take no offense.  Further he answered two questions I didn't ask to which I also take no offense.  I pointed out both, which is simply a matter of fact, not poor behavior. 

It is unfortunate that you're upset about these facts.  Again this really detracts from what is otherwise a fairly decent program.  Please know that is not my intent to upset anyone.  That said, you're entitled to feel offended if that's your nature or inclination.  Not sure if that helps though.  I do apologize to both you and him (even though he didn't express being offended) if either of you have your feelings hurt over any aspect of my post and/or my reply.   

Thinking more on it, I wonder if perhaps you're referring to the words in bold face font, which you may infer as me "shouting" at him.  If so, you're wrong.  The selection of bold face was done in an edit (for clarity) just after I hit the post button.  I wanted it to show up as an edit for clarity but I assume that too is lost.  

Best regards,

Keith  

[Anonymous]

Did you not see that I fully acknowledge his significant efforts and contributions by using 'many' three times?  That was not a typo.  It does not represent poor behavior on my part and surely there's nothing disrespectful there.  I think you're trying to misinterpret my meaning, which will always be possible if you try.  In fact, you're probably thinking right now by me pointing this out that I'm being rude to you too, which is truly not my intent.  

[Anonymous]

And thinking a bit more about it, no matter what your interpretation and judgement is of me, I assert that it is very poor behavior for you to intentionally withhold information that could be useful to the community.   It suggests that you frequently discriminate against others in this manner according to your own feelings.  

[Stephane.kapetanovic]

In API, try looking for a property named "ReversedRelease" that reverses "origin and end" on the bar in a RobotBar.

There are other cases, for haunchs, for offsets, etc. Member release code is not incorrect just reversed.

Robot API.chm is placed in C:\Program Files\Autodesk\Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2021\SDK

the forum is the result of voluntary work.

[Anonymous]

Hi @Stephane.kapetanovic .  Excellent!  Yes, this is very helpful.  For the benefit of the community I’ll try to merge my understanding/assumptions with your information to form (semi)complete answers to the original questions.  Please let me know if this needs correction. 

1. We don’t have a formal term for it; what you suggest is fine.
2. Yes there are other uses, and it follows a mixed implementation.  For example it is not automatically corrected when an associated term exists in the API doc (e.g., ReversedOffset, ReversedRelease, ReversedSection).  In contrast it is automatically corrected as you suspect for other things like e.g., member loads.  Whether or not is best identified by the presence/absence of a ReversedXXX term in the API doc; I don’t believe a complete list exists. 
3. You cannot tell if the hover-arrow feature has been applied in tables or anywhere else in the GUI, only by API (see post 8 above) 
4. No, it is not possible to disable
5. In addition to the options you note, this could probably also be corrected by writing your own routine.  Conceptually you would loop over all members and if ReversedRelease is true create a new “mirrored” release definition (if it doesn’t already exist) and then apply that.  You’ll also need to unset the flag. 
6. You cannot see the correct release codes without using the API.  Robot will show incorrect release codes if both a) the release is not symmetric and b) the hover-arrow feature was used to set the internal flag ReversedRelease to true (i.e., which is not visible in the GUI thus you cannot tell)

I did note that you contend what Robot shows is not incorrect however I’d like to very kindly and most respectfully disagree.  I believe I understand your meaning about “just reversed” and agree that when considered all together, the implementation is correct.  Please don’t misinterpret my use of language as rude or poor behavior as I really don’t mean to offend you or anyone here.  That said, I do assert that presenting the release code without the status of the flag is indeed incorrect.  If you read the table above it’s just wrong, that’s all.  If you re-read my initial post you may please kindly note the use of ‘incorrect/incomplete’.  I try to be rather precise with my words and phrasing and believe this still applies.  In fact, if it makes you feel any better, I very gently and delicately offer that perhaps you might please consider me to indicate that it’s incorrect because it’s incomplete.  I think maybe that somehow makes it “less” incorrect for you (whatever that might mean).  For me it’s still incorrect.  

Please note that this doesn’t mean I think you’re a bad person nor does it warrant further assault on my behavior as given above.  I do note that folks on this forum seem to take it extremely personally when faced with something that might be wrong and I reiterate that I don’t mean to offend anyone.  Please do not be upset that it is wrong – I’m surely not.  In fact, the real offense I can identify is me spending a great deal of time researching the issue and forming a complete well-phrased question and then having it summarily dismissed with a non-answer and followed up by such an assault on my behavior.  I should certainly receive an apology for both but expect it will never come.  Yes, this unfortunately places a stain on a group of otherwise wonderfully knowledgeable and dedicated folks (yourself included).  This is also not the experience other software companies provide (i.e., theirs is better, partly because they don’t assault my behavior when I ask a question).  I appreciate your help and maturity and sincerely offer this in hope that it also might help someone else with a similar issue. 

Please review the responses above, as without further direction/clarification I believe this represents the solution to the questions posed.  Despite this, I’m happy enough to mark you answer as the solution instead if you get points for it even though it does not answer all questions because clearly you provided the “missing link”. 

Many thanks,

Keith

[Stephane.kapetanovic · Accepted solution]

Quotation marks around the term "wrong" indicate that reading the release code literally from the table is not sufficient.

On the other hand, the information exists in graphic form and through the table of properties.

You can make a remark to the development team.

[Anonymous]

Hi @Stephane.kapetanovic .  Great Job!  Many thanks for your help.  I'll mark yours as the solution because your help was instrumental however I'd also like to suggest that the interested reader review message 9 for more detail on answers to the original questions.  Best regards.  

[okapawal]

This issue has been resolved with Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2023 release.

Please find more in the Release Notes

Regards

Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis team