Posted by: SUPERPIPER
V5.1 better? - 11/28/07 04:43 AM
I'm finding it a bit slow and buggy, althou i should imagine that its my previous dependance on V5.0
Posted by: John C. Luf
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/28/07 09:35 AM
Meh = ???
I assumed neutral????
Posted by: John Grim
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/28/07 12:04 PM
I still miss version 4.5, although I feel that I have not learned how to use the features of version 5.x.
Ideally, the change from one version to another should be transparent.
Posted by: Paul Bond
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/28/07 12:10 PM
My favourite version is still 3.24D. Before windows, you could do everything with keyboard shortcuts, and graphics didn't slow down input. I know, I know, I'm impatient!
Posted by: SUPERPIPER
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/29/07 03:51 AM
i'm pulling my hair out trying to print off a snap shot of the model.
*i can't turn off the markers
* none of the "save as graphics file" work
add, it will not print single line , no matter what the settings are
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGG.
fustrating.
Posted by: Toki
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/29/07 04:36 AM
I'm enjoying it. so far....so good.
Posted by: Jouko
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/30/07 12:16 AM
To print graphics is about always problematic. You may want to turn off any colour in background. I do not try to print from CAESAR II direct. I use my 100% working Hypersnap to take screen image. Never fails, cheap and many file formats to use.
Posted by: machoguy
Re: V5.1 better? - 11/30/07 07:05 AM
Im still using my old version 4.5 because it is still available in my work although there are already version 5.0. See, we still dont have version 5.1. How sad..
_________________________
Regards,
Machoguy
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Posted by: I Demir
Re: V5.1 better? - 12/02/07 04:57 AM
I have found Version 5.10 improved. I have especially faund the flange equivalent output ( basically flange force screening ) very efficient to evaluate flanges or loads concentrated on flange locations.
I wish the nozzle calculation (to WRC, API and BS) can be done the same way. This will eliminate the time wasted during the evaluation of nozzles.
It was probably mentioned in the earlier topics, I still wish to see the loads (FX, FY, FX, MX, MY, MZ) on the element in the graphic form somehow to be able to see the behaviour of the pipe routing and supports. Seeing the loads in the glabal coordinate system gives better feeling in the evaluation/modification of piping.
Ibrahim Demir