RANT: PCDLRN serialization error strikes AGAIN: lost a complete program AGAIN...

[Jan d.]

It happened again: PC-DMIS hung during a Save and wiped away my program, giving me the dreaded PCDLRN serialization error. First time this happened to me in V4.2. It happened weekly in V4.0, monthly in V4.1 WITH the hotfixes installed. And now it happened in V4.2. Be warned, this monster is still lurking out there.

I lost a week of work, because I got so confident with 4.2 that I quit living by my own BACKUP BACKUP BACKUP rules (as many of you know, just saving a program does not shield you from the devastations of this problem). DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB.OK.

[RANT] This has to be a rant, because clearly Hexagon is unable to see the seriousness of this issue (so I know I can only vent). This issue has been reported now for a year and half and NOTHING is being done about it. It is depressing and rediculous to have to live with this. How can we make this issue into something that Hexagon MUST take notice or takes seriously?

Every time I get this, I get asked to repeat it and I can't. The random nature of this issue is the core of the problem. Once, about a year ago, I figured out how to repeat it and nobody at Hexagon took interest in it. Nobody seemed to care (OK, 1 Hexagon person tried but I never heard from him again). We love to hate the demons, but this is shameful and to be really frank, I am getting fed up with it.

If this problem is so complicated to fix, why not try simple work arounds? For example, take the Silma route to saving programs (create numbered BAK files every time that I save). That would have saved me many days of work... I am sure there are more simple work arounds, that do not fix the problem, but limit the damage when it happens.
HEXAGON: STOP BUYING MORE COMPANIES AND SPEND YOUR MONEY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/RANT]

OK Hoedeman, you win.


Jan.

[Wes Cisco]

It happened again: PC-DMIS hung during a Save and wiped away my program, giving me the dreaded PCDLRN serialization error. First time this happened to me in V4.2. It happened weekly in V4.0, monthly in V4.1 WITH the hotfixes installed. And now it happened in V4.2. Be warned, this monster is still lurking out there.

(Major Snippage)

OK Hoedeman, you win.


Jan.

It is nice to know that if and when I do upgrade to being a 4head my favorite "enhancement" the "PCDLRN error" will still be there. It just would not be the DEMON without the random boot out the door and program destruction. What would we do for frustration?

[EHines]

What would we do for frustration?

I think that there is an engineering cabal out there that makes Wilcox keep the bugs in there so we won't take out our frustration on them.

[Matthew D. Hoedeman]

It happened again: PC-DMIS hung during a Save and wiped away my program, giving me the dreaded PCDLRN serialization error. First time this happened to me in V4.2. It happened weekly in V4.0, monthly in V4.1 WITH the hotfixes installed. And now it happened in V4.2. Be warned, this monster is still lurking out there.

I lost a week of work, because I got so confident with 4.2 that I quit living by my own BACKUP BACKUP BACKUP rules (as many of you know, just saving a program does not shield you from the devastations of this problem). DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB.OK.

[RANT] This has to be a rant, because clearly Hexagon is unable to see the seriousness of this issue (so I know I can only vent). This issue has been reported now for a year and half and NOTHING is being done about it. It is depressing and rediculous to have to live with this. How can we make this issue into something that Hexagon MUST take notice or takes seriously?

Every time I get this, I get asked to repeat it and I can't. The random nature of this issue is the core of the problem. Once, about a year ago, I figured out how to repeat it and nobody at Hexagon took interest in it. Nobody seemed to care (OK, 1 Hexagon person tried but I never heard from him again). We love to hate the demons, but this is shameful and to be really frank, I am getting fed up with it.

If this problem is so complicated to fix, why not try simple work arounds? For example, take the Silma route to saving programs (create numbered BAK files every time that I save). That would have saved me many days of work... I am sure there are more simple work arounds, that do not fix the problem, but limit the damage when it happens.
HEXAGON: STOP BUYING MORE COMPANIES AND SPEND YOUR MONEY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/RANT]

OK Hoedeman, you win.


Jan.

Well, I won't say I told you so, becuase I don't think I told you so, you were stuck starting with V4.x, weren't you?

Yeah, it is getting pretty pi$$-poor out there in Pcdmis-land. I have said for years that they don't give a s#it about us and it just keeps getting justified.

ONCE AGAIN I ASK, HEXAGON, WHO asked for these 'user requested' improvements? They harp on the fact that the USERS are the push behind the changes, but I call bu11shit on that. I have asked about 'SEVERAL' improvments that were added to the software and NOT A SINGLE USER HERE responded. So, that tells me that AT BEST it is a request from some pencil-pusher who does NOT use the software but wants a "PRETTY PICTURE" (even if it doesn't work) or they are due to some new yahoo at Wilcox who 'did it differently' at his last job so he decided to change Pcdmis.

WHO asked for the 'new reporting' method? I have asked this before, got no answer. Who asked for the reports to get fixed? MOST OF US, but we asked for them to get FIXED, not to just dump the problem on us. [email protected], how hard is it to get 'permission' to use the WORD format? Not hard, just costs a little bit of bucks, lord knows they have MILKED US DRY enough with the SMA costs.

AND, I am not an expert on 'coding', but how freaking hard is it to set the 'column' width, which WOULD have fixed a majority of the RTF report problem. I mean, in V3.7 they have it set so you can have a tolerance of +/- 9999999.999 in metric and that only fills the current column width when using +/-1.500mm. BUT, if you increase the tolerance to +/-10.000, it increase the width of the column that is already too [email protected] wide by 4 or 5 characters AT LEAST. And this adds up for ALL the columns. How hard would that have been to fix? OH NO, lets IGNORE YET ANOTHER SERIOUS (yes, serious) ISSUES and JUST DUMP THE REPORT PROBLEM ON THE USERS. Hey, HYPER REPORT, that worked SO FREAKING well that hardly ANYONE used it and most of those that did used it for SETUP not reporting. That was the precursor to the NEW WAY of reporting, and was in it's self a cluster-fuch that didn't work they way it was intended.

Next thing they will improve will be their retirement package, just like the Moble CEO or the Enron CEO or the Disney CEO. Pad their pockets, no matter what and SCREW THE USERS of their service. They don't care, they never did.

Just exactly HOW many different versions of Pcdmis are they currently working on? I'll bet that it is AT LEAST 3. Don't bother to fix the problems, gloss them over with a new release, maybe they will magically fix themselves when something else is screwed up.

I agree with you Jan, this IS pure bu11shit, no two ways about it.

I think we should all take every V3.6, V4.0, V4.1, V4.2, V4.2MR1 CD that we have gotten from them and take them down to Wilcox and shove them so far up their arses that they start coming out their noses.

[cmmguy]

Well, I won't say I told you so, becuase I don't think I told you so, you were stuck starting with V4.x, weren't you?

Yeah, it is getting pretty pi$$-poor out there in Pcdmis-land. I have said for years that they don't give a s#it about us and it just keeps getting justified.

ONCE AGAIN I ASK, HEXAGON, WHO asked for these 'user requested' improvements? They harp on the fact that the USERS are the push behind the changes, but I call bu11shit on that. I have asked about 'SEVERAL' improvments that were added to the software and NOT A SINGLE USER HERE responded. So, that tells me that AT BEST it is a request from some pencil-pusher who does NOT use the software but wants a "PRETTY PICTURE" (even if it doesn't work) or they are due to some new yahoo at Wilcox who 'did it differently' at his last job so he decided to change Pcdmis.

WHO asked for the 'new reporting' method? I have asked this before, got no answer. Who asked for the reports to get fixed? MOST OF US, but we asked for them to get FIXED, not to just dump the problem on us. [email protected], how hard is it to get 'permission' to use the WORD format? Not hard, just costs a little bit of bucks, lord knows they have MILKED US DRY enough with the SMA costs.

AND, I am not an expert on 'coding', but how freaking hard is it to set the 'column' width, which WOULD have fixed a majority of the RTF report problem. I mean, in V3.7 they have it set so you can have a tolerance of +/- 9999999.999 in metric and that only fills the current column width when using +/-1.500mm. BUT, if you increase the tolerance to +/-10.000, it increase the width of the column that is already too [email protected] wide by 4 or 5 characters AT LEAST. And this adds up for ALL the columns. How hard would that have been to fix? OH NO, lets IGNORE YET ANOTHER SERIOUS (yes, serious) ISSUES and JUST DUMP THE REPORT PROBLEM ON THE USERS. Hey, HYPER REPORT, that worked SO FREAKING well that hardly ANYONE used it and most of those that did used it for SETUP not reporting. That was the precursor to the NEW WAY of reporting, and was in it's self a cluster-fuch that didn't work they way it was intended.

Next thing they will improve will be their retirement package, just like the Moble CEO or the Enron CEO or the Disney CEO. Pad their pockets, no matter what and SCREW THE USERS of their service. They don't care, they never did.

Just exactly HOW many different versions of Pcdmis are they currently working on? I'll bet that it is AT LEAST 3. Don't bother to fix the problems, gloss them over with a new release, maybe they will magically fix themselves when something else is screwed up.

I agree with you Jan, this IS pure bu11shit, no two ways about it.

I think we should all take every V3.6, V4.0, V4.1, V4.2, V4.2MR1 CD that we have gotten from them and take them down to Wilcox and shove them so far up their arses that they start coming out their noses.

Easy now, as I recall, one of us said this:

As far as I'm concerned, the 4.2mr1 release is a really nice package. I have very few issues with htis software.

But, as they tailor made the 4.2mr1 to my liking it may not taste as good to some others. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

not too long ago...

[ag162]

WOW!!!! Hostility in the am!! I still favor the old 3.2 ver.

A.Gore

[John Kingston]

AHHHHHHH! The joys of V3.2063!

[Matthew D. Hoedeman]

AHHHHHHH! The joys of V3.3063!

Don't you mean, V3.2063? You edited it! cheater!

[Jan d.]

Easy now, as I recall, one of us said this:

As far as I'm concerned, the 4.2mr1 release is a really nice package. I have very few issues with htis software.

But, as they tailor made the 4.2mr1 to my liking it may not taste as good to some others. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!


not too long ago...

Yes, and I said that too. So let me be clear. Because I run NC, I need something later than 4.0. And 4.2 is still the very best release out there since V4.0. I recommend it to anyone.

HOWEVER, I know of no other software package out there that is so thorough in its program destruction, if and when you get the PCDLRN serialization error. And there are so many simple solutions they can implement to make the loss of work minimal, just in case nobody can localize the root cause of this problem. None of them even discussed or suggested (in case it was a training issue). I am willing to live with all the peculiarities of PC-DMIS because it has some brilliant core capabilities. But it is beyond me why we have to keep on dealing with this one.


Jan.

[JamesMannes]

...and I'll still say that. I am not running NC and I probably am not doing as many complicated things as Jan is.

Believe me, I too have a love/hate relationship with DMIS. I just don't post trash talk all the time. I was just working in ADOBE writer the other day and it blew me out. I was in SOLIDWORKS the other and it too locked up on me. What can I do? All software has its' moments. DMIS more than others.

[Cumofo]

I think the PCDLRN error is graphic card related? Is this correct? It is a memory exeption? I know for me this was reduced, when I started asking my employers to buy really expensive graphic cards.

I dunno. I haven't seen PCDLRN since 3.7 MR2 for me.
but there is a little nag in 4.2MR1:
when I use find vector, the probe path is not updated until I flip the vector a bit.



G

[slesholdofthreep]

Its been said before but I will reiterate just in case the ********* are listening. Just put the finishing touches on a prg this morning (spent days on it) and what did I see? The blue screen of death. All software has bugs but Wilcox needs to quit ignoring this and address the problem !!!

[AJHVW93]

Well, I won't say I told you so, becuase I don't think I told you so, you were stuck starting with V4.x, weren't you?

Yeah, it is getting pretty pi$$-poor out there in Pcdmis-land. I have said for years that they don't give a s#it about us and it just keeps getting justified.

ONCE AGAIN I ASK, HEXAGON, WHO asked for these 'user requested' improvements? They harp on the fact that the USERS are the push behind the changes, but I call bu11shit on that. I have asked about 'SEVERAL' improvments that were added to the software and NOT A SINGLE USER HERE responded. So, that tells me that AT BEST it is a request from some pencil-pusher who does NOT use the software but wants a "PRETTY PICTURE" (even if it doesn't work) or they are due to some new yahoo at Wilcox who 'did it differently' at his last job so he decided to change Pcdmis.

WHO asked for the 'new reporting' method? I have asked this before, got no answer. Who asked for the reports to get fixed? MOST OF US, but we asked for them to get FIXED, not to just dump the problem on us. [email protected], how hard is it to get 'permission' to use the WORD format? Not hard, just costs a little bit of bucks, lord knows they have MILKED US DRY enough with the SMA costs.

AND, I am not an expert on 'coding', but how freaking hard is it to set the 'column' width, which WOULD have fixed a majority of the RTF report problem. I mean, in V3.7 they have it set so you can have a tolerance of +/- 9999999.999 in metric and that only fills the current column width when using +/-1.500mm. BUT, if you increase the tolerance to +/-10.000, it increase the width of the column that is already too [email protected] wide by 4 or 5 characters AT LEAST. And this adds up for ALL the columns. How hard would that have been to fix? OH NO, lets IGNORE YET ANOTHER SERIOUS (yes, serious) ISSUES and JUST DUMP THE REPORT PROBLEM ON THE USERS. Hey, HYPER REPORT, that worked SO FREAKING well that hardly ANYONE used it and most of those that did used it for SETUP not reporting. That was the precursor to the NEW WAY of reporting, and was in it's self a cluster-fuch that didn't work they way it was intended.

Next thing they will improve will be their retirement package, just like the Moble CEO or the Enron CEO or the Disney CEO. Pad their pockets, no matter what and SCREW THE USERS of their service. They don't care, they never did.

Just exactly HOW many different versions of Pcdmis are they currently working on? I'll bet that it is AT LEAST 3. Don't bother to fix the problems, gloss them over with a new release, maybe they will magically fix themselves when something else is screwed up.

I agree with you Jan, this IS pure bu11shit, no two ways about it.

I think we should all take every V3.6, V4.0, V4.1, V4.2, V4.2MR1 CD that we have gotten from them and take them down to Wilcox and shove them so far up their arses that they start coming out their noses.

IM IN !!!! GET THE LYNCH MOB TOGETHER LETS GO!!!!!

[Matthew D. Hoedeman]

IM IN !!!! GET THE LYNCH MOB TOGETHER LETS GO!!!!!

Well, I can get 8 to 9 guys in my truck, so I guess that's a start.

[JaredHess]

Folks, this problem isn't being ignored. We attempt to address it anytime it's reported. However, I'm guessing that actually duplicating the problem is probably the issue. I would recommend contacting tech support with as much information as you can supply (specific files/configurations used, procedures immediately taken before the crash etc).