ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Accepted Solutions
@MJ-StrEng wrote:
Here is what I noticed:
M-C 15 is using unit lb (pound) as force; M-C Prime is using lb as mass and lbf as force so after conversion you have to manually delete gravity elements from the result and replace it with lbf
No, MC15 and Prime deal similarly with those units. lb is not a force in MC15
For now forget about changing from SI to USCS and write a simple worksheet in MC15
Now convert this worksheet into MC Prime and remove plf = lb/ft since you do not need it anymore; plf is built into MC Prime unit system; and watch what happens to value of M
That behaviour is as it should be.
plf is a predefined unit in MC15 as well as in Prime and of course its defined the same way in both:
What you are doing is redefining that unit in a different way. Actually in MC15 units are simple variables and so you are defining a variable plf !
After converting you still have your variable plf defined. When you delete it, the "plf" in your definition of W is automatically recognized as the built-in unit and the result change - thats nothing strange or wrong.
The very same thing happens if you delete the definition of your plf in your Mathcad 15 sheet. Give it a try.
" Now, imagine going through a worksheet exporting every image to a bmp, then inserting an image button into your worksheet and using it to importing your bmp directly into the worksheet (with no link, therefore no auto-update)."
There is a READBMP function in Prime 7.0 that takes a file reference string into a matrix:
I would think that could give you a work-around the picture (or object) operator.
But, I'm outside what I know!
@Fred_Kohlhepp wrote:
" Now, imagine going through a worksheet exporting every image to a bmp, then inserting an image button into your worksheet and using it to importing your bmp directly into the worksheet (with no link, therefore no auto-update)."
There is a READBMP function in Prime 7.0 that takes a file reference string into a matrix:
I would think that could give you a work-around the picture (or object) operator.
But, I'm outside what I know!
Nope, nowhere near being a workaround, I'm afraid, Fred. Or, rather, it is, but not a particularly pleasant or practical one for worksheets with a large number of images.
The READBMP function does indeed read in an image. However, I have no means of directly displaying it within Prime, as there is no equivalent of the Picture Operator.
What I have to do is process that image, then save the image as a new .bmp file, then click on the Image on the Math or Document tab. Mathcad then puts a button on the worksheet where I want it. I then click on the button, locate the recently written .bmp file in the standard file dialog, and select the file. Mathcad then inserts the image *in place of* the button. There is no link to the picture; it's just an embedded bunch of 0s and 1s. If I update the image matrix, WRITEBMP will write the changed image out to the previously named file. However, the image in the worksheet remains steadfastly the same as when I loaded it.
To see the changes, I have to delete the image, then go through the rigmarole of loading in the amended image. As I said, rinse and repeat for every single image, every time a change is made.
Cheers,
Stuart
From the Mathcad Prime 7 Help on displaying images.
An example (from Prime trial) of what this means. I used dog.bmp as a test image for my Multi-Dimensional Array (MDA) library. In its original M11..M15 forms, I just inserted a Picture Operator (PO), typed the name of the image matrix into the PO's placeholder and that was that. Any changes were automatically fed through the worksheet POs. In Prime, as I said, every single changed image needs changing in the worksheet if I want to see it.
(On the left are the Prime images. On the right are the (converted) POs from M15. There were just over 60 images in that worksheet alone. If I wanted to see the effects of the processing on a different original image, that's just over 60 times going through the process.
@HO_2228703 wrote:
"Still, looking at the roll-out plan, Prime seems to be heading in the right direction. It could do with speeding up, though."
Well, a plan is just that and we've been waiting for a long time.
How very true.
Interesting remark about lists of enhancements. On several occasions I also sent in proposals for new enhancements. The answer was usually silence and little happened.
Here's a link to a request for feature ides from Lesley Bondaryk, ex-Mathsoft and then PTC, who was knowledgeable about Mathcad,
https://community.ptc.com/t5/PTC-Mathcad/New-Feature-requests/m-p/356434/page/2
The list is only partial, and there were a plethora of ideas in the old collab that didn't make it across to the Community.
@ValeryOchkov has a huge list of feature ideas.
Many of us were optimistic that PTC was going to pick up on such requests and produce a SuperMathCad.
Bear in mind that Mathsoft had made similar requests in the past, but, as with PTC, I was never very confident anybody was really listening or putting ideas under proper configuration control. Both Mathsoft and PTC, however, do historically seem to have been very quick to *remove* or restrict features that somebody, somewhere found confusing, and with scant regard for those who actively used them. I never understood why users weren't educated in their use, or some kind of option wasn't provided to allow users to choose to select/deselect confusing features. Recursion depth, partial application and the removal of sequences in for-loops, are a few examples that come immediately to mind.
Edited to add: I forgot to mention that PTC does have a Mathcad Ideas forum, albeit restricted to support customers. And, one of the things that give me the impression things are looking slightly brighter for Mathcad, one of the PTC staff moved one of my idea suggestions from the standard Community to the Ideas Community, even though I'm not a support customer. I've already touted the idea that perhaps the people not buying annual licences ought to be able to request ideas ... maybe they'd buy Mathcad licences if Mathcad had features they wanted. I also note, from a quick skim, that a small number of the ideas presented on the link above have been implemented, fully or partially.
I think the main problem is now, that since Mathsoft was taken over in 2006 by PTC, the real engineers are no longer involved. I imagine that at the start of Mathcad in 1986 there were a few practising engineers who saw a need for a product like Mathcad. They knew how engineers tick and work and that was reflected in how it was implemented, despite the flaws. After being taken over by PTC the engineers gradually left and were replaced by software developers guided by managers. The pioneering spirit was gone. The new plans were dreamed up by the upper echelons who then threw it over the wall to the programmers. The distance between implementers and customers became ever larger. Chaos ensued ... So, as long as they can't come up with decent graphs and MC15 converter I don't need plans of new features and integration with CREO and so on, but proper implementations of features that now hamper the switching from MC15 to Px.
You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
So, as long as they can't come up with decent graphs and MC15 converter I don't need plans of new features and integration with CREO and so on, but proper implementations of features that now hamper the switching from MC15 to Px. It would help to retain customers too.
The 64 dollar question is, are the customers like you (and me) the ones that PTC want to retain or gain? How closely does their vision of "Mathcad" align with ours? Looking back to what you said in your message, I've long got the feeling that Mathcad was seen very much from a conventional, imperative programmer's perspective and not from a functional programmer's or mathematical user's perspective.
As an example, look at the if-elseif-else replacement for if-otherwise. if-otherwise certainly needed a rework, as it had ambiguities and could be difficult to interpret. However, it was vertically compact, which its if-elseif-else is not. Moreover, given that one of the much-touted features of Mathcad is its heavy use of mathematical notation, why did we get a programming notation instead of the standard piecewise brace notation (additional to, yes, but)? I've yet to see a mathematical paper use if-elseif-else in place of braces ...
So it may be that much of the frustration some (many) users feel is simply down to Mathcad no longer being what they thought it was.
Stuart
