Get Help

Turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- Community
- :
- PTC Mathcad
- :
- PTC Mathcad
- :
- Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

02-08-2016
04:21 AM

02-08-2016
04:21 AM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

Mark,

I am with you about MatLAB. It seems to be a retrograde step, particularly for passing maths on as it is not easy to read. I have been told that they are releasing a graphical interface. At least maths would then look like maths! For teaching and communicating ideas that is highly important. I am with everybody else, despairing at the incredible arrogance of PTC.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

09-22-2016
02:58 PM

09-22-2016
02:58 PM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

Thanks Mark. It seems that there is just no alternative solution for the features of Mathcad that I both need and like. Once again, I have just the paid the yearly v15 extortion fee. I at least need for it to continue to work properly since they continue to break as many features as they fix in each release in order to keep us all mainlining. But I feel the need to continue to be very clear that I am not a happy camper. Shoot me, I'm insane.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

02-15-2016
03:38 PM

02-15-2016
03:38 PM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

02-15-2016
03:45 PM

02-15-2016
03:45 PM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

The Posted image is a comparison of MathCAD 15 and Prime 3.1 Simplifying the same expression. The low quality of the graphics is a function of the forum.

Look at how unreadable Prime 3.1 becomes with long results and how incapable the Prime 3.1 simplification-engine is compared to the MathCAD 15 simplification-engine.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

02-15-2016
03:57 PM

02-15-2016
03:57 PM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

They use the exact same symbolic engine, so something else is different. Please post the two worksheets.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

02-15-2016
04:08 PM

02-15-2016
04:08 PM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

I suspect that much the dissatisfaction with Prime 3.1 stems from bad formatting as much as from problems with actual mathematical capability. I know my biggest gripes are with trying to format for printing. The plotting is still pretty rough and the solve blocks take way too much space.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Notify Moderator

02-15-2016
08:29 PM

02-15-2016
08:29 PM

Re: Mathcad Prime 3.1, 4 and 5 Lack of features

You are correct. The MathCAD 15 matrix norm was generated manually by me and I did not take the absolute value inside the squared components of the magnitude functions. The Prime 3.1 version was auto-generated and Prime 3.1 took the absolute value of the components prior to squaring them. The two functions were from the same source and I assumed they were the same and probably subconsciously ignored the absolutes inside squares because |x|^2 usually equals (x)^2 unless you expect a complex value of x. I understand that the symbolic processor may think differently. Having had other issues with prime, I was too quick to give up; I should have looked closer. I stand corrected.

- « Previous
- Next »