Petri

Actually, I'm not - I'm just trying to get the thing to work with objects placed days ago... In fact & for better or worse, I don't think I've ever used IsNewCustomObject(). Should I? But I'm glad you brought up the ghost outline issue! Have to again submit to the wish list that I want to be able to explicitly and unambiguously tell how the Ghost is generated. In my programming style, that would, by and large, be the Make2DRepresentation -procedure, which I could just as well start to call MakeGhost...

I want my money back...

I think there is only one question here: Why can we no longer change either the 2D part or the 3D part, the way and for the purpose of our choosing?

Hopefully not with my money. I'd rather see VW 2008 being improved.

MapInfo and many other GIS-programs indeed do this. VW is not a GIS-program and the company behind it is not interested in the GIS-market. (This I have on record.) You should be able to simulate a buffer zone with a double-line polygon, except perhaps for certain (common?) situations. In fact, I started to program a BZ facility, but in the absence of commercial demand, gave up years ago. My advice is to create the BZs in MapInfo and, if necessary, bring them into VW via DXF or SHAPE.

Interesting... Mike's idea may have relevance to my problem of generating room layout graphics for the Room Specification Sheets where "we" have identify eg. any number of walls, not just the N, E, S and W that the Americans have. Where is "Publish" when we need it? (For the uninitiated: Publish and Subscribe was a visionary technology in the Mac OS 7, killed by the need of Mac programs to be ported to DOS - or whatever it is nowadays called. If I could "publish" a viewport in VW and "subscribe" to it in FileMaker Pro, I could actually make this happen, but - thanks to Bill and his disciples - that is not the case.)

That wouldn't, by any chance, be Calvin? ---- I probably should not mention this here, but in Finland, we have just had our first school massacre. Seven murdered, one suicide. Any 18-year old can buy a gun here - and start to kill people with much more efficiency than with a kitchen knife. If all hand guns would just be on kitchen tables, I would not worry, but I don't think the psycopaths and maniacs who need to own them to compensate for whatever deficiency they have, leave them there. EDIT Try "jokela shooting" for details.

Thanks, guys. Although I don't really know what all this means... Maybe it is a fluke? No, there are no such things in programming - or are there? Something weird in my system? Should be pretty "clean". I have the "useSymbol" parameter in many PIOs and the old ones have so far worked. Will they break if I even open the script? Worrying.

Look - I agree with the sentiments expressed! I have tens of programs that I need to upgrade, replace or live without when I move to Leopard. I'm talking about serious money, not just a few hundreds. However, as comes to VW we have to keep in mind that the releases of VW 2008 and Leopard happened to coincide. If there would have been even a few months between, a very large proportion of VW users would have upgraded. Indeed.

Well, tough. You are expanding, you don't even consider funding any further development of VW. Everything is too expensive for you - except brand new computers. Beggars can't be choosers. Few - if any - software companies sell licences of superseded software; even fewer update superseded versions to work with all the latest machines and operating systems. Now, I'd love to continue to get free updates of PageMaker 6, Photoshop 5, FileMaker Pro 6 and so on. But alas, that's just not going to happen. They've all dumped me! I'd be at least a tad more sympathetic to these people who decide to spend their money on new hardware and OSs if they'd even offer to pay for what they want. Doesn't anyone think of the poor souls who now go and buy new VW licences and have to fund updates for all the freeloaders? EDIT Well, actually: selling new VW 12 licences could be continued for a while to firms that already have more than one licence. With affordable and easily available second-hand computers, they could continue to expand within their limited means.

LOBJECT (instead on LNEWOBJ) seems to work, so I win the prize! OK - this was my mistake: I forgot that a PIO is a "layer". EDIT I'll donate it anyway: In the main program: ----------------- IF (autoNumber AND isNew) THEN GenerateSerialNo; ----------------- and the call is to ----------------- PROCEDURE GenerateSerialNo; BEGIN n := COUNT(R IN [myName]); theID := NUM2STR(0, n); END; ----------------- which of course should be a function... In addition, somewhere (like in the standard "Initialisation" -procedure) we need ----------------- ok := GETCUSTOMOBJECTINFO(myName, me, recHd, wallHd); IF me = LOBJECT THEN isNew := TRUE ELSE isNew := FALSE; autoNumber := PAUTONUMBER; { Boolean parameter } ----------------- not to forget ----------------- VAR n, ID : INTEGER; myName, theID : STRING; me : HANDLE; autoNumber, isNew : BOOLEAN; ----------------- Phew! Thanks to the trusty old VW 12, I'm making progress instead of playing games.

Another one. In an object script: ------------- ok := GETCUSTOMOBJECTINFO(myName, me, recHd, wallHd); IF me = LNEWOBJ THEN isNew := TRUE ELSE isNew := FALSE; ------------- Why isn't the newly-created object 'me' LNEWOBJ? After the above, isNew = FALSE. Or perhaps someone knows & reveals how to establish that the incidence of the PIO is a new object. If so, I'll donate an auto-numbering routine which this is supposed to be a part of.

Let's hope not...

Right. I've done a clean install. Repaired permissions. SNAFU ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAFU ). Well, here's what I'll do: in all my Plug-ins I'll use GetVersion to make them unusable in VW 2008.

Thanks, but I don't have time to play these games: can't duplicate, can't encrypt, perfectly good scripts fail. I'll just go back to 12 for any PIO development that does not rely on new features. In fact, Finnish users will be happy: they can buy excellent local content without the need to upgrade to 2008...

VW 2008 is indeed the culprit. In order to test, I rebuilt the PIO in VW 12 (fortunately only 12 parameters) and it works with the script that fails in VW 2008. No, there are no obsolete calls. This is just swell!

Yes.

It's not likely be the page grid nor a problem with loci or anything like that. cs1 is obviously trying to create a "grid" type DTM with a grid value of zero.

I've already reported of some oddities, but this is getting truly ridiculous: In the script I have: ------------------------------- VAR useSymbol : BOOLEAN; ------------------------------- useSymbol := PUSESYMBOL; ------------------------------- where "PUSESYMBOL" is a Boolean parameter. Now, when running the script, I get an error message "Line #26: useSymbol := PUSESYMBOL; | { Error: The operands are not of compatible types. }" What the heck is going on?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Charles, I always have "alternative names" for parameters, so that I can recycle code and also change (or translate!) the user interface. In this case the parameter is called useSymbol, but shown as "K?yt? symbolia". Yes, it is indeed nice to know someone's paying attention. But this is truly baffling: how can a test for a Boolean fail this way?

And I mean they can't.

1. Why not use the 3D-polygons? 2a. You perhaps can, by buying expensive software for this pointless exercise. 2b. Why not place 3D loci at selected vertices and get rid of the polygons? At this juncture I may sound like Robert Anderson, but: by having a huge number of points, you are just asking for trouble. You may well have traced the result of a DTM process. If you can get the actual source data, you are much better off. Unless your hourly rate is zero.

Something odd here: --------------------------------------------------------- PROCEDURE CheckForSymbol; BEGIN ok := FALSE; theSymbol := GETOBJECT(PMARKER1); symName := GETSDNAME(theSymbol); IF theSymbol <> NIL THEN ok := TRUE ELSE ALRTDIALOG(CONCAT('No such symbol as ', symName)); END; BEGIN Initialise; MESSAGE(PUSESYMBOL); IF PUSESYMBOL THEN CheckForSymbol; IF ok THEN UseSymbol ELSE BEGIN --------------------------------------------------------- PUSESYMBOL is FALSE; nevertheless, the procedure CheckForSymbol is executed and the whole PIO fails. Am I blind once again? EDIT To clarify: this morning the construct was this: --------------------------------------------------------- PROCEDURE UseSymbol; BEGIN SYMBOL(PMARKER1, 0, 0, 0); END; BEGIN IF PUSESYMBOL THEN UseSymbol ELSE BEGIN Initialise; --------------------------------------------------------- That worked technically, but not for the user. The "Initialise" routine essentially contains --------------------------------------------------------- PROCEDURE Initialise; BEGIN ok := GETCUSTOMOBJECTINFO(myName, me, rHd, wHd); --------------------------------------------------------- and reading of parameters into variables. ("ok" is a temporary Boolean I use everywhere, many times in any script or PIO. Should not cause the problem.)

Well, that would be just fine and dandy... I want to encrypt only one at a time.