Circle Fit Bug

It’s hard to judge for me how many users would be affected by this change, but I do agree with @maje90 that the tool currently doesn’t work as expected in gh. I’ll let the dev. decide what to do with it
RH-82942 Circle fit to points gives unexpected results

1 Like

Me too, with thousands of users.

It’s bad enough to depend on customers instead of internal QA to find and report bugs. There is no valid excuse for not fixing bugs promptly. That only causes grief for more people.

In my opinion It depends on the severity of the bug. Sure any bug should be fixed as soon as possible. But in reality you have to prioritise. I think McNeel is tracking and fixing bugs. You could argue that they have a bit too many bugs at the moment, and that essentially could be because of offering too many features.

But it is wrong that you change one line of code and its done. If you patch different major versions on multiple platforms you need to do a lot, even for changing one line of code. I’m not evaluating how McNeel performs on bug-fixing, but my initial intention to post here, is that you might get a bit too angry on them, because we may not see the entire picture.

I also question a bit the nature of this problem to be a bug. Its producing a circle, but its not a good fit. Obviously there is a better algorithm present, but also the current algorithm is outputting a circle. Again if you replace an algorithm this could be threaded as new feature. But its my personal opinion and I wanted to share my view. Its okay if you guys disagree. I’m not trying to justify anything with it.

From a known problem , already old, for the next release you can opt for various solutions:

A - Remove the bugged component. It is still accessible as “Legacy” component via the # …
B - Fix the component with the new algorithm.

What was chosen to do?

C - Neither! Keep the bugged component! (happened from 6 to 7 and now from 7 to 8, wow!)
and extra: allude to users the problem is fixed in the new release. (or at least, this is what I understood, maybe I’m the stupid one here…)

Long story short: who want 4 pallets of calendered aluminium?

1 Like

Thanks.
There is hope for this to be fixed in 8, or we are already in the “too much past release that touching the code would break existing definitions” thing?

I don’t understand if I should feel different from december 2023…

1 Like

in case like this, you already have the ‘old’ label that is add to a component when newer is available, i suggest to introduce another ‘label’ like ‘revised’ (highy visible or supported with a popup message when opening the gh the first time) to indicate to users that a nodes has undergone and update that influences the output, in this case to the correct result. Offer 2 output, the old one and the reviced correct one. Using the ‘-’ minus users can the choose which one to use

2 Likes