Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Actual Ratio sorting in STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HankTheTank

Mechanical
Jan 11, 2012
8
0
0
NO
Hello!
I just upgraded to STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) from SELECTseries2. In the SELECTseries 2 i had the option to sort the beams in the Unity Check by clicking on the Actual Ration header in the table. This does not work any more after i upgraded to SELECTseries 6. Does anyone have the same problem and have found a fix for this?

Cheers,
Hank
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

That's very odd. I have the latest version (20.07.11.82) and it works fine. What's the version number you have? There have been several versions since SELECTseries 6 was introduced.
 
UPDATE:
I now updated to version 20.07.11.90, but i still have the same issue. The strange thing is when click failed members tab the actual ratio of the ones in that tab can be sorted. This all started after updating to Windows 10. Have someone had the same issue?
 
We do have another report of something like this, but it's a bit of a mystery still. Here are some details from the last person who encountered it.

1) Open any STAAD.Pro model where the steel design is performed (i.e. Examp/US/EXAMP01.STD);
2) Perform the analysis and go to the Postprocessing mode -> Beam -> Unity Check page;
3) In the Design Results table try to sort the results in Actual Ratio column by clicking on the name of the column. Though in most of the cases this sorting is working fine, however one user complains that this sorting is not working on his machine for all models. It used to work with older STAAD.Pro versions (i.e. SS4).

I am able to reproduce the same behavior on one of my virtual machines (Win 7 64-bit), but on other machines with same OS this function is working fine.

Re: issue 329807
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top