Can't review previous analyses in STAAD PRO--even with the key

[Boothby171]

After downloading and installing the 62 MB patch to upgrade my STAAD PRO 2001 to build 1006, and then installing the new US/Aluminum Code Check executable to fix a problem with STAAD reporting tension in members that were actually undergoing compression, and then having to receive a new HASP key to replace the SENTRY key (which was not being consistently recognized by STAAD--I was getting "The key has been YANKED from the port" error messages, and STAAD was aborting, even though the key was firmly in place), I now have a new problem:

I cannot review a previous analysis, even when I save the results, even when I have the HASP key in place, even when I'm on the same computer, in the same STAAD session, etc., etc.

So, if it takes me 10 minutes to run an analysis, then 10 more minutes to run a comparative analysis, I cannot go back to the first analysis (by this I mean open the file and immediately enter into the "Post Processing" mode) to compare. Unless, of course, I run another 10 minute analysis. I understand that REI is trying to make sure that we are all being honest with the use of our lisences, but this is getting ridiculous--and it's costing my company MONEY!

Anyone else with this problem, please post to this thread.

Oh, and if anyone here ever visits STAAD's home page (REI/NetGuru, or some such thing), you have me to thank for that wonderful disclaimer in the "Discussions" area. So far, they've pulled at least 3 of my threads/posts from their site because I dared to say that I was having problems with their program.

 

I am not trying to pick on you, but I saw your postings on REI's discussion board, and I must say it was harsh. I would have expected REI to delete it sooner than they did. I don't know what you were thinking, going to their website and bashing their software.

We use STAADPro 2001 in our office and we too downloaded the 62MB patch to get Build 1006. Granted it is big, but what's the big deal? I have friends who download entire movies from websites. I am talking 600MB or more. Are you guys still using a 56K modem? Why didn't you ask REI to send you the CD if it was such a hassle?

Also, I never came across this error you mention. We routinely run STAAD files, close the program down, and re-open the same file the next day. If the lock is there, I always get the Post processing mode. Are you sure you didn't accidentally delete the old results?

 

[FredH]

If you are so upset with REI, why do you continue to use their product? Just switch...don't bitch. And frankly speaking, I don't see the problem with the key lock. Last I checked, STAAD is pirated all over the world. They want to make sure people who haven't paid for their software don't use it. I have used STAAD/pro and I think it is a good product. Never used the aluminum code. But if it is buggy, use another product that has the aluminum code.

 

[Boothby171]

Fred, respec,

1) I don't have a problem downloading a 62 MB patch. We have a T1 line, so it's not really the bandwidth. 62 MB really isn't a patch--it's a replacement program. I guess I'm still thinking that it's good to be thrifty with bandwidth. Also--I guess that I'm assuming that a company that knows it's software knows how to produce a true "patch". But, you're right--I shouldn't care if they know pretty Patch-Code tricks; I just want good FEA software!

2) I just checked regarding STAAD's failure to reload the alanysis data, and allow me into POST-PROCESSING mode. I still get "Input file is updated. Results may be out of sync. Delete Results?" But my input file really isn't updated. I saved it last night before I went home, and I am the first one to load it this morning. No updates. So, I tell STAAAD NOT to delete it. But STAAD deletes it anyway, and I have no data. Other times, though, it works fine. I have yet to be able to figure out what the difference is.

I just checked this new feature out again right now--I ran the analysis, reviewed it, saved it, exited STAAD, restarted STAAD, opened the file from the previous file list in the FILE pull-down, got the "Updated/Delete?" dialogue, told it NOT to delete, and voila! No POST PROCESSING option--no data.


3) My intent was not to go to REI's site and bash thei software. But if there is an error in their code, I figure that their user community should be made aware of it. Go ahead, look for any real postings there of anything that questions the reliability of their code. It's not there. But is is not there because their code is so reliable? Or because they delete any references which might mention problems with the software because they find such posts "offensive?" No code is perfect. Also, not many codes out there handle US Aluminum. But wouldn't you like to know if there are some areas in the analysis where you should really be paying attention to the possibility of calculation and/or reporting errors? (Besides the generic "all areas", of course )

4) I continue to use STAAD because it's what my company provides me with. And they're not about to change. Yet. If I can find a reasonably reliable code that handles Aluminum and Wood (as well as the requisite Steel) Codes, I'll be pushing for it.

5) And no, we don't pirate their software (not that you said we do). But we have noticed that the usability has gone down with each recent upgrade. Used to be that I could review previous results even without the key (the key was only needed for the ANALYSIS mode). Now, I can't even do that. Plus, as I've said, I can't always review previous analyses even with the key. Plus now I can't run an Aluminum code check in DEMO mode (simple two-element beam), whereas before, I could.

Should I complain now, when it might do some good? Or should I wait until I can't even open up the program for pre-processing without the key, and then start complaining?


Regarding REI's removal of my critical comments from their website: would you rather use software from a company that understands the shortcomings of its code, and seeks to remedy it? Or do you like using code from a company that seeks to deny and obscure the fact that there are problems with its code? When people post bitches about Windows on the Microsoft site, what do you think Microsoft does? For everybody's criticism of Microsoft as some huge behemoth of an uncaring OS company...they don't pull the criticism.

--Steve
(BTW, these opinions are mine, they do not necessarily represent the opinions and attitides of my company)

 

boothby,

My understanding of it is that STAAD compares the date and time of the input file with respect to the date and time of the result files to see whether the input file is "newer" or "older" than the results. If the input file is older than the results, the post-processing mode becomes active. If the input file is newer, the program concludes that the input data has changed, and so the input is not compatible with the results any more. That causes it to shut off the post processing mode.

You may want to verify using Windows Explorer whether your input is more recent than the output.

One thing I found out is the following. After running the analysis and viewing the results in the post processer, just as I was exiting the program, I used to click on the Save button. What I didn't realize is that it makes the input more recent than the output, and will make the post processor disabled the next time you open the same file. I spoke to one of the support guys over there and that is how I figured out what was happening. It would be nice if they pop up a message box when you click on Save, telling us what will happen to the results of the previous run.

And by the way, if you think a 62MB patch is a hassle, try some of the heavyduty FEM programs out there. REI isn't unique in this anymore. These programs have gotten to be so big that they have no choice. We ought to be glad they make a patch available. Atleast you don't have to wait 2 days for the disk to arrive in the mail like 5 years ago.

 

[FredH]

I called Research up and they told me the demo version is limited to 6 members and 5 load cases. They recently added in a check that if the lock is not in, the pre and post will go into demo mode. They said that 99% of the engineer's time is spent on modeling and reviewing results -not running a 10 minute analysis. Thus, people would have 20 stations of STADD in their office but would only pay for one lock. However, their support team would have to entertain support calls from 20 engineers from one company. If the company had paid for multiple licenses, this business proposition would have made sense for Research and their customers. Thus, the change in their policy. I would say an equivalent scenario would be finding a gas station that would dispense gas for free at one of its pumps, having the manager find out and repairing it and then having the customer complain about the fix. So I think your comment of "would you rather use software from a company that understands the shortcomings of its code, and seeks to remedy it?" does not hold water. Engineers are exactly that - engineers. Not business oriented - very analytical. There is no gray area. I think this is what is causing the difference in opinion.
As for the discussion boards, the only thing I can say is that it is "their" forum. They can do whatever they want. It is not a neutral forum like this one. Your comparison to the Microsoft forum is not valid...they don't have a forum on "their" website. Why would they let people bash them and point out flaws/shortcomings on their own website? Instead they post a knowledge base that is a controlled forum divulging bugs/fixes in a neutral manner.
I think Research does an excellent job of posting bugs/patches on their website. They have discussion boards, FAQs/Knowledge Base (which, after checking before writing this thread, they update everyday!), automatic email notification reporting all bugs, etc. I saw a post on another thread (yesterday) from an engineer who stated no other structural software company does this. Don't know if that is true, but it is worth checking out.

 

[FredH]

Something happened in the last post... the following paragraph should be at the end:

"So I think your comment of "would you rather use software from a company that understands the shortcomings of its code, and seeks to remedy it?" does not hold water. Engineers are exactly that - engineers. Not business oriented - very analytical. There is no gray area. I think this is what is causing the difference in opinion."

 

[Boothby171]

Respec, fredh

Thanks for the SAVE vs. time/date vs. Post-Processing relationship. Maybe when I thought I was making sure I could go into Post, I was actually messing myself up!

Maybe if I stopped ticking off the company that writes the main piece of software I am using, I could find this stuff out quicker (catching more flies with honey, so to speak)!

--boothby
(frustrated, chastised, but wiser nonetheless--thanks)

 

[bylar]

VERY INTERESTING!!!!

I for one have fournd REI terrrible about support but it looks like some of you have come out ok.