The Interactive Geometry Software Cinderella
Forums-> Cinderella Support (E)-> Questions on the speed of custom tools-> Re: Questions on the speed of custom tools
zgyorfi
|
Re: Questions on the speed of custom tools
|
|
I have downloaded the evaluation copy now.
I am disappointed again, even more disappointed.
The custom tools cretion feature does not work at all no.
In the case of the beta version the custom tools worked, slowly though.
In the final you can create only one element with a custom tool. This is very very disappointing.
I have been using Cindy 2 beta for a couple of months.
> I have many problems. Before I would buy the final, I would like to get some answers to my most important questions:
>
> 1. On the speed of custom tools. In the beta version the custom tools work untolerably slow.
> - Creating the new tool takes minutes in the case of a relativeky complicated construction. I have a three year old VAIO note book and a desk top machine of about the same quality...
> - The worst thing is that you have to wait when trying to redefine a point. Why does it take that long for a point to get moving during redefinitions? Also, why does it take that long to hilite the next pont after a having redefined the previous one? Do the custom tools work faster in the final version?
>
> 2. Sensitivity of invisible objects. Sometimes I have a feeling that invisible (made invisible with the "invisible" check box) objects have some sensitivity. P. ex. I experienced that if a visible point gets close enough to an invisible one then it disappears or jumps on it. Is there something I do wrong? If not am I wrong? Is this OK in the case of the final version?
>
> 3. What happens to a parabola or a pair of hyperbola branches after making them invisible? Why can I not get my such objects back? This can be disastrous in the case of my constructions. I have bee trying to construct the crossing points of 9 parabolas for a week. I have started everything over and over again at least 20 times. Always failed. One of the reasons, in my opinion, is the problem with the phenomena described above .
>
> 4. Crossing point of objects. I would understand if the crossing point of circles and hyperbolas, or hyperbolas and parabolas could not be defined considering that these are not Euclidean constructions. How come that the crossing point of a hyperbola and a parabola can be constructed? This is confusing... Do I do anything wrong? Or just have to be happy that at least in the case of a hy and a par the crossing point works? Or is this corrected in the case of the final?
>
> Zoli
> (zgyorfi@erad.com)
|
|
|
|
|
