Has bug been fixed in CS?

FH
Posted By
Frank_Heller
May 12, 2004
Views
448
Replies
22
Status
Closed
About a year and a half ago, I wrote about a bug describing how PS 7.0 mis-handles the bevel effects on the top and leftmost edges of arrayed objects within a layer.

There was a lot of "not on my machine" responses. Well..eventually someone on the PS team was able to duplicate it…and I think that’s only because she knew what to look for. Since then, I have been able to duplicate this bug on every machine I own. That would be two Beige G3’s Two Dual 500 G4’s, a Ti PB and a brand new G5….running either OS 9.2.2, 10.2.8 0r 10.3.3.

Sadly, this bug was not addressed in the 7.0.1 update. While some of you may find this bug trivial….I find it to be a show stopper for the kind of work I do for a living. I design the GUI’s for a major international audio equipment manufacturer. A great deal of audio mixer interfaces are composed of redundant arrays of faders, knobs, buttons…etc. This means any repeating object that uses (for example) an outer bevel of 5 pixels, will always display 4 pixels on the top and leftmost edges while all others display 5.

So I have been relegated to using PS 6 all this time…simply because it handles the effects correctly.

I have put off upgrading to CS because I simply haven’t had the time. What I’d like to know is if the problem still exists in CS? If anyone would like to see an example of the problem, I’d be happy to send you a file of a screen shot CLEARLY pointing out the problem and the settings of the bevel effect.

Please…no "have you (fill in the blank)" responses. It is not the fault of any of my machines or installations. It is confirmed PS bug.

I simply want to know if should bother upgrading or not.
Related Tags
bug fix

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

B
Buko
May 12, 2004
try the demo

< http://www.adobe.com/products/tryadobe/download.jsp?ftpID=23 50>

see for yourself
P
Phosphor
May 12, 2004
I remember when you first posted this, but I didn’t bother trying it then.

So I just got done trying.

Photoshop 7.0.1, running in the Classic environment OS 9.2.2, under OS X 10.3.3.

New document. 72 ppi. RGB. 360 X 360px.

100 X 100 px square marquee; filled with 150,150,150.

Layer Style= Outer Bevel; Chisel Soft; Depth-1000%; Direction-Up; Size-5px; Soften-0px; Angle-0°; Angle-90°; Gloss Contour-Default 45°; Antialiased-checked; Highlight-75&#64257; Screen; Shadow-75&#64257;Multiply.

5 pixels all round.

Can’t suss your problem, because it works for me.

Sorry..I know you didn’t wanna hear that, but I’m feisty that way!

😉

Apparently, you’re leaving out some important details in how you’re trying to do what you want.

I know it’s a pain, but explain with excruciating detail (down to X,y coordinates, pixels sizes for EVERYTHING, Layer style parameter and value settings, etc) what you’re doing where this problem rears its head for you.
JB
Jay_Bruce
May 12, 2004
If it bothers you so badly, buy a third party extention like Eye Candy 4000.

I have not had this problem you speak of either.
FH
Frank_Heller
May 12, 2004
Phosphor:

Duplicate your square about a dozen times. Use the default bevel settings. Change only the Style to: Outer and the Technique to: Smooth. The angle should be at least 120 and Altitude should be 30. Then check the edges.

Buko:

Didn’t know they had one. Good idea. I will follow up on this.

Jay:

I wasn’t asking for a workaround. I was asking if the problem was addressed in CS.
MO
Mike_Ornellas
May 12, 2004
many style issues have been addressed in CS.

(nasty issues)
FH
Frank_Heller
May 12, 2004
Buko:

Nope. Bug still exists. Installed the CS tryout on a new drive with a fresh install of 10.3.3. That’s all there is on this 40gb drive…just the OS install and CS.

Good idea though. Now if only Adobe would correct the problem.

Mike:

Apparently not this one.
WG
Welles_Goodrich
May 13, 2004
I can confirm what Frank discovered. I just tried it out this morning and the highlight sides are 4 px wide while the shadow sides are 5. This was true on the first one as well as all the copies. I did wonder if the designer of this particular effect had thought the highlight should be sharper and thus the 4 and 5 result which doesn’t work for Frank’s uses. It’s possible this may have been intentional.
FH
Frank_Heller
May 14, 2004
Welles:

It’s not intentional. It is a bug. A 5 pixel bevel means 5 pixels. It works correctly in PS 6….but not 7 or CS.
FH
Frank_Heller
May 17, 2004
So I’m wondering if this bug will finally get addressed in the CS 8.0.1 release? Anybody from Adobe willing to address this?
FH
Frank_Heller
May 21, 2004
Bump
R
Ram
May 21, 2004
Frank,

Chris Cox and Stephanie Schaefer have stated a couple of times that there is no 8.0.1 release being contemplated and it will most likely not happen. Stephanie mentioned plug-in updates may be possible.
FH
Frank_Heller
May 21, 2004
Ramon:

Thanks for the info. I don’t see a plugin update as helping me any. I guess I’ll wait and see if they fix the damn thing in version 9. At least I didn’t waste money on CS this time, thanks to Buko’s suggestion.
R
Ram
May 21, 2004
Well, if you wanted Photoshop 8 for that one effect only, I agree that it would have been a waste of money for you to upgrade.
FH
Frank_Heller
May 22, 2004
Ramon:

It’s not that I wanted CS for that one effect. I wanted the whole new featureset in 7.

So, as I have with every version since 3.0, I faithfully bought the upgrade figuring everything would work about the same…but with the usual "mo better" features.

The discovery that the accuracy of the beveling effects was broken just plain killed it for me. I wrote about it and after sending Adobe a clear screenshot depicting the bug, Stephanie was able to duplicate it. Because I’ve found that every machine I’ve tried 7.0.1 on since then exhibits the problem, I’m convinced that the other programmers didn’t quite know what to look for….perhaps because I was not initially clear in describing the flaw.

So I guess it does annoy me somewhat that they were aware of the problem well before the 7.0.1 release but didn’t address it. But like someone once said: "Nobody bats a thousand".

And now that I know for a fact that the bug still hasn’t been corrected in CS….and that there isn’t going to be a maintenance release for 8.0, I’ll wait ‘n see if they fix in 9. If so…I’ll buy it then.
R
Ram
May 22, 2004
Frank,

Forgive me if I can’t follow you. You start by saying that you didn’t want CS for that one effect, and end by saying you won’t upgrade because that one effect is broken.

Really, whether you upgrade or not is no concern of mine, one way or the other. I was merely pointing out to you that the question about a possible release of 8.0.1 had been answered in the negative. What you do with that information is outside my bailiwick.
FH
Frank_Heller
May 22, 2004
Bailiwick??? Geez, Ramon, what century are you typing from? I had to check the corner of my screen to make sure it still read 2004.

I can honestly say you are the first person who has ever communicated that word to me in a conversation 🙂

Seriously…thanks for your input.
R
Ram
May 23, 2004
Bailiwick is a word used very frequently within the phrase outside my bailiwick, in my experience. Your mileage may vary, but that, again, is wholly outside my bailiwick. 🙂
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
May 23, 2004
I use that expression frequently too — and a lot of others of the same ilk!
B
Buko
May 23, 2004
I was out hunling ilk the other day.

Barbecued ilk mmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
FH
Frank_Heller
May 28, 2004
What exactly is "hunling"?
R
Ram
May 28, 2004
Il’s a lillle like slaking and lrapping or killing game in order lo eal il.
B
Buko
May 28, 2004
What exactly is "hunling"?

Its hunting with an L for T.

only when you are hunling ilk you must use bits of old computers to kill your pray

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections