I just installed the new update, and again, things have changed that are not mentioned in the list of changes. I checked the fitted blazer and semifitted pants, both changed. The sleeve for the jacket defaults to a larger bicep, making the sleeve cap wider. The inseam in the pants is now longer, making the crotch tighter. If you want to change default measurements to improve them, fine, but at least let us know what changed in the list of changes!

We did not touch the womens draft on those two items.

Kaaren

Well, something changed. I printed out 25% scale of these patterns in 6.111, installed the new 6.12, printed out the same patterns, and compared. The sleeve is obviously wider now (which is due to a greater default bicep measurement). The SF pants inseam looks to be about 5/8 inch longer. The draft may not have changed, but it appears that the default values did.

quote:

Originally posted by Patti Rose:
I just installed the new update, and again, things have changed that are not mentioned in the list of changes. I checked the fitted blazer and semifitted pants, both changed. The sleeve for the jacket defaults to a larger bicep, making the sleeve cap wider. The inseam in the pants is now longer, making the crotch tighter. If you want to change default measurements to improve them, fine, but at least let us know what changed in the list of changes!

Hi Patti,
As a tester for this last line I can tell you that alot of us put in alot of time making sure that everything worked well. While we concentrated on the men's line, we were free to check out whatever we wanted to make sure it worked. Several of us took the extra time to check the women's line to make sure that nothing out of the ordinary came up. I personally went through every single women's pattern to make sure nothing was broken. This is not a five minute task either.

What you may be seeing in the semi-fitted pants as well as maybe for other pants is that the .5" inseam ease is no longer default. It is not that the inseam for one pant pattern out of all the pants pattern was purposely changed, there is no value added to the program to go in and deliberately change one pant leg inseam.

If you input .5" into the inseam ease box on the fit tool, I am sure you will see the inseam change to something more to your liking.

As far as the fitted blazer - I have DS on two different computers and keep one computer a version behind so that I can compare. I am getting a different ease number for the sleeve, but I also notice that it changes depending on the fit level when you select if it is worn with nothing underneath up to a sweater. Yes, it has changed. But please do not immediately assume that the programmers decided to go into one pattern out of all the women's patterns and make that one change for whatever reason, because they did not.

Software is a touchy thing. Make a change in one area and it affects another area that may or may not make sense. So before you assume the worst, it might be in your best interest, in fact it is in all of our best interest for you to submit a problem report. Because you could be the one to discover a glitch that over a dozen testers and programmers did not notice. It has happened in the past and it can happen again.
HTH,
Linda Flint

quote:

Originally posted by Patti Rose:
Well, something changed. I printed out 25% scale of these patterns in 6.111, installed the new 6.12, printed out the same patterns, and compared. The sleeve is obviously wider now (which is due to a greater default bicep measurement). The SF pants inseam looks to be about 5/8 inch longer. The draft may not have changed, but it appears that the default values did.

This is a portion of my response to your post on the other list. It's a good idea to read the list of changes prior to installing an update. In the build 6.12 update there are a couple changes that may have an effect on what you're seeing. For example:

"13. Error in the Options dialog relating to armhole ease when drafting coats or jackets was corrected."

"15. The Crotch Tool was revised to disallow dragging the crotch extension point. This feature made it possible to get mis-matched inseam lengths (one in the crotch tool and one in the measurement page) which was causing more confusion than it helped."

Changes are sought to correct and improve, and if we don't know ahead of time what those changes are, then it can lead to unexpected results. Hopefully, good ones!

quote:

Originally posted by Patti Rose:
The sleeve for the jacket defaults to a larger bicep, making the sleeve cap wider. The inseam in the pants is now longer, making the crotch tighter.

quote:

Originally posted by LindaF:
Several of us took the extra time to check the women's line to make sure that nothing out of the ordinary came up. I personally went through every single women's pattern to make sure nothing was broken.

Patti, While the drafts may not have changed,it certainly sounds like the men's fit levels have had an influence here. Sorry we didn't catch it. In an ideal world there would be a control tester who only concentrated on checking the existing portion of the program.

As Linda said, I too tried to cross check the major ladies' patterns for changes while testing. However it was a visual on screen check I did not print comparisons or always check ease amounts because it was just too much. I had 18 beta downloads and each time a new version arrived, you had to re-check from everything from scratch. Unfortunately with the emphasis being on menswear and resolving those issues, the ladies got less attention from me than I would have liked. I wasn't even able to check all the mens patterns and concentrated on the core styles myself.

Please continue to report issues and changes as you find them. I reported a number of previous issues which got fixed quickly (eg: correct unfolded back neck facing; metric numbers now show decimals on the sleeve screen) and some which took a couple of tries. One or two issues which I had didn't make it for various reasons, but sometimes they only show up with more data. That's why you need to keep reporting.

Thanks for all the replies. I agree with the fact that nothing appears to be "broken," and I apologize if anyone thought I meant that. In my mind, changes in default values do not constitute glitches in the program, therefore no need to submit a trouble report.

I do understand that changes in one part of the code can effect other parts. I'm an engineer for the government, and I have managed large software programs for military systems. I have seen the most benign change cause something to malfunction that no one even considered. And yes, I have found glitches before in new loads of DS, and reported them (and they were fixed).

This weekend I'm going to look closer at the defaults. When I noticed that the sleeves were wider, I failed to check if the default was still set for "wear this over an oxford shirt." And yes, I know that I can go in and put new ease values in.

Patti