I’ll have to check and see if there’s a difference between the right angle on the 1st vs second edge. You used the 1st, Susan used the 2nd.??
2 Likes
I tried both, both worked.
I could be wrong, but I think I’m right - that it’s been from before your upgrades.
I tested them all. The seam remained the same.
On a different pattern that I tested on the sleeve cap curve, I got this with the 1st 4 options:
And on the last 2 options, I got this:
But I think this is only recent, but I can’t ever remember doing this, so I’m not sure.
1 Like
I was using a Windows build from Oct. 1.
Here’s the pattern & measurements:
20201011_MyFrenchDressBlock.val (43.3 KB)
20200331-Susan.vit (7.3 KB)
1 Like
Wow… I don’t even know where to begin on this one. Oy vey.
One thing I can say is a problem is preexisting at least going back to the Aug 3rd build… and I would assume before that as no other changes have been made regarding the seam allowance. And the problem get’s even flakier than not creating a right angle transition.
First off one thing I noticed in the seam allowance dialog is that if you type in say 1. it gives an error. The dialog line edit SHOULD complete the entry to make it a real number 1.0. In fact if you even just type 1 and hit return in it should complete the entry and make it 1.0.
Now here’s a test I did with the Aug 3rd build - before I added any of the Notch updates…
Here you can see it’s doing the same thing exhibited by Susan’s example…
And here all I did was change 1 to 1.01 and Yikes! I have no clue what it’s doing???
Now here’s Susan’s pattern (in a Sept build) changing the seam values:
Changed 4 to 4.01 and found the lowest I could go before it flipped out again - 1.275. notice the transiton is right at the BustC3 node.
Now if I used 4.0 notice how the transition is past BustC3… probably 1.275cm.
And the I found the highest highest value I could go - 1.258 and leaving the 4.0 vlaue alone, the transitio is back to BustC3 ???
In other words - at least in this instance - if the after value for BustC3 was between 1.258 and 1.275 the seam would do what Susan showed in her example.
OBVIOUSLY something is amiss. Since I always use inches with 1/2 or 1 inch I’ve never seen this issue before. As soon as I get a chance I will take a look at the code to try and determine what is going on.
2 Likes
Here is the same problem that someone had a few months back: Issue: Curve's seam allowance doesn't work properly in latest version
1 Like
Here are the patterns again that I’ve tested on the January 2018 build:
Aldrich - Bodice Chemise.val (24.3 KB)
Aldrich Measurements.vit (2.0 KB)
You can see it’s doing the same all the way through the options:
2 Likes
Thanks Grace… sort of confirms there has been an existing issue with the seam allowances and the corners / transitions. It’s very odd how changing one of the before or after’s by as little as .001 can cause the seam allowance to do strange things. It seems once it doesn’t like the values the angle choice has no effect.
At first I thought it might have to do with the cm conversion factor, but it started doing the same with inches once I used an allowance like 1.01.
I’ll figure it out.
2 Likes
You’re very welcome 
I had to wait to get to the PC where I had the 2018 Seamly to check my facts.
Thank you very much for all you guys are doing. 
1 Like
I’ve also noticed this happening with seam allowances… it may or may not be related. If you notice the corner at A1 is cutoff even though all 3 points are set to the same corner angle This seems to happen once the angle goes below a certain number of degrees. Since I’ll have to dig into the seam allowance routine(s), I’ll try and fix this case too.
Reducing the angle at A produces this…
2 Likes
Can you try Susan’s pattern on the Linux ver using her seam allowances in her example. I’m guessing its a code issue and not a Windows vs Linux issue, but would like to rule that out.
2 Likes
Yes, I’ve seen that recently (in the last 3 months or so). It changes a bit with the different settings.
1 Like
True… but in my examples all 3 corners are by length and should come to a point. I don’t think it’s by design, even though I would probably never cut a pattern with that sharp a corner - I tend to knock the corners off - there’s something wrong. Something in the code is making it produce 2 seam allowance points at the node instead of 1… just the opposite of what is happening with Susan’s pattern.
2 Likes
Isn’t it limiting the point to the width of the seam allowance and cutting it off? It looks like it’s making a decision that if the length of the point is over 150% of the seam width then…
1 Like
It could be doing something like that. I thinking last night while trying to fall asleep… that the issue Susan brought up may be some % of the seam allowance width. Won’t know until I look at the code.
2 Likes
I’m starting to believe this issue has always been here. It’s not something that was introduced recently. This tool’s results have always been erratic.
2 Likes
Yup… and the whole piece gets hatched. I’m kinda surprised as to how this issue is only showing up now, because as far as I can tell it’s existed as long as I’ve been using and coding the program - which is like 3 years now. I’ve seen it do strange things with the allowance before, but it usually because something was wrong in the main path - like a missing point or curve.
2 Likes
Yes, Grace confirmed that with the 2018 build. Until I added the new notch features nothing of consequence has been added to the program that would have affected the seam allowance. I’ll figure out how to fix it. 
3 Likes
While I’m at it looking at fixing this issue, I may take a look at the seam allowance dialog… I know I mentioned this in another previous post - what does everyone think of switching the corner angle combobox to radio buttons with an icon that displays an image along with the text of what each angle type does?
2 Likes