Fermentation Profile Question

[mr_beer]

Shown in the attached image is a screen capture of a simple single stage ale profile.  Primary and then storage. 

Note that the actual description has days and temperature in Secondary and days and temperature in Tertiary

Is this extraneous information a hold-over from prior release or a mistake or ??

Any way to edit it out of the profile?

[dtapke]

doesn't appear that way in my copy of BS3. I would assume this is a profile that was altered?



AHHH i now see that the issue you see is in the report section of the fermentation style. guess i've never looked at the reports....

[mr_beer]

YUP -- it is the reports section -- does not match the profile.  Same for all profiles.

Sorry for the poor explanation.

[brewfun]

It's vestigial, like the data that populates a default recipe.

The fermentation profile template has all the spaces for up to 5 steps. In the profile drop down menu, you'll see the four fermentation steps. BeerSmith just hides the second, third and fourth steps in the recipe.

Just as in the recipe case, the data can be changed and saved. Open the profile and choose four step from the drop down menu. Change the steps you don't want to zero days. go back to single step and save. The report will now show 0 days for secondary and so forth.

It's the fermentation report itself that looks for all fields.

[mr_beer]

By all standards this is a program deficiency -- what us old guys call a bug.

It should go on the list of items to correct. 

That is why I pointed it out.

[brewfun]

What's the bug? It's the fermentation report. The report tells you what is in the fields that are available, like it's supposed to.

The database is fine, it reports correctly in all recipe reports and is user changeable. It's a feature.

Seems to me it would only be a bug if you didn't have the flexibility to dynamically change a profile within a recipe.

[dtapke]

 

[dtapke]

I think he's complaining that even though you can change them to read the appropriate time, it shouldn't even show this time. Or that from the start, since secondary etc. isn't a part of a single stage fermentation than it should not be in the "report" section of it.

he seems dead set on picking out completely pointless and useless "problems" as he's done plenty of times in the past.

included is a screenshot of the numbers accurately reflecting as they should, to show that one CAN alter them if they see fit,

[Oginme]

The reports are htm files and, given a list of tags (published several times on this forum) which can be found with a quick search, any reasonable person can construct a custom report to show the information as they want to see it. 

[mr_beer]

In response to brewfun and dtapke, we seen to keep having a disagreement about what is a 'bug' or deficiency or an anomaly.

Remember my premises for all software embodies a protocol or process so that less skilled individuals can get good results.  Over time the typical user capability can go down in skill level since the software helps him/her. 

Having many years in the software and hardware development world, let me provide you some examples of what these items might look like..

• The software fails and stops working. Reboot may be necessary
• The software gives a wrong answer
• The software is confusing - the user does not understand the result or context
• The software has misleading documentation
• The software has spelling errors
• The software may use wrong colors that are not ADA compliant

The spectrum of deficiencies is broad but unless the developer knows about the item it will never get on the list of items to correct.  That is how software is improved and moved forward - all software development activities are not new capabilities but clarifications or improvements to existing capabilities.

I pointed out a deficiency -- at least a result that had me scratching my head and fiddling for 10 to 15 minutes trying to reconcile different views. 

Management (Brad Smith) can decide if it is important and if it should be on his list of items to correct/change.

[BOB357]

Excuse me for being blunt, but you left out a very important issue. Idiotic nitpicking by users who think they're the most intelligent people on God's green earth. 

In case you haven't realized it yet, this software was produced with brewers in mind. We are a very diverse group with countless differences in our brewing processes. Mr. Smith, knowing this, has produced a piece of work that allows many more brewers to dial in the software to better suit their needs. There are very specific reasons that it's the most popular brewing software on the market.

It wasn't written for a bunch of keyboard tappers who learned the same things in school, so the same rules don't apply. Are you a pHD? Brad Smith is, as are quite a number of others who use this software and frequent these forums.

That's my rant. I'll do my best to ignore you now.

[Kevin58]

@BOB357: Yessss!

[dtapke]

I'll third that motion. If you feel your concerns are so important, I'm sure you can email him. He's generally quite responsive to emails. (at least he has been to mine)

[brewfun]

Hey guys, let's not make this personal. @mr_beer didn't like what he saw and pointed it out, nothing personal. My response was to his issue, not him personally, as should all replies. I don't mind having discussions about what people disagree with in the software because it does bring changes over time (i.e. session tab) and this forum shouldn't be an echo chamber.

Remember my premises for all software embodies a protocol or process so that less skilled individuals can get good results.

The premise of this whole forum is to bridge that gap and provide users more skill in both the software and brewing in general. My response provided you with context, perspective and useful information. Now that you know, you know.

[Oginme]

Thank you, Brewfun, for that succinct and poignant reminder.