To be clear, I did not ask you to leave the discussion.
I asked you, if you wanted to continue our discussions about off-topic posts, to do so in a seperate thread so as not to contaminate Hanson's thread any further.
I note you have edited your post in Hanson's thread and removed most of the insults and accusations, so thank you for that.
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Wed, 2012-04-25 01:58
Nothing you said would have helped Hanson understand wether or not to use constraints in P6, which was what he was asking about.
I already suggested Hanson that constraints, when appropriate modeling calls for their use they shall be used, but that they shall be used along with the correct math and listed some steps to get it right based on my prior experience with Primavera/ORACLE products such as P3, SureTrak and P3e.
If the mathematics is wrong it is appropriate to make the call, then explain why it is wrong and only after setting your reasoning you follow with the alternate approach I suggested to Hanson.
I started explaining why the math is wrong and then continued with some suggestion as to fix the algorithms that fool the core of CPM calculations. I never said some software do it better, I said most do it wrong and a few do it right and I am quite clear of the difference, it is a huge difference, more than a mere "better". Time related computations using late values that are earlier than the system early values is the phisical equivalent of pseudomathematics, it is wrong modeling.
I do not have P6 but will try to model the suggested approach that I hope will show criticality of paths when the finish milestone is not attainable, this without artificially assigning impossible dates to the Late Dates, use late dates but not impossible dates. I will try to do it using other software that yields negative float as my software of choice does not do this. But I will post it at Hanson's thread so he take full understanding on my proposed procedure. This might take some time as SureTrak is not compatible with windows 7 64bit my operating system of choice as for my notebook to recognize the 8GB of RAM. I have no other choice than to use SureTrak on a Windows Virtual PC which is slow and for me so difficult to set-up to recognize the printer I have not being able to do so yet.
That you asked me to get out of the discussion and move to another thread is what is wrong, if this is not a slap I do not know what it is. Although maybe I removed the word "slap" it is true I used it. But I will stick to the issues about how to better use constraints after I established the background for which I believe many go as far as trying to forbid any use of constraints. As a matter of fact I believe forbidding use of constraints relevant to the Contractor while forcing to use constraints only on contractual milestones is wrong but common practice. Both have their valid place when implemented correctly, scheduling is dynamic and even constraints are dynamic. All these are valid discussions when someone asks about when to apply constraints.
You will be welcomed to try my suggested procedure with P6 and debate its merits, but please do not kick me out of the discussion on issue regarding how different software calculate float under FNLT constraint, it is an essential part of the debate.
Finally I would like to comment on your Summary list.
So in summary you have accused me of:
1) wanting "to promote not knowing or even forbidding discussing the possibility of it being flawed -This is not true. I wanted to promote people sticking to the topic.
- I am sticking to the topic when I discuss the posibility of flawed calculations, my statements do not only apply to Primavera/ORACLE but to most of the software.
2) "not wanting to see opposing views of how [my] software work" -This is not true, and you know it. -I have often posted about limitations of Primavera software. I just don't want to see posts about why we shouldn't use Primavera in reply to a question about how best to use Primavera.
- I have not mentioned that we should not use Primavera, I mentioned my dissent about some calculations in most commercial software, and this includes all Primavera/ORACLE software, I even suggested a wayaround that seems to work.
3) "not liking to hear dissenting opinions " -This is not true, and very hipocritical of you, since you have insulted my integrity on numerous occaisions, just because I dared to express an opinion which you don't share.
- Remember you asked me to leave a genuine discussion.
4) Being a consipiritor in your paranoid delusion about Oracle controlling what is said in these forums. -Which is of course complete fantasy.
- Your asking me to leave the discussion had no valid reasoning as I was keeping within the theme, the only possibility left on my mind was that perhaps someone asked you to slap me but I did not mentioned ORACLE being the originator of the slap, it could have been Microsoft, it could have been Asta, it could have been Deltek or even any other whose computations differ to what I say is good modeling, but this I do not know.
Member for
16 years 7 monthsRafael, To be clear, I did
Rafael,
To be clear, I did not ask you to leave the discussion.
I asked you, if you wanted to continue our discussions about off-topic posts, to do so in a seperate thread so as not to contaminate Hanson's thread any further.
I note you have edited your post in Hanson's thread and removed most of the insults and accusations, so thank you for that.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsGary,Nothing you said would
Gary,
Nothing you said would have helped Hanson understand wether or not to use constraints in P6, which was what he was asking about.
I already suggested Hanson that constraints, when appropriate modeling calls for their use they shall be used, but that they shall be used along with the correct math and listed some steps to get it right based on my prior experience with Primavera/ORACLE products such as P3, SureTrak and P3e.
If the mathematics is wrong it is appropriate to make the call, then explain why it is wrong and only after setting your reasoning you follow with the alternate approach I suggested to Hanson.
I started explaining why the math is wrong and then continued with some suggestion as to fix the algorithms that fool the core of CPM calculations. I never said some software do it better, I said most do it wrong and a few do it right and I am quite clear of the difference, it is a huge difference, more than a mere "better". Time related computations using late values that are earlier than the system early values is the phisical equivalent of pseudomathematics, it is wrong modeling.
I do not have P6 but will try to model the suggested approach that I hope will show criticality of paths when the finish milestone is not attainable, this without artificially assigning impossible dates to the Late Dates, use late dates but not impossible dates. I will try to do it using other software that yields negative float as my software of choice does not do this. But I will post it at Hanson's thread so he take full understanding on my proposed procedure. This might take some time as SureTrak is not compatible with windows 7 64bit my operating system of choice as for my notebook to recognize the 8GB of RAM. I have no other choice than to use SureTrak on a Windows Virtual PC which is slow and for me so difficult to set-up to recognize the printer I have not being able to do so yet.
That you asked me to get out of the discussion and move to another thread is what is wrong, if this is not a slap I do not know what it is. Although maybe I removed the word "slap" it is true I used it. But I will stick to the issues about how to better use constraints after I established the background for which I believe many go as far as trying to forbid any use of constraints. As a matter of fact I believe forbidding use of constraints relevant to the Contractor while forcing to use constraints only on contractual milestones is wrong but common practice. Both have their valid place when implemented correctly, scheduling is dynamic and even constraints are dynamic. All these are valid discussions when someone asks about when to apply constraints.
You will be welcomed to try my suggested procedure with P6 and debate its merits, but please do not kick me out of the discussion on issue regarding how different software calculate float under FNLT constraint, it is an essential part of the debate.
Finally I would like to comment on your Summary list.
So in summary you have accused me of:
1) wanting "to promote not knowing or even forbidding discussing the possibility of it being flawed -This is not true. I wanted to promote people sticking to the topic.
- I am sticking to the topic when I discuss the posibility of flawed calculations, my statements do not only apply to Primavera/ORACLE but to most of the software.
2) "not wanting to see opposing views of how [my] software work" -This is not true, and you know it. -I have often posted about limitations of Primavera software. I just don't want to see posts about why we shouldn't use Primavera in reply to a question about how best to use Primavera.
- I have not mentioned that we should not use Primavera, I mentioned my dissent about some calculations in most commercial software, and this includes all Primavera/ORACLE software, I even suggested a wayaround that seems to work.
3) "not liking to hear dissenting opinions " -This is not true, and very hipocritical of you, since you have insulted my integrity on numerous occaisions, just because I dared to express an opinion which you don't share.
- Remember you asked me to leave a genuine discussion.
4) Being a consipiritor in your paranoid delusion about Oracle controlling what is said in these forums. -Which is of course complete fantasy.
- Your asking me to leave the discussion had no valid reasoning as I was keeping within the theme, the only possibility left on my mind was that perhaps someone asked you to slap me but I did not mentioned ORACLE being the originator of the slap, it could have been Microsoft, it could have been Asta, it could have been Deltek or even any other whose computations differ to what I say is good modeling, but this I do not know.
Best regards,
Rafael