AGS 2 or AGS 0 - The ''Candidate'' vs Parametric grades
- Thread starter Garry H (Cut Nut)
- Start date
- Status
Picture from DMC STL file
re:"SERGEY.. DON''T GO OFF HALF COCKED. LOOK AT WHAT I SENT YOU. AS I SAID PRIVATELY TO YOU, the problem you choose to address publically arises because DIAMONDCALC can, and did, generates STLS that are BOGUS, just as Sarin had problems with, and were readily apparent in OGI STL previously in another thread.
I SENT YOU DIAMONDCALC generated binary STLS, that had some MINOR issues, like three colinear (or coincident) points, and GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. It is impossible for ANY software to trap all the potential CRAP that it is given for input, and you are NOT WITHOUT BLAME HERE. You chose NOT TO LOOK AT THEM Before trying to create a PUBLIC FLAP.
"
Marty , Do you see any difference?
1) I created Dmc file. Save
2) COnvert to binary STL file. Save
3) Send both type file to you and AGS
4) Open both file in DC, creat picture , publish on PS
You can check each my step
What is BOGUS? Do you know whats STL support only only triangular facets?!
It was very bad idea use STL for AGS-PGS, and even more bad idea to try find reason bad work PGS outside AGS.
Try to undestand reason PGS problem firstly
re:"SERGEY.. DON''T GO OFF HALF COCKED. LOOK AT WHAT I SENT YOU. AS I SAID PRIVATELY TO YOU, the problem you choose to address publically arises because DIAMONDCALC can, and did, generates STLS that are BOGUS, just as Sarin had problems with, and were readily apparent in OGI STL previously in another thread.
I SENT YOU DIAMONDCALC generated binary STLS, that had some MINOR issues, like three colinear (or coincident) points, and GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. It is impossible for ANY software to trap all the potential CRAP that it is given for input, and you are NOT WITHOUT BLAME HERE. You chose NOT TO LOOK AT THEM Before trying to create a PUBLIC FLAP.
"
Marty , Do you see any difference?
1) I created Dmc file. Save
2) COnvert to binary STL file. Save
3) Send both type file to you and AGS
4) Open both file in DC, creat picture , publish on PS
You can check each my step
What is BOGUS? Do you know whats STL support only only triangular facets?!
It was very bad idea use STL for AGS-PGS, and even more bad idea to try find reason bad work PGS outside AGS.
Try to undestand reason PGS problem firstly
Marty,
these pictures is fine answer to your below attack.( did you see both pictures? see first on previouce page)
Marty:I SENT YOU DIAMONDCALC generated binary STLS, that had some MINOR issues, like three colinear (or coincident) points, and GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. It is impossible for ANY software to trap all the potential CRAP that it is given for input, and you are NOT WITHOUT BLAME HERE. You chose NOT TO LOOK AT THEM Before trying to create a PUBLIC FLAP
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Perhaps you should have whomever sent you the erroneous PGS resuts (probably arising because of misinterpreted extraneous STL''s or combined facets) to send you the detailed breakdown of where the deductions came from..
1) I generated with build 375 of DC, ascii STLS which I sent to Rockdoc to run through the PGS software
2) PGS couldn''t read ascii STL''s so Rockdoc imported the ascii STL''s to DC and exported binary STL''s from DC, and got bogus results regarding "culet" and "girdle" deductions, but all four files gave AGS 0''s for the ray tracing portion of the software.
3) When I examined both ascii STL''s and binary STL''s from DC, they were mathematically different
4) When I read these binary files with my software, I saw colinear (or coincident point) STL''s, i.e. STL''s that either had zero area or STL''s which were mathematically on a straight line (i treat them the same in my trap)
5) I, and AGS have seen similar types of problems in the past with Sarin files, where you have mathematically small facets whose normals point in unexpected directions, and the GIGO syndrome take over.
6) You saw the really bad OGI stl''s
7) I guess you didn''t ask whomever gave you the total PGS grade to give you the pieces of the puzzle. They are readily available in the PGS output.
LITTERALLY NO SOFTWARE can take into account the myriad of erroneous, or unanticipated conditions, that can be thrown at it.What is the agenda?
re:2) PGS couldn''t read ascii STL''s so Rockdoc imported the ascii STL''s to DC and exported binary STL''s from DC, and got bogus results regarding "culet" and "girdle" deductions, but all four files gave AGS 0''s for the ray tracing portion of the software.
What is the agenda?
It is agenta. is it official answer from your or AGS, what:
"6 mm 80 LG P41 Cr35 T57
1) Girdle( In bezel) 3% Star 50%
2) Girdle( In bezel) 3.5% Star 50%
3) Girdle( In bezel) 3% Star 55%
4) Girdle( In bezel) 3.5% Star 55%
"
have AGS0?
IN such case we can back to first question: two Type AGS charts.
or How did same diamond receive AGS=3 in AGS CHART?
reerhaps you should have whomever sent you the erroneous PGS resuts (probably arising because of misinterpreted extraneous STL''s or combined facets) to send you the detailed breakdown of where the deductions came from..
Marty, I do not see reason do it.
History:
1) I asked on PS published full PGS-AGS report for my 4 examples
2) I received answer with very strange results from one source. ( AGS0-AGS3 like in AGS charts) It was very strange for me and I asked you( in privet correspondence send your results) I did not mention about these result on PS. You did it firstly
3) Then I received several letters from you and AGS staff with information about some problem with DC stl files( I proof what DC stl file is correct)
4) I did not receive from you and AGS PGS reports ( for my CORRECT STL file or any other files) yet
5) You have just published what ROCDOC received AGS0 for all 4 files. Could I see full PGS report and file with models?
erhaps you should have whomever sent you the erroneous PGS resuts (probably arising because of misinterpreted extraneous STL''s or combined facets) to send you the detailed breakdown of where the deductions came from..Marty, I do not see reason do it.
History:
1) I asked on PS published full PGS-AGS report for my 4 examples
2) I received answer with very strange results from one source. ( AGS0-AGS3 like in AGS charts) It was very strange for me and I asked you( in privet correspondence send your results) I did not mention about these result on PS. You did it firstly
3) Then I received several letters from you and AGS staff with information about some problem with DC stl files( I proof what DC stl file is correct)
4) I did not receive from you and AGS PGS reports ( for my CORRECT STL file or any other files) yet
5) You have just published what ROCDOC received AGS0 for all 4 files. Could I see full PGS report and file with models?
I received ATTACK from you , AGS and nothing with result from PGS software
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Date: 2/23/2007 5:22:40 PM
Author: Serg
re
Marty, I do not see reason do it. Why not?
History:
1) I asked on PS published full PGS-AGS report for my 4 examples And I attempted to do so.
2) I received answer with very strange results from one source. ( AGS0-AGS3 like in AGS charts) It was very strange for me and I asked you( in privet correspondence send your results) I did not mention about these result on PS. You did it firstly Yes, and did you bother to ask why? Was it "culet" or "girdle"? Because it certainly wasn''t performance ray trace issues, which you certainly have available through your other source.
3) Then I received several letters from you and AGS staff with information about some problem with DC stl files( I proof what DC stl file is correct) Because in the translation using DC from ascii STL files that I generated to the binary STL''s, that DC generated from the ascii files done by RockDoc, there were anomolous results, similar to some problems I have seen ijn the past with Sarin files, related to tiny anomolous STL facets whose normals were not correct. Since I do not have the AGS software, I asked AGS to look into the problem, and told RockDoc the total grades were problematic.
4) I did not receive from you and AGS PGS reports ( for my CORRECT STL file or any other files) yet Why should I release t you, or anone else, results I knew to be problematic, becuse of annomolout STL files interacting with the PGS software in ways unanticipated.
5) You have just published what ROCDOC received AGS0 for all 4 files. Could I see full PGS report and file with models? Sure, and I can show that DC ascii STL''s and binary STL''s appear to be slightly different, for whatever reason I don''t know. And so then Rockdoc did a binary export of the DC ascii files to generate these results.
I received ATTACK from you , AGS and nothing with result from PGS software. But Sergey, you DEMANDED results, and I told you that there appeared to be a problem, consistent with erroneous data in STL files, yet you refused to even look at the STL files I sent you, both binary and ascii, AND then went here on PS to say there was a problem. And yes there is a problem, GIGO.. Sorry, but all I was trying to do is come to the root of the problem privately. I have utmost respect for your software, but both I and AGS, independendtly, have seen apparent inconsistencies, numerical or otherwise, and all I tried to do is find the cause of the problem.
I showed you mine, now you show me yours!!!!!!!!!!!
Serg....
I don''t think Marty is attacking you.
From my working with him, on a similar problem to get the Sarin graphical painted girdle images "fixed", we saw similar issues.
Marty just wants to get it corrected.
Both Sarin and AGS bent over backwards to cooperate and help in order to improve the accuracy of the scans previously and Marty has the same interest at heart.
I do too, as I want to provide the highest level of reliability in what I provide whether it is result from Sarin,DiaCalc, AGS, B Scope, or Gemprint, or any other computer program / equipment used.
Hope you''re well.
Regards,
Rockdoc
I don''t think Marty is attacking you.
From my working with him, on a similar problem to get the Sarin graphical painted girdle images "fixed", we saw similar issues.
Marty just wants to get it corrected.
Both Sarin and AGS bent over backwards to cooperate and help in order to improve the accuracy of the scans previously and Marty has the same interest at heart.
I do too, as I want to provide the highest level of reliability in what I provide whether it is result from Sarin,DiaCalc, AGS, B Scope, or Gemprint, or any other computer program / equipment used.
Hope you''re well.
Regards,
Rockdoc
Bill,
1) I had sent Binary STL to Marty and AGS. And did not receive any reports from Binary stl( We developed such export SPECIALY for AGS -PGS) and I do not see any reason to try use ASCII STL for PGS. I am not understanding what all you( MARTY-BILL-AGS staff ) are doing now. WHat is your goal?
2) DC 2.8.0 build 375 has binary stl export
3)Before yesterday I did not receive any information about problem with DC STL export( EVEN yesterday nobody inform about any problem with binary stl export from DC)
4) DC fine works with both type STL ( Binary, ASCII,.. after several import export) .
5) The problem PGS-AGS software with STL is inside PGS software. ( STL format is bad for any optical calculation, firstly you(AGS-PGS) need convert small STL facet( parts one real facet) to ONE real facet. Only then you can start optical calculation .DC do it from day of first import stl format. Amazing what AGS-PGS does not do it until now)
6) We did not receive yet any explanation why P41Cr35T57( Girdle 3-3.5%, start 50-55%) have AGS 0 in PGS software , but AGS0 and AGS3 in AGS charts. First explanation form Marty was:
"2) The two sets of charts are for TWO DIFFERENT girdle thicknesses and star facet lengths, and some regions of the underlying factors have rather steep gradients for performance factors. One only has to look at MSU and GIA"s published works to validate this statement.
"
Now we see it was wrong explanation and we did not receive any reasonable explanation/
Again could anybody print PGS full report for binary STL my 4 example( you can do binary STL easy in DC 2.8.0 or I can send such STL)
re: Marty: But Sergey, you DEMANDED results, and I told you that there appeared to be a problem, consistent with erroneous data in STL files, yet you refused to even look at the STL files I sent you, both binary and ascii, AND then went here on PS to say there was a problem.
Marty, completely wrong interpretation what had been done by me on PS:
1) Firstly, I checked files in DC and did not find any problems.
2)Secondly, I have started Discuss this issue on PS ( just proof DC STL export by pub;ish pictures ) , only after your attack( " the problem you choose to address publically arises because DIAMONDCALC can, and did, generates STLS that are BOGUS")
Please check. Anybody can check it:
"Marty,
I do not need any software for statement what such similar diamonds should receive same rating, grade.../ Difference 1% in rating is quit normal, but difference in 3 grades for 10 steps grade system is quit abnormal.
I do not know about reason this mistake in AGS grade( two possibility: Or AGS change grade system ( and these grades from different software) or AGS-PGS has big problems with continuity in point)
"
Nothing about STL problem. Just about main issue what P41CR35T57 has different grade in different AGS charts( AGS0 and AGS3)
(Or AGS change grade system ( and these grades from different software) or AGS-PGS has big problems with continuity in point)
Marty, completely wrong interpretation what had been done by me on PS:
1) Firstly, I checked files in DC and did not find any problems.
2)Secondly, I have started Discuss this issue on PS ( just proof DC STL export by pub;ish pictures ) , only after your attack( " the problem you choose to address publically arises because DIAMONDCALC can, and did, generates STLS that are BOGUS")
Before this your attack I did not use any result( any information) from PGS software on PS!. I used AGS charts and my experience with DC and cut study ONLY/
Please check. Anybody can check it:
"Marty,
I do not need any software for statement what such similar diamonds should receive same rating, grade.../ Difference 1% in rating is quit normal, but difference in 3 grades for 10 steps grade system is quit abnormal.
I do not know about reason this mistake in AGS grade( two possibility: Or AGS change grade system ( and these grades from different software) or AGS-PGS has big problems with continuity in point)
"
Nothing about STL problem. Just about main issue what P41CR35T57 has different grade in different AGS charts( AGS0 and AGS3)
(Or AGS change grade system ( and these grades from different software) or AGS-PGS has big problems with continuity in point)
re:
Sergey:2) I received answer with very strange results from one source. ( AGS0-AGS3 like in AGS charts) It was very strange for me and I asked you( in privet correspondence send your results) I did not mention about these result on PS. You did it firstly
Marty:Yes, and did you bother to ask why? Was it "culet" or "girdle"?
No. It was other problem. I received result from other files.
May be You and Rocdoc were first who find PGS problem with culet and girdle deductions for ASCII STL.
Marty,
Is it clear for you now? Please check all post in right order.
Could we back to main issue about AGS charts?
Sergey:2) I received answer with very strange results from one source. ( AGS0-AGS3 like in AGS charts) It was very strange for me and I asked you( in privet correspondence send your results) I did not mention about these result on PS. You did it firstly
Marty:Yes, and did you bother to ask why? Was it "culet" or "girdle"?
No. It was other problem. I received result from other files.
May be You and Rocdoc were first who find PGS problem with culet and girdle deductions for ASCII STL.
I understood this problem ONLY after you published on PS PGS results with HUGE deductions. I had not any idea why you and AGS sent me a lot of STL files. And I never before mentioned about this problem( in PS or emails) Just because I had not any possibility see and know about such problem( You sent me just stl files with strange for explanations without PGS results)
Marty,
Is it clear for you now? Please check all post in right order.
Could we back to main issue about AGS charts?
re:No Sergey, you timeline is slightly off. Quoting you on PS AFTER I sent you STLs saying there was a problem "Marty,
I do not need any software for statement what such similar diamonds should receive same rating, grade.../ Difference 1% in rating is quit normal, but difference in 3 grades for 10 steps grade system is quit abnormal.
Marty,
It has not any connection with your letters at all:
1) You did not send in your letters results PGS grade at all. ( My statement about difference in 3 grades can not come from information from your letters)
2) It was answer to you post about difference in DC metric( 0.97/0.9 for my 4 examples. I said 1% is not problem but 3 grades( AGS0-AGS3) for diamonds which have minor difference in girdle and Star is REAL problem/
I did not change Issue topic, but because you found new problem in PGS software you though I am speaking about new problem
I do not need any software for statement what such similar diamonds should receive same rating, grade.../ Difference 1% in rating is quit normal, but difference in 3 grades for 10 steps grade system is quit abnormal.
Marty,
It has not any connection with your letters at all:
1) You did not send in your letters results PGS grade at all. ( My statement about difference in 3 grades can not come from information from your letters)
2) It was answer to you post about difference in DC metric( 0.97/0.9
for my 4 examples. I said 1% is not problem but 3 grades( AGS0-AGS3) for diamonds which have minor difference in girdle and Star is REAL problem/I did not change Issue topic, but because you found new problem in PGS software you though I am speaking about new problem
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 379
Please check. Anybody can check it:
I do not need any software for the statement that very similar diamonds should receive the same rating. Grading difference of 1% in rating is quite normal, but difference of 3 grades for a 10-step grading system is quit abnormal.
I do not know about the reason for this mistake in AGS grade. Two possibilities are that AGS changed the grading system (and these grades are from different software) or AGS-PGS has big problems with continuity at a point)
Leaving the STL problem aside, consider just the main issue that P41CR35T57 has different grades in different AGS charts ( AGS0 and AGS3)
Is it clear for you now? Please check all posts in the right sequence.
Could we go back to the main issue about the AGS charts?
Sergey Sivovolenko
Sergey’s main question, why P41CR35T57 has different grades in different AGS charts, is the same question I addressed in my posts that are now buried three pages back.
I was told that the cut grading guideline charts were the AGS’s initial determinations for optically symmetric cutting with the constraints and proportions listed on each graph.
Peter is very forthcoming in supplying the updated grade for any specific combination of parameters such as the 56/41/35/50/80/ symmetric case that I asked him for. The argument for updating the charts is for completeness and so that the AGS position may be correctly represented. It is to remove confusion like the P41CR35T56 Ideal 0 combination that is currently labeled a 2.
Seems to me that both Sergey and I have made an earnest case for the importance of AGS issuing an update to the cut grading guidelines.
Michael Cowing
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Sergey..
As I understand the "problem" with STL''s
1) Create a model in DC and directly export to binary STL format, you get one set of STL''s
2) Create the same model in DC, export to ascii STL format, re-import to DC and export to binary STL and you get a different set of STL''s.
Probably caused by internal software rounding (single/double precision/whatever) and attempt to fill in the "blanks" where there "appears" to be mathematical inconsistencies, but in effect are LSB differences.
How close can two vertices be to one another, before they are considered one point, and not two points.
What I theorize what happens is, that you wind up creating infinitesimally small facets whose normals appear to come from the girdle plane or be associated with some other facet, like the culet, because one always tries to close the "form".
Let us say you read in double precision numbers as single precision, as you can do with ascii files (as opposed to binary). Then the subsequant math is working with truncated variables. (not as bad as GIA rounding though
Because of the small "virtual" facet size relative to the whole stone, you don''t materially effect any raytracing (or image, think of it as one bad pixel on a screen) but you do wind up potentially effecting software that hasn''t anticipated all possible "errors", so to speak.
When I put "errors" in quotes, I mean they are caused by LSB (Least Significant Bit, for the uninitiated) math, and are very difficult to "prevent" either in generation (of STL''s) or interpretation (by PGS or any other software, like mine
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
No you haven''t made any case, at all. All you have done is whine that you are not getting your way.
The original charts were GUIDELINES ONLY, intended to indicate that if you cut inside those guidelines you were MORE LIKELY to receive the desired grade, than if you cut on the edge of a potential cliff.
Date: 2/24/2007 2:20:33 PM
Author: adamasgem
Sergey..
As I understand the ''problem'' with STL''s
1) Create a model in DC and directly export to binary STL format, you get one set of STL''s
2) Create the same model in DC, export to ascii STL format, re-import to DC and export to binary STL and you get a different set of STL''s.
Probably caused by internal software rounding (single/double precision/whatever) and attempt to fill in the ''blanks'' where there ''appears'' to be mathematical inconsistencies, but in effect are LSB differences.
How close can two vertices be to one another, before they are considered one point, and not two points.
What I theorize what happens is, that you wind up creating infinitesimally small facets whose normals appear to come from the girdle plane or be associated with some other facet, like the culet, because one always tries to close the ''form''.
Let us say you read in double precision numbers as single precision, as you can do with ascii files (as opposed to binary). Then the subsequant math is working with truncated variables. (not as bad as GIA rounding though)
Because of the small ''virtual'' facet size relative to the whole stone, you don''t materially effect any raytracing (or image, think of it as one bad pixel on a screen) but you do wind up potentially effecting software that hasn''t anticipated all possible ''errors'', so to speak.
When I put ''errors'' in quotes, I mean they are caused by LSB (Least Significant Bit, for the uninitiated) math, and are very difficult to ''prevent'' either in generation (of STL''s) or interpretation (by PGS or any other software, like mine).
Marty,
If you want discuss ASCII stl please open new thread. This thread is about AGS charts.
In your first post in ASCII STL thread please explain: why is not enough for you(or AGS) work with binary STL?( It had been done specially for PGS-AGS. )
I will spend time Octonus developer only for important for market tasks.
For most DC clients export to STL is not necessary at all.
AGS researchers can use binary STL.
BTW I have not task support my competitors or fix AGS problems
End this story.
regards to AGS.
MARTY,
It is not GUIDELINES ONLY.
IT IS WRONG AGS GUIDELINES FOR CUTTERS.
It's main MICHAEL's ISSUE and IT IS CORRECT RIGHT QUESTION. AND WE HAVE RIGHTS to receive CORRECT AND RIGHT ANSWER
IF YOU CAN NOT DO IT please stop your SQUABBLE here.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Sergey, I don''t see where you or Michael have any "RIGHTS" at all.
Particularly when you take COPYRIGHTED AGS GUIDELINE charts and try to impliment them in your DiamondCalc software as a parametrically based grading system, which they are NOT. (AGS_2005 Appraiser)
Good try, but no cigar. I can see facts and and read between the lines..
WE =MARKET ( here), Cutters for example.Date: 2/24/2007 3:39:26 PM
Author: adamasgem
Sergey, I don't see where you or Michael have any 'RIGHTS' at all.
Particularly when you take COPYRIGHTED AGS GUIDELINE charts and try to impliment them in your DiamondCalc software as a parametrically based grading system, which they are NOT. (AGS_2005 Appraiser)
Good try, but no cigar. I can see facts and and read between the lines..
Michael and I just asked it on PS.
Ask AGS, Have Market rights or not?
BTW Somebody in GIA though what market has not rights to demand FREE RIGHT GUIDELINES for cutters.
Not only cutters depend from LABs, Labs depend from cutters too
. re:Particularly when you take COPYRIGHTED AGS GUIDELINE charts and try to impliment them in your DiamondCalc software as a parametrically based grading system, which they are NOT. (AGS_2005 Appraiser)
BTW.I had permission for it. Ask AGS again . Or Are you new AGS lawyer .
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Date: 2/24/2007 3:52:15 PM
Author: Serg
WE =MARKET ( here), Cutters for example.
Michael and I just asked it on PS.
Ask AGS, Have Market rights or not?
BTW Somebody in GIA though what market has not rights to demand FREE RIGHT GUIDELINES for cutters.
In GIA''s case, I think their output should be public domain, because of the tax status issues.
Not only cutters depend from LABs, Labs depend from cutters too.. Yup, and the "wider" their ystem th tendency for more business
. re:Particularly when you take COPYRIGHTED AGS GUIDELINE charts and try to impliment them in your DiamondCalc software as a parametrically based grading system, which they are NOT. (AGS_2005 Appraiser)
BTW.I had permission for it. Ask AGS again . Or Are you new AGS lawyer .
re:BTW.I had permission for it. Ask AGS again . Or Are you new AGS lawyer . Then I appologize. But I doubt if you were given permission to issue "grades" or to publish software that gives AGS_2005 "parameters quality" for conditions which were never published. Seems a software fix is in order?
Marty,
I will happy discuss it with AGS in court. It will give me good publicity.
Are you new AGS lawyer?
If you are not AGS lawyer please do not to try do him work here and lose my time.
You have lost something very important during this post
BTW I will happy delete any mention about AGS( and of course any DATA from AGS and ASET) from DC3.0 . It is not problem for OctoNus at all. And what is more I do not like more help to AGS.
One advice Marty: before you will continue here your lawyer work, discuss with Peter firstly.
Did you hear: I will HAPPY delete all from AGS in DC3.0
Then I appologize. But I doubt if you were given permission to issue "grades" or to publish software that gives AGS_2005 "parameters quality" for conditions which were never published. Seems a software fix is in order?Marty,
I will happy discuss it with AGS in court. It will give me good publicity.
Are you new AGS lawyer?
If you are not AGS lawyer please do not to try do him work here and lose my time.
You have lost something very important during this post
BTW I will happy delete any mention about AGS( and of course any DATA from AGS and ASET) from DC3.0 . It is not problem for OctoNus at all. And what is more I do not like more help to AGS.
One advice Marty: before you will continue here your lawyer work, discuss with Peter firstly.
Did you hear: I will HAPPY delete all from AGS in DC3.0
re:publish software that gives AGS_2005 ''parameters quality'' for conditions which were never published. Seems a software fix is in order?Date: 2/24/2007 4:32:15 PM
Author: adamasgem
Date: 2/24/2007 3:52:15 PM
Author: Serg
WE =MARKET ( here), Cutters for example.
Michael and I just asked it on PS.
Ask AGS, Have Market rights or not?
BTW Somebody in GIA though what market has not rights to demand FREE RIGHT GUIDELINES for cutters.
In GIA''s case, I think their output should be public domain, because of the tax status issues.
Not only cutters depend from LABs, Labs depend from cutters too.. Yup, and the ''wider'' their ystem th tendency for more business
. re:Particularly when you take COPYRIGHTED AGS GUIDELINE charts and try to impliment them in your DiamondCalc software as a parametrically based grading system, which they are NOT. (AGS_2005 Appraiser)
BTW.I had permission for it. Ask AGS again . Or Are you new AGS lawyer .
from http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/3dcalc/standard/diamcalc_2-4.phtml
"The new AGS appraiser for Brilliant and Prince cuts is added. It is named AGS_2005. This appraiser provides estimation of the overall cut quality, using several cut parameters simultaneously. The parameters that are taken into account during stone appraisal are displayed in gray, red or green color. The red color means that it is necessary to decrease the parameter value to get to a better group, the green color suggests to increase the parameter value. There is also a special button "Better group" that changes all parameters of the stone to move it to a nearest better group. "
What is color for diameter?
- Status
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)