Polygon over 24 sides hangs = must kill Alibre in TaskMngr

[DingBEN]

Alibre Design Expert V27
WIN 10, DirectX 12
9th gen Intel Core 5 i5-9400F Processor (2b) 64bit/(32bit) - 2.90GHz
Chip type: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
full hardware specs attached...

All optimizations per the instructions on the Alibre website Performance section.
System was mostly already set correctly, except I had to point the GPU to the \Program Files\alibre.exe in the OS settings.
Note: the GPU is in 32bit mode(in attached), I don't know if I can/should change that?
...is there something in the BIOS that would need optimizing?

First install... just practicing features/sketching figures thus nothing on the screen, one or 2 polygons and a few lines.
Polygon 24 sides - press Apply - all good... but takes 8-15secs to draw the sides-nodes and release operation
I may have succeeded with a 28 or 30 sided attempt, not sure... a 32 froze. I tried many attempts at various settings.
I need a 48... system just freezes, have waited 1 1/2 hour to see if it would eventually complete... each time, I had to kill Alibre in TaskMngr
Played with resolution, DPI... zero improvement.
No other issues of snagging, slowness, delays, hick ups, ...everything responds well.
I can create a circular pattern of 12 count feature, without issue.

Thank you for any help you may provide.

 

[Ex Machina]

Dear DingBEN,

I am very sorry that I was triggered by your comment. It so happens sometimes that because of the lack of context in written speech we inadvertently supplement that context with concepts from our own background. So, let me explain myself as you did.

By saying you unearthed a major issue and yet you are a noob, you are doing two things:
1) Disrespecting the small team at Alibre working literal miracles and providing a software that I personally regularly use to bid against and win jobs from larger companies with software from multi-billion dollar developers. Which, if nothing else, is a testament to the quality of the software.
2) And then by saying you are a noob, you only amplify that.

In fact, it's not a major issue. It's an obscure issue. And I will explain to you why, even though I do not know what a circular blind maze bunker is.

I imagine the part you are trying to design is not a flat 2D 48-sided regular polygon with a consistent thickness. It has features like mounting slots or holes, other additive features, etc.

I thought you were trying to do something like that, that's why I gave you the example part I did, which is a very rough take on a rotary tool holder. In cases like that, it is best practice to create a circle, add your features, and then do a circular pattern of features. There are many benefits to that which I won't list here.

I understand why you chose that design workflow that you did. It's the one that seems the most straightforward. However, with experience you will understand that it actually is not. Even if the software allowed you to increase the number of sides.

Here is an analogy to the approach you took:
You buy a Musclecar. At some point you try and go around a tight corner at 110mph. You inevitably crash out. Then you go back to the dealership and complain that the advertised top speed of the car is 185mph (analogous to your up to 100 points remark). So, it should be able to work at 110mph. And that you have tested other types of cars that could take that very particular corner at 110mph. Imagine telling that to an employee in the car dealership. Then telling him "Is anyone wondering, that it takes a noob like me to unearth a major issue of this type?"

I hope this analogy makes sense to you.

As for this paragraph in your comment:

.....
I will be back on this in a couple of days, and attempt to do creative shtuff like Konstantinos.
I had thought to do it via concentric circles with degreeeeed rays... pattern circle tool.
...and that means having to cutout unnecessary geometry, or creating reference material.
...

Quite apart from the fact that there is an "h" in the word "stuff" that got left behind, I have no idea what you're saying there. But I suspect you are approaching this as if you are drafting in AutoCAD or on paper, which is not how Parametric CAD works. And trying to bend the software to function like that will only cause frustration. My approach is not creative stuff. It's just taking advantage of geometric principles. In parametric software you need geometry along with simple dimensions. In this case, all you need is a simple triangle, no rays and concentric circles.

There are videos on YouTube on how to go from "AutoCAD to Solidworks", "AutoCAD to Creo Parametric", "AutoCAD to Fusion". All of the principles shown in those videos apply to Alibre Design as well.

I hope I explained to you all of the context behind my response and why I considered your message toxic. And why I thought you were dismissive of the work of hundreds of people over a few decades to bring the software where it is now. Only because the first approach you thought of to a problem didn't work.

Is this a good opportunity to make the software better? Yes, for sure! Should we all be thankful that you stumbled across this issue before we did. Probably yes! But being dismissive and nihilistic is uncalled for and a bit ignorant of what Parametric CAD actually is.

I might, of course, be wrong as many people have told me that I am a complete noob in Human Discourse and Interactions. I also hope you understood that your design approach might not be optimal and that there is perhaps a better way to go about designing your part.

And finally, if you feel that you need some help, I'd be happy to jump on a video call with you and work on that circular blind maze bunker. I reckon in 20-30 minutes we can have it complete, parametrically robust and looking awesome.

 

[DingBEN]

Dear DingBEN,

I am very sorry that I was triggered by your comment. It so happens sometimes that because of the lack of context in written speech we inadvertently supplement that context with concepts from our own background. So, let me explain myself as you did.

By saying you unearthed a major issue and yet you are a noob, you are doing two things:
1) Disrespecting the small team at Alibre working literal miracles and providing a software that I personally regularly use to bid against and win jobs from larger companies with software from multi-billion dollar developers. Which, if nothing else, is a testament to the quality of the software.
2) And then by saying you are a noob, you only amplify that.

In fact, it's not a major issue. It's an obscure issue. And I will explain to you why, even though I do not know what a circular blind maze bunker is.

I imagine the part you are trying to design is not a flat 2D 48-sided regular polygon with a consistent thickness. It has features like mounting slots or holes, other additive features, etc.

I thought you were trying to do something like that, that's why I gave you the example part I did, which is a very rough take on a rotary tool holder. In cases like that, it is best practice to create a circle, add your features, and then do a circular pattern of features. There are many benefits to that which I won't list here.

I understand why you chose that design workflow that you did. It's the one that seems the most straightforward. However, with experience you will understand that it actually is not. Even if the software allowed you to increase the number of sides.

Here is an analogy to the approach you took:
You buy a Musclecar. At some point you try and go around a tight corner at 110mph. You inevitably crash out. Then you go back to the dealership and complain that the advertised top speed of the car is 185mph (analogous to your up to 100 points remark). So, it should be able to work at 110mph. And that you have tested other types of cars that could take that very particular corner at 110mph. Imagine telling that to an employee in the car dealership. Then telling him "Is anyone wondering, that it takes a noob like me to unearth a major issue of this type?"

I hope this analogy makes sense to you.

As for this paragraph in your comment:

Quite apart from the fact that there is an "h" in the word "stuff" that got left behind, I have no idea what you're saying there. But I suspect you are approaching this as if you are drafting in AutoCAD or on paper, which is not how Parametric CAD works. And trying to bend the software to function like that will only cause frustration. My approach is not creative stuff. It's just taking advantage of geometric principles. In parametric software you need geometry along with simple dimensions. In this case, all you need is a simple triangle, no rays and concentric circles.

There are videos on YouTube on how to go from "AutoCAD to Solidworks", "AutoCAD to Creo Parametric", "AutoCAD to Fusion". All of the principles shown in those videos apply to Alibre Design as well.

I hope I explained to you all of the context behind my response and why I considered your message toxic. And why I thought you were dismissive of the work of hundreds of people over a few decades to bring the software where it is now. Only because the first approach you thought of to a problem didn't work.

Is this a good opportunity to make the software better? Yes, for sure! Should we all be thankful that you stumbled across this issue before we did. Probably yes! But being dismissive and nihilistic is uncalled for and a bit ignorant of what Parametric CAD actually is.

I might, of course, be wrong as many people have told me that I am a complete noob in Human Discourse and Interactions. I also hope you understood that your design approach might not be optimal and that there is perhaps a better way to go about designing your part.

And finally, if you feel that you need some help, I'd be happy to jump on a video call with you and work on that circular blind maze bunker. I reckon in 20-30 minutes we can have it complete, parametrically robust and looking awesome.

The issue I reported, IS an issue, potentially in terms of engineering, and surely performance.
To take an apologetic stance about it is just not necessary, nor is it productive.

I have used enough software in my life to know to find ways around issues, as I am aware that fixes may not be as immediate as expected. Thus when I chime in a forum, it is to speed up the process and save myself from reinventing the wheel... or to save myself from taking a weak laborious approach... a little help from my friends. The posts above all exemplify that, and indeed are very helpful and much appreciated.

I will keep your offer to coach me as an option, be I run into an impass...
But my preference is always to fly solo. Stand surprised if and when I respond with my request to cash it in..

Your comment: "...I am very sorry that I was triggered by your comment...."
No need for what I interpret as an apology. ( LOL - while in the same breath, you offer a book to grill me to the patronizing wall )
I read you as caring person, so am I... I sitting here, giggling.

When it comes to science, the Universe, I am like the Sun, I do my Sun thing, if it blows the Earth to smitten, oh well! bad luck! Let's move on to the next Universe thing to do.
It's nearly like saying, in business there is not such thing as 'friend'.
Now, do not interpret this to mean I am cold and uncaring, much less callous.
Please do not over-read, just take it as a way to explain, to analogize.

You are reading entirely way too much into my words already... You even mention detail that a noob would not come near knowing or know about.
If I was to answer every point you make, it would hardly bring any light into the issue, and would start looking like a food-fight.
(this is too long already) I choose to answer only a few major points and give attention to those points that are useful to the issue, and let the rest hang to dry.
One point you bring up, using a circle does add a possible go-around approach, and I mentioned that myself in the prior post.
The point of using the catalog, seems to also have potential... though I do not agree with your pointing out that the way things are done in a parametric tool is via the circle vs using a polygon... just making you aware, not looking to food-fight over this!
...again, I am far from being at a level of proficiency with Alibre Design, thus expect miserably slow movement...

One thing that might have been lost in the chaos:
I did mention in a previous post """"Perhaps there is a setting that needs to be tweaked. I just can't see they would let the software out knowing the issue. Could be an even easier fix.""" ...this should show you that I am not in a bashing mode, but solution-thinking that this issue has an already existing answer, thus not a defect.

My words are not an attack on the Alibre developers, no matter the size of their outfit, all I am saying is that people who are much more advanced than I am would have encountered this issue long ago... the fact that the issue was not to be found in my search for the solution, is my only point, that it fell upon me(a noob who has not even had a chance to experience but the first baby steps of this CAD) to be the one bringing it up to the surface, that the long term users, seasoned users may have use the software superficially enough to never encounter, this issue, nothing more...
...basically an incredulous moment.

I have listed everything you bring up as well as what others also chimed in, as potential immediate go'around(s).
It will take some time for me to go thru all the testing, thus I may not report back for a long time.
...and by that time, support may already have offered the solution.

all in fun...

 

[DingBEN]

Ok... just got an answer from support
Support:
This has been raised previously, we have it logged with our Development team as EN-312.
I'm not able to give any indication of when this might be addressed, or indeed whether there is a good solution available.
I've tagged this ticket onto the existing item.

My first thought answer:
Thank you, I will test turning off constraints(symbols) and other sketch features to see what sort of result I get.
Will that actually turn off constraints, leaving the geometry subject to inadvertent compromise?
...and if no constraints are even possible/allowed, is there a way to lock a particular geometry, to protect it?

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

You can turn off the visual display of constraints - which may improve performance. You can turn off the automatically inferred constraints that are applied as you sketch - it is possible that improves performance. Afaik there is no way to turn off constraints created for a regular tool like polygon, but I can't say I tried. You could create a polygon using a circular array and apply fix constraints.

 

[DingBEN]

Wonderful, thank you for confirming... and the array suggestion.
I had thought about using python as well, one individual did chime in some code!
I think we are all on the same page now.
I will at least report the results of my testing, once I get back to the equipment.
Until then...
Suggestion: Perhaps the coders could add a hook to indeed toggle constraints to the polygon regular tool, as a temporary hack fix.

 

[bolsover]

This has been raised previously, we have it logged with our Development team as EN-312.

I'm guessing EN-... means enhancement.
I've asked before - but I'll say again..

It would be great to have a complete listing of bugs, workarounds and proposed enhancements together with some kind of voting so users can highlight those that need or deserve urgent attention.

 

[HaroldL]

It would be great to have a complete listing of bugs, workarounds and proposed enhancements together with some kind of voting so users can highlight those that need or deserve urgent attention.

That seems to be the way SW works.

I think there was a comment on the forum that there was something in the works to replace the 'old' Suggestion page. Whether users will have any say (vote) in the priority of enhancement requests remains to be seen.

 

[albie0803]

As to wondering why the issue hasn't been found before, most likely no-one has ever tried a poly sided shape with a count that high, maybe originally it did go that high and automatic constraints weren't a thing and no-one retested it when they became so. We may never know and aren't automatically due to poor practices and/or coding.
I know in my engineering models, I would never need that many sides on a polygon.

 

[DavidJ]

Issue has been found and reported before.

The poor performance with large side count is likely down to the use of a very large number of constraints to define the shape (making it generic and adjustable) - that's a lot for the constraint manager to resolve simultaneously. As has been pointed out there are (mathematically - if not for the user) much simpler ways to define the shape, that are far less calculation intensive, if you can tolerate a bit less flexibility.

 

[DingBEN]

Alibre0803 and DavidJj ...
What you bring up is already either stated/implied/or deducted above.
As to the high count... that is relative and subjective to personal experience, and design requirement, I am not the odd ball here.
...and I already see that I may have no choice when it comes to tolerating flexibility, life is all about tolerance.

Someone may want to chime in and reveal where the parameter is said to allow up to 100.
...could be part of a notifying messages that pops up at input... It is on my list to verify.
Though I do not remember having tested how high a count the input box accepts.
I have successfully used a 96 count in other non-parametric tools.

The magic bunker mentioned earlier actuates lever mechanisms that actually implement mechanical counters.
As to all the go-around ways to accomplish the job, I have them all duly noted and may have to fall back on,
while I must avoid a domino cascade redefining the entire mechanism. Parts count, rotary vs piston engine, etc....

I must go thru another EUREKA moment when/if I attempt a different approach than all the trial and error I already performed, long ago. The early original approach was a pawl-based ratchet design, until a bi-directional feature became part of the requirement... polygon eureka moment! Thus, it is unlikely that this new approach will exclude the polygon final configuration, just the way to design the polygon in the software.

There is a potential approach not yet mentioned... a modified involute spur gear algorithm.
...and that script is available. ...ha! yet a new language to chew on: Python!
Had not planned to jump into scripting this early... possible new can of worms/snakes.

All comments and suggestions duly appreciated.

 

[DingBEN]

As to wondering why the issue hasn't been found before, most likely no-one has ever tried a poly sided shape with a count that high, maybe originally it did go that high and automatic constraints weren't a thing and no-one retested it when they became so. We may never know and aren't automatically due to poor practices and/or coding.
I know in my engineering models, I would never need that many sides on a polygon.

if you look up in the thread, it was actually reported(per Alibre Support) and some individuals chimed in with the same problem in V26... there just was not an entry in the Forum about it... but indeed, the requirement for higher counts of sides in projects must not be common.

 

[DavidJ]

and DavidJj ...
What you bring up is already either stated/implied/or deducted above.
As to the high count... that is relative and subjective to personal experience, and design requirement, I am not the odd ball here.

Why do you interpret everything as against you?

I was pointing out that the way the polygon tool is constructed puts a lot of demand on the 2D constraint manager, as the number of sides grows. I make no comment about how many sides is 'a lot'. There may well be scope to re-design the tool to use a more efficient approach (though perhaps at the cost of some flexibility in use) - probably using similar principles to those outlined by ex-Machina. I doubt that will happen soon.

In the meantime, setting up the "generator triangle" as a catalog feature could give an option to lessen the pain for those who need large count polygons now.

 

[DingBEN]

DavidJ, and everyone else ,

...children, children, children!
Just setting things straight... and that part was not directed at you, but the other post.
I should have responded to each separately, to avoid this particular confusion. (my bad)

The information highway is loaded with polygon examples at the 120 level, and even in the millions, billions sides count...how am I to know as a complete noob that 48 is some sort of major barrier, especially when I have accomplished 96 without a whimper, long ago?
...and how does one's personal experience/preference/acquired-preference answer MY CASE, MY REQUIREMENT!
which is the reason for ME to have launched this case!
Moreover the issue touches many more than just me as well, what about their equal requirement?

I sincerely apologize to have to waste anyone's time with this food-fight nonsense.
I try not to ignore anyone, thus I respond to acknowledge and be polite.
This is the last time, I will address emotional content.
I will only respond to technical material that addresses the issue, not any preferences or dictating of preferences.

Now, the following interjections are not all mentioned in this thread, but rampant on the Internet Forums:
"...everything! against me!..." (EVURUHTHING!!! really!?), "...it worked for me...", "...why would you need such a high count...", "can't you do things like everybody else...", "...apologetic comments to the responsible parties... (implication, "I" am attacking them)" so many more...
These interjections ARE disparaging to anyone(not just me), as they are dismissive, ...sometimes more than that..., etc...
If you are going to cry-baby about responses to them, then just don't make them!

If one is allowed to make them, one(else) is allowed to respond. No harm done.
I do not attack anyone, nor attempt to escalate, simply respond in kind to negate those type comments.

I could say, why are some of you so apologetic for the makers of the software, and so butthurt when this has nothing to do with emotions, but a perhaps, at worst, a brutal raw analysis of a technical issue!?
You bet, I am not the odd ball... and kind individuals have chimed in to help curtail the negative waves.
You are forcing a juvenile food-fight in a technical discussion...

Even if I did not need a 48 polygon, I would have exposed the issue... though it may not help me, it would help others.
And, when limits are a potential or a given, I always test to see how much can be accomplished, do you not?

Perhaps when I now, ignore one's emotional renderings, or due to it, completely bypass the post, I will stand patronized, still... not to worry, I will ignore that too.

 

[DavidJ]

As acknowledged by support, the polygon tool is not usable for your requirement. I've given my understanding of why the way the tool is designed may lead to that. Some of the alternative ways of generating polygons are certainly much less calculation intensive, and don't need to make as extensive use of the constraint manager. Such changes might well mean that the way the tool is used would have to be significantly different to how it currently is.

Alibre is not saying that 48 or a higher number is an unreasonable requirement, it's just not particularly common. I think this issue has been raised twice with over a year between reports ( I'm not currently attached to the system that can confirm the dates). Therefore my guess is that this won't get addressed in immediate future, hence my comment suggesting an approach to explore.

 

[stepalibre]

I could say, why are some of you so apologetic for the makers of the software, and so butthurt when this has nothing to do with emotions, but a perhaps, at worst, a brutal raw analysis of a technical issue!?
You bet, I am not the odd ball... and kind individuals have chimed in to help curtail the negative waves.
You are forcing a juvenile food-fight in a technical discussion...

I agree, my default is problem solving not leaning into one side or another. Discussions can become very defensive and apologetic missing the point which is to address the issue.

I noticed this issue when trying out sketch features in v26. My focus is programming Alibre, I would never use a tool like this because of limitations. I posted an AlibreScript snippet that creates polygons that could somehow replace the need for the built-in tool.

Here is an example where the script gets the position of a reference point and uses that as the center point for the polygon.

import math
Diameter = 10
Sides = 5
EDia = Diameter / math.cos(math.pi / Sides)
P = CurrentPart()
RefAnchor = P.GetPoint("anchor")
S = P.AddSketch('Regular_Polygon_60_Sides_Dia_100', P.GetPlane('XY-Plane'))
S.AddPolygon(RefAnchor.X, RefAnchor.Y, EDia, Sides, False)

You could then reference the polygon sketch into another sketch to make your design. Many ways to approach this, and I'm not saying this is a better or the best workaround only another option. A true replacement for that tool can be created with AlibreScript and/or the Alibre API. A combination of code automation and the many other alternatives mentioned here can help you build a solution that might be better than the Regular Polygon tool workflow. It is often required that users build their own tools/features/solutions when the software simply doesn't work for your use case. This is not a bad thing or negative view of the development team. It was designed to be used in a particular way, and sometimes use cases exceed the design intent. It might be a bug or a feature either way my attention is on finding solutions.

If you want a custom solution I can help.

 

[Ex Machina]

Hey stepalibre,

Does that script do something other than the circular pattern in the sketch environment?

As a note to this whole discussion. Other parametric CAD systems have a polygon sketch entity. You select the number of sides, it comes in and that's it. Alibre's polygon is created by straight lines constrained to create the polygon. It's more like a macro than a command. That means that after the polygon tool creates the shape, you can delete one or two lines, make some of them reference, or whatever else you want to do with it. That gives far superior adaptability to the result of the polygon tool. In other CAD systems, that indeed handle higher side counts better, if you click on one side and hit delete, the entire polygon gets deleted.

If you just want to create an underdefined polygon and fix it in place, I would do that with the sketch environment instead of a script. I would find that more intuitive. But I guess it has to do with the level of experience of everyone, the approach that he takes

 

[stepalibre]

Hey stepalibre,

Does that script do something other than the circular pattern in the sketch environment?

As a note to this whole discussion. Other parametric CAD systems have a polygon sketch entity. You select the number of sides, it comes in and that's it. Alibre's polygon is created by straight lines constrained to create the polygon. It's more like a macro than a command. That means that after the polygon tool creates the shape, you can delete one or two lines, make some of them reference, or whatever else you want to do with it. That gives far superior adaptability to the result of the polygon tool. In other CAD systems, that indeed handle higher side counts better, if you click on one side and hit delete, the entire polygon gets deleted.

If you just want to create an underdefined polygon and fix it in place, I would do that with the sketch environment instead of a script. I would find that more intuitive. But I guess it has to do with the level of experience of everyone, the approach that he takes

You can build whatever the API will allow. If you use a script you don't need it to be fully defined, this all depends on the workflow. You could build a system where the sketch segment is made with a script then you could use some other pattern feature technique to complete the geometry 360 around. There are drawbacks to using scripts that are underdefined sketches vs fully defined. The sketch constraint system is not robust enough to create the Regular Polygon tool completely with constraints that would give better results at higher side counts. You can instead simply use math and logic in your script or custom tool to effectively recreate a constraint system.

You can make the geometry with scripts that is referenced by other sketches. This is not without drawbacks and issues, but is an option in cases like this. Alibre has great support for referencing and maintaining associations between sketches. I understand and agree that the built-in polygon tool is better than the example code I posted. That code is only an example not a complete solution.

I would do that with the sketch environment instead of a script

The script/code creates the sketch for you, it is conceptually the same as you doing it manually.

Other parametric CAD systems have a polygon sketch entity.

I'm not sure about this statement. The other CAD systems I have access to all work in a similar way to Alibre's tool but with side count limits.

SolidEdge limits you to 200 sides.



SolidWorks 2023 limits you to 40 sides.


FreeCAD limits you to 99 sides.


Inventor 2024 limits you to 120 sides:



It is clear that Alibre's tool should also have a limit on the side count to avoid this use case and better communicate the expected use of the tool. The exponential nature of a regular polygon with constraints and relations make this a common CAD problem.

if you click on one side and hit delete, the entire polygon gets deleted.

This is because that CAD system may handle special entity types as a block or gouped geometry. It may require you to explode or dissassociate from the regular polygon type to line entity type. I have seen this in Autodesk apps and APIs. If you try to delete a segment each application may handle that in different ways, as expected.

My point is simply that users often need to build custom solutions when the software ( any software ) cannot deliver the desired results. This is not a negative take targeted at Alibre developers, nor is it a problem without solutions.

 

[Ex Machina]

Well maybe then, it woud be a great addtion to Alibre to create a new type of constraint.

"Fix two lines to each other"... Catchier name needed...

Lock the length of two lines and make the location of their endpoints relative to each other. Whether they touch or not. That would allow the polygon tool to be as adaptable as it is today but also achieve higher side counts faster.

 

[HaroldL]

Interesting discussion - I do use the Polygon tool occasionally to create Hex nuts or Hex head bolts.screws. And I also used it once to model a Penta Bolt.

As for creating a script to create polygons, that would be nice except for the "awkward" way of running scripts. It would seem logical to have a method for adding scripts to the Ribbon or a Toolbar (if that's your mode of working) so all you need to do is switch to the ribbon/toolbar and click on the script icon to run it. It seems to me a bit tedious to run a script -- select the ribbon, click Launch, search for and select the script and finally select Run. And then when you're done with it you have to exit the script mode by selecting Launch again. The Launch icon should change to an Exit or Stop icon once it is selected, much like the icon for the 2d sketch which changes to Deactivate Sketch.
Is there any way to simplify this process and shorten the number of clicks?

 

[simonb65]

It would seem logical to have a method for adding scripts to the Ribbon or a Toolbar (if that's your mode of working) so all you need to do is switch to the ribbon/toolbar and click on the script icon to run it.

+1, This is the only reason why I personally don't utilise scripts in my workflow. Their use is not streamlined into the normal workflow of Alibre enough. Alibre Script started as an Add-on ... and that's how it is still used. I can create my own add-on and add my own toolbar buttons do do specific functions within that add-on, yet you still can't do that for your 'favourite' or 'essential' python scripts!