I remember you posting in this thread

http://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/80862-Plot-A-3d-Surface-With-Data-Points

I don't remember if the links worked then or not, but even those links don't work now. 

Hopefully, by future release, surely you don't mean the next version of Maple, release 15 ? ...

Hopefully, by future release, surely you don't mean the next version of Maple, release 15 ? ...

@jakubi  Vagueley yes I remember a post and a link to the new uploaded files.  Ironically could it be in one of my own??  Anyways the search will be on.  And yes searching here in the new primes is very diffucult and time consuming.

Maybe the viewpoint command option has somehow nulled the animate command with some of the plot commands. 

Maybe the viewpoint command option has somehow nulled the animate command with some of the plot commands. 

@omega09 The webpage seems to have a Mathematica bias and a lot of negative slant towards Maple.  The only negative mathematica comment was about the new flythrough feature that Maple has. 

On another note.  Googling golden rectangle brings up yet another mathematica page, I'm sure there's code someone's done somewhere in Maple.  Perhaps Mapleprimes could add an extra forum topic like for example the 3M analysis warroom topic (a place where maple users can up the ante on pages produced by either mathematica or matlab) it could generate some added positive feedback to maplesoft to make their product better. 

Links to above mentioned files are broken (no longer available) can anyone provide links or can the administrator locate these files?

sorry, the last plot should be displayed with the command 

display(c,orientation=[-90,0])

In my hurry to post I left it out.  It's almost the transform command added a moire pattern to the transformation.  Is this a property we need to live with.  I think it's a problem, hopefully there will be a fix.  But perhaps there is a different way / workaround?

I remember crossing this webpage a while back http://amath.colorado.edu/computing/mmm/brief.html and I happen to cross it again, it's a brief description of the three M's ( Maple Mathematica Matlab )

Now, I'm not sure how old it is but what bothers me about this page is that is states Mathematica IS the premier all-purpose mathematical software package.  Also stating that the only drawbacks is that it's hard to learn and it's steep price but nothing about it's drawbacks in functionality.  Doesn't say much for Matlab and pretty much places Maple at the end comparing that it does the same things Mathematica does, then goes on to state drawbacks where it's interface is less superior to Mathematica's. 

In a quick google search of `Mathematica Maple Matlab` that is the first page that is pulled floating in the internet sea.  Obviously this page has a Mathematica slant or is quite biased towards it.  Regardless of how old this page is anyone wanting to see the differences between the 3 M's will come across this page and if it's their only deciding opinion will, probably, most likely decide to purchase Mathematica.  This is why I would call this webpage a page with a Maple dagger.  No it doesn't force one to go with Mathematica but it certainly persuades one choice to go towards Mathematica. 

I'm not saying this webpage was the deciding factor for someone but I'm willing to bet it certainly had a fairly significant influence.  That webpage tells someone exactly what they want to hear, brief and to the point.  It's too bad I haven't been able to find a webpage like that with a slant towards Maple.  However, being a Maple user I'd like to think, that I have an overall advantage over the rest of the field.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Nice explanation Acer.  So we can improve my procedure if we adapt Axel's idea and use b*2 instead of b+2, then my procedure becomes just a little bit more useful. 

All is not lost (i think), you can still use evalf in the way you want.  Create your own evalf.  It slightly builds on something I mentioned earlier about including extra digits internally, we'll just create your own procedure to do that externally. 

eric10evalf:=proc(a,b)
  evalf(evalf(a,b+2),b)
end proc:

eric10evalf(S,2)
                       6.1 10¹²

It seems to work well, I haven't been able to find a case where it doesn't work ... yet.  Someone else will most likely prove me wrong.  Although I do hope it works.  

Okay I found a faq that answers your question, where you came to the same reasoning. 

http://www.maplesoft.com/support/faqs/detail.aspx?sid=87674&pid=1 heading : The evalf command is not rounding the answer correctly.

I wonder if the intention was to speed up calculations?  To avoid rounding errors like this, in hindsight, I wonder if they could have added a couple of decimal places internally so the number is rounded properly.  However there is probably a few situations that would still bring up this rounding issue.