If they have problems reproducing it, they should have and would have said so. I have evidence from other bug reports that they would tell me if they cant reproduce the bug. They told me that in other cases, I dont see why they wouldnt in this case.  You dont know for sure that they cant, so why assume so?
I did not say or even think it was an easy bug to fix. I said it is irrelevant to the user if it is or not. Four months is quite a long time to wait for a fundamental facility as input to work right. Nobody would accept it for any other type of goods, it shouldnt be accepted for software.
I'm not saying they do it on purpose. I'm not saying they are doing it to annoy me personally. I'm saying there are unfixed bugs in a product I paid for nearly 5 months ago and that ist acceptable.
 
This round of posts and contra-posts began because I'm very decent and open about stating when they do something right, not only when they do things wrong. They finally gave me an update of what the situation is with the bug fixes this week.
I thought it would be fair to inform people about it in this thread. I said what they fixed and what isnt fixed. I said that the dislexia problem isnt, and that it is a horrible bug to live with. These are the facts. You cant dispute any of that. You cant call the true facts inflammatory.
I also keep stating it is e-on's responsibility to fix bugs in their software. Workarounds can be a temporary help, but not a solution. Certainly not when the real fixes dont arrive for weeks or even months.  I dont think that is inflammatory either. I stated my premise and provided the facts, people can and should draw their own conclusions.
As to your efforts to help, I do appreciate the time you invested, I said so many times.  But  your detailed comments didnt actually help, particularly since mostly you implied I didnt do thing right or didnt understand things right. Turns out I am right and not as stupid/ignorant  as it may seem.
To name a several examples:
-You suggested I didnt use the align command correctly. That wasnt so. E-on did at the end see the problem and fix it. I was right to complain and right to insist on a fix.
-You suggested I could cope with internal units (rather than real world units) by doing conversions by hand. E-on now agrees that makes no sense, the new update is supposed to have  that fixed. I was right to complain and right to insist on a fix.
-You said my 'glowing water' experiment is flawed becuase it is done in a box and I dont know what auto-exposure means. It was a perfectly valid experiment. In his last replay John Canver said "This is more a limitation of the fade out effect than a bug ...but making this effect sensitive to potential geometric blockers would be an interesting improvement indeed, I'll transmit this suggestion for future versions."
So my box was a valid example of a 'geometric blocker', no problem with my understanding of auto-exposure. I was right to complain. I pointed out a flaw (whether you call it a bug, malfunction  or a limitation) which should be fixed.
So there are bugs in vue which shouldnt have been there in the first place if they had efficient quality control, e-on are excruciatingly slow to figure out and fix (some of) them, but they do see sense eventualy if I'm persistent enough. You always asume first of all that I'm wrong and that I'm out to get e-on. Could you not give me the benefit of the doubt that my aim is positive, that I want vue to work well? not only for the lucky ones but for all?

I check the bugs I report very carefully, provide clear  information  and supporting evidence and all additional info asked for by e-on after submition, I post here  truthfully what the problems and responses are. It is impossible to be more fair and less inflammatory.

"I paint that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
Man Ray, modernist painter
http://artpearl.redbubble.com/