@Pieter Boelen The file is attached at post 57, 4 posts above this.
I didn't reattach because it isn't intended for implementation on that form, it comments out the initial dualing stuff just to be sure, and completely reverts the correction you suggested to the dialogue. It was just to locate the source of the problem.
It can be used, if someone wants to uncomment the initial dual and then take a look at the (now uncorrected) secrion and figure out why it works, or someone can instead look at the current version, and just figure out why the corrected version doesn't work.
I didn't reattach because it isn't intended for implementation on that form, it comments out the initial dualing stuff just to be sure, and completely reverts the correction you suggested to the dialogue. It was just to locate the source of the problem.
It can be used, if someone wants to uncomment the initial dual and then take a look at the (now uncorrected) secrion and figure out why it works, or someone can instead look at the current version, and just figure out why the corrected version doesn't work.