First, just let me say that Wilcom has been working on fixing the software bug and I think they are well on their way if our latest communications are any indication.  It is so nice to have the programming people and support people at a company talk with each other and the customer--something that is getting to be increasingly rare (at least in my experience). 

Delfius, I may be changine my DecoStudio to use your solution if the software bug fix becomes a downloadable program that will install on ver. e1 of DecoStudio.  Right now, I have no clue whether the programming will be addressed to ver. e1 or be done for the next release (I assume that would be e2).  If they do make a software upgrade available on the website to download and apply to e1, the Melco issue may become important to anyone wanting usable .pes files. 

You are absoutely correct that the Brother Commercial Support section had no idea what I was asking when I asked if their machine-language used Melco or Tajima machine language.  I am still waiting to hear from the Home Division (not holding my breath).  Their documentation uses different terminology for lots of things; e.g., they call digitizing a grahic "punching" or "autopunching" depending on whether one is using their automatic conversion programs (they allow one to chose the stitch type--satin, tatami, cross-stitch, etc.--and provide choices for the way the graphic is framed [including omitting the background altogether], and they have a very similar manual digitizing format that allows the graphics to be dumped, saved, or dimmed).  I could be wrong, but I think I've been able to learn both programs more thoroughly because I'm learning them both at the same time.   They are both great programs, each with its own pluses and minuses.

I notice that the documentation for DecoStudio has a chapter (20) called "Reading Files of Different Formats" that addresses some of the machine formatting issues.  The "design formats" for processing Melco CND in both stitch files and outline formats is discussed.  I think this section is addressing exactly your point???  The next chapter (21) addresses machine formats (that's its name).  In studying the manual (I printed it out, put it in a binder, and I'm reading it in depth for the 4th time now), I'm finding that the documentation is all there, it just takes some time for it all to get digested.  The first time I read this section, I skimmed through it because I did not think it mattered to me.  It appears that this is critical information and I have to thank you for your persistence in getting these points through to me.  I have just been able to actually do something I could not do before because I finally get the difference between "stitch" files and "outline files" in this program.  The Brother program used completely different terminology (a "stitch" is a "punch").  Hopefully the confusion this generates will actually add a greater depth to my understanding of how these programs work.  The Melco stitch file information is something I can relate to--it breaks the information up into separate "programming" elements that can be changed/altered to have the program stitch your design the way you want it to.  It reminds me of punching the Fortran evolved with different file extensions for subsequent releases of that computer language (array programming, module-based programing, object-based programming, object-oriented programming, and generic programming (each with a new file extension as the language evolved), and I'm starting to look at designing a stitch file as something like punching the old computer cards for those room-sized computers of the 70's--you had to write the program for read, write, execute, print with "routines," "subroutines," and parameters like stop, start, pause, continue, function, do-loop, end.  To write a Fortran program, you had to diagram the whole thing first, then punch the cards (a separate one for each command), then have the computer try to execute your program...it inolved a lot of trial and error and going back to rewrite the parts of the program that did not execute the way you intended.  The more I work with these programs, the more I see the similarity.  I wonder when they were first developed because I am seeing elements of the old Fortran here (going back to the 1950's) rather than the more recent programming languages.  If you know, please pass it on.

For anyone who is using DecoStudio and not getting the results they want, Chapter 20 is a must read.  The real superiority of their program is in allowing you to edit ALL the details--something I cannot do in the other program.  Is this related to your suggestion to change the machine to Melco?

I was recently trying to digitize a logo that is in two colors and was having difficulty getting either program to autodigitize it without adding more than I could see.   I finally got the result I wanted when I used a handy little program called "PreDesign 3".  The manual digitizing seems to give me a much better result in both programs, but at least I can now go back and edit out the stitches I did not want in the autodigitized files.

Keep it coming, Delfius, I'm loving it.

Newbie:  Yes, I worked with Wilcom and they did fix the .pes file format problem--but that was for .pes versions 1-6 and I do not know if they have updated to version 8 or PE Design Next.  If you are planning to use a six-needle Brother machine for a business, PE Design digitizing software is an absolute necessity.  I am currently using PE Design Next, Floriani Embroidery Suite Pro, and learning Artistic Sewing Suite (which includes Creative DRAWings software which was the CorelDRAW bundled predecessor to Deco Studio and still works integratively with CorelDRAW).  All three of these program cost far less than Deco e1 and all three are far superior IMHO.  I sold do not use Deco at all even though Wilcom did go out of their way to work with me to solve the .pes file problem--the program did not allow for deviations from its preprogrammed parameters (e.g., if you wanted a satin stitch wider than 6mm, you could not get it as the software was programmed to split anything that wide in two).  I think Corel made a huge mistake when Creative DRAWings wanted a bigger cut of their combined profits.  They are doing just fine without Corel and, with the addition of the Wing's Modular software and cutting needles in the Artistic Suite (all for $700), it is very powerful software for very little $$.  I own the Brother 12-needle (PR-1000) and Quattro machines and I would never be able to do anything original without the Brother digitizing software that came with these machines--there is simply no other way to self-digitized designs work with the machine edits and no other way to edit professionally digitized software and get it to run on the machines without a lot of extra work--especially with the larger or split-hoop designs.    Sharon