To take the wishing a step further, I'd wish that the remote control panel was quite customizable so that more novice users (say in an office environment) don't really have to look at the definition, but can just operate the definition from the remote panel completely. Say I make a solution for modelling stair railings, and the other users in the office don't have to be grasshopper users really, but can open up this file and reuse it. Of course they can do that right now, but if the person making the definition file could have control over how the remote panel is laid out, then the novice could be insulated from definition files. (like how Microsoft Access has forms that can be build to insulate novice users from the having to access data tables directly, potentially fowling the data)
#3. Maybe collapsible slider groups (like layers panel in Rhino), would be an easy way to clean up (like when you have 30 sliders or something). Or maybe more like a form with a grid layout (default grid placement could be stacked as the current panel is?). #4. It would be great to be able to show parameters in the remote panel (!!!). Say you have a definition where you constantly set new curves for a curve parameter. That would be nice to be able to place that parameter in control panel (also for novice insulation purposes). -Chris On Jan 17, 10:28 am, frankS <[email protected]> wrote: > a tiny contribution to silder related wishes: > have a multiplier included to the sliders settings. > > example of use: > if i want to control a diameter of a circle by a slider, i divide the > sliders output by 2 (or multiply by 0.5) in order to hand the radius > over to the circle component. > > what do you think? does it make things more complicated or helps > reducing the number of components? > > frank > > On Jan 17, 4:00 pm, visose <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Damn this is tricky. I think the value should stick to 10 because when > > the min value of the domain is changed to 10, you are implicitly > > deciding that the value you want in that moment is at least 10 and not > > 2.5. It doesen't matter if you are forced to set the min value as 10, > > because if not the definition breaks. Not wanting to break the > > definition is a decision you took so the last value you really wanted > > was 10 and not 2.5. It doesen't matter whether you decided it when > > designing the definition or moving the slider. > > > On Jan 17, 2:51 pm, David Rutten <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok, that makes sense. Let's make the situation a bit more complicated > > > still: > > > > 1) as before, you have a slider that's defined by {0.0; 10.0; 2.5} > > > (min, max, value) > > > 2) the slider domain is changed and the value is adjusted, so now we > > > have {10.0; 50.0; 10.0} > > > 3) now the domain is shifted again, and this time it becomes {-20.0; > > > +20.0; ?} > > > > should the value stick to 10.0 or revert to 2.5? 2.5 is the value you > > > last specified, so in my mind that means you 'prefer' that value to > > > 10.0, which was merely a result of limits. > > > > -- > > > David Rutten > > > [email protected] > > > Robert McNeel & Associates > > > > On Jan 17, 12:13 pm, visose <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > IMO, if you change the domain the slider value should remain the same > > > > as much as possible. If you want the value to scale proportionally, > > > > you don't really care for the actual value so you shouldn't mind using > > > > a percentage slider (0-1) or (0-100). > > > > > On Jan 17, 10:40 am, David Rutten <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Those wishes are indeed already on the list. And actually, I'd prefer > > > > > people wishing for the same things, since it tells me which wishes are > > > > > most pertinent. > > > > > > I do have a question about flexible slider domains: > > > > > > Imagine you have a slider that goes from 0.0 to 10.0 and the value is > > > > > set at 2.5. Now, due to an external cause, the slider domain is > > > > > changed to go from 10.0 to 50.0, what happens to the value? Does it > > > > > remain the same as much as possible (i.e. 10.0 in this case) or is it > > > > > scaled along with the domain (i.e. 20.0 in this case)? > > > > > > -- > > > > > David Rutten > > > > > Robert McNeel & Associates > > > > > > On Jan 16, 7:50 pm, Chris Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It seems many wish list items are popping up lately, so here's two: > > > > > > > 1. It would be useful if sliders had inputs for the upper and lower > > > > > > values. So that if conditions changed that affected the range of > > > > > > values that you need in your slider, those limits could be changed > > > > > > dynamically. > > > > > > > 2. Ability to reorder the sliders on the remote control panel in > > > > > > Rhino. (and save this in the definition file) > > > > > > > If these exist already, and/or if there is an existing wish list > > > > > > posted somewhere, let me know. I'd hate to wish for wishes already > > > > > > wished. > > > > > > > -Chris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
