I agree. The remote control panel needs a lot of work. I hadn't thought about collapsing sections yet, good idea.
-- David Rutten [email protected] Robert McNeel & Associates On Jan 17, 5:08 pm, Chris Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -
