>> units are in pixels. >> > > That is not what I think I observe, but see below.
Hmmm ... OK >> x and y are independent >> >> negative moves left/down >> >> positive move up/right >> >> 0 is centered > > yes; yes; yes; & yes -- all observed Good >> Try some bigger numbers ... look at the following combinations >> >> set labeloffset 0 0; delay; set labeloffset 0 10; delay; set labeloffset >> 10 10; delay; >> > OK, but if I change the last one to 10 1 rather than 10 10 the resulting > position in y is not one tenth of the "10" position. Well, it is ... but in a strange way ... let me try to explain. If the offset is 0 then it is measured from the center of the label. If the offset is positive then it is measured from the left/bottom of the lable if the offset is negative then it is measured from the right/top of the label Try set labeloffset 10 0 You will observee that it is 10 to the right, plus 0 to the y. Now try set labeloffset 10 1 It moves a lot, that is because it is measured from the bottom of the label. set label offset 10 2 It moves up by one pixel > I'm using Safari 1.2.4 (and FireFox 1.0) with OSX 10.3.7 and an applet > window of 480 pixels. The movement of the label seems to correspond to > something other than a direct pixel count. If it *is* a pixel count then > the granularity is too coarse since the positioning isn't sufficiently > exact. It *is* pixel count ... but the count is from the outside of the box that surrounds the label. Here is what I was trying to accomplish. - center the label on the atom ... that is set labeloffset 0 0 - position the label above/below or left/right You cannot do everything as pixel offsets from the center of the label. If you do that then you cannot reliably position the label around the atom ... because it will be a function of the label length. I realize that this concept is hard to explain. If someone else can try then that would be good. Alternatively, if someone can come up with a simpler system that does not require a complicated explanation then that would be even better. > Other "problems" with the labels: as the image is zoomed the labels do not > also zoom correspondingly nor do the positions keep their relative > distance to the atom centers. They used to zoom. But it caused problems and I got complaints. By default we see things in perspective depth. That means that the things that are at the back are farther away. Therefore, the fonts at the back of the molecule were scaled to be smaller than then ones at the front. This had the very undesirable effect of changing the size of the font during rotations. The problem is that the fonts cannot scale gradually, rather, they go from one pixel wide to two pixels wide in a 'quantum leap'. Therefore, they looked ugly. I did not think of perhaps tying it to the zoom factor. I will think about that ... might work OK. Miguel ----- Open Source Molecular Visualization www.jmol.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
