Nutcracker: Should the user have the ability to set dimensions in Targets?

[Steve Gase]

NOTE: I move dthis from the Tutorial thread as it is about target generation
-sean

I had an "aha" moment that allowed me to drop from 12 prompts to 5 in the target generation. I no longer need any physical dimensions from people.

I just need to know how many strings and how many pixels on a string.

I was giving a walkthrough on Nutcracker yesterday to a bunch of Austin-area LSH enthusiasts and I I came to the target model where many fields were removed...

I suggested that you were trying to simplify the interface, but the dump of the new record when the target is created/edited shows that the fields (3" distance) are still present.

I guessed that all of those fields were still in the model, but not exposed... but might still usable by

a) a (hidden?) edit screen
b) email to you to update the hidden fields

I think most people don't care about the diameter of the top or bottom rings... or the distance between pixels... or the distance from the outer skirt ring to the inside bottom trunk...  but maybe some people are. 

I'd hate to see the effort you expended to allow for complexity be lost...  but I see how it might be hidden from the majority of users.

comments?

[smeighan]

I had an "aha" moment that allowed me to drop from 12 prompts to 5 in the target generation. I no longer need any physical dimensions from people.

I just need to know how many strings and how many pixels on a string.

I was giving a walkthrough on Nutcracker yesterday to a bunch of Austin-area LSH enthusiasts and I I came to the target model where many fields were removed...

I suggested that you were trying to simplify the interface, but the dump of the new record when the target is created/edited shows that the fields (3" distance) are still present.

I guessed that all of those fields were still in the model, but not exposed... but might still usable by

a) a (hidden?) edit screen
b) email to you to update the hidden fields

I think most people don't care about the diameter of the top or bottom rings... or the distance between pixels... or the distance from the outer skirt ring to the inside bottom trunk...  but maybe some people are. 

I'd hate to see the effort you expended to allow for complexity be lost...  but I see how it might be hidden from the majority of users.

comments?

I set the arbitrary dimensions of 3" between pixels and set a height calculated by multiplying the pixels by 3" and then setting that as the hypotenuse of the tree. I then calculate the height and set the bottom diameter to be half the height.

With these consistent dimensions, i can apply my math functions and get animations.

It was the realization that the lms,lsp,vixen files have no dimensions in them, just strings and pixels.

So if i build a spiral animation. It will be an animation no matter how people actually build their tree. They can make ia tree 20' tall and 6" in diameter or 6" high and 20' diameter. The animations will work correctly.

That was the thing that allowed removing all those dimensions.

Is there some reason people would still want to pass in dimensions? I dont see the need for it .

The dimensions on the target screen are more of a debug for me, i can remove any reference to dimensions and jsut show the strings and pixels.

[Steve Gase]

the value I saw was the visualization you offered beyond what the other software offer now.
the dimensions do not go into their tools -- but their tools s*ck.

nutcracker lets the user experiment... see how the bottom part of the tree with a 3' exposed trunk with lights might look, etc.  ...experiment with an effect applied to only 270 degrees of the tree,  nutcracker can do that.

essential?  no. 
something that further sets nutcracker above the others... sure.

[smeighan]

the value I saw was the visualization you offered beyond what the other software offer now.
the dimensions do not go into their tools -- but their tools s*ck.

nutcracker lets the user experiment... see how the bottom part of the tree with a 3' exposed trunk with lights might look, etc.  ...experiment with an effect applied to only 270 degrees of the tree,  nutcracker can do that.

essential?  no. 
something that further sets nutcracker above the others... sure.

Ok, i see. I will offer the ability override my default settings so if people want to see what their tree will look like they can experiment. If all you are interested in is the effect, just dont override my default dimensions.

I am constantly worried about Nutcracker losing its ability to be easy to use. It is the balancing act of flexible and complexity.

I will try to establish a
1) Simpler interface, takes defaults whenever it can
2) advanced user mode, you get twice the prompts