forums.silverfrost.com

DanRRight · Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 12:29 pm Post subject:

CONTINUE 4

Respect to color background used in the last example above, it was so easy to do and was so reliable in FTN77/95 that I made it and forgot for decades. Actually all is done in 5-6 lines of Fortran code after you loaded graphics background tiles. I have demo for it but it is larger then one or two post pages (too harsh restriction), because I also made a GUI and plotted some besier graphics on top. PM me and i will email it to you. Here is just the sketch for this, the rest anyone can do themselves.

DanRRight · Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 6:42 pm Post subject:

CONTINUE 5

And the final point over i to the native %pl would be adding elements of visual Clearwin+ (which supposedly existed but I never have seen a single example of it. Is it still working and supported ? Pity of not, because this would change the mass perception of Fortran capabilities).

Currently all assembling of the plot has beed done purely by scripting/programming. Nice that adding %pv we can scale the size of the plot with the mouse, but we need more then that. Would be great to add the functionality when the user by pushing some control key like Ctrl or doubleclick can move axis and caption positions etc using his mouse (and possibly the arrow keys on the keyboard) as well as by clicking on the graph call and change all other properties of the plot.

If for example axis margins are set as variables @(ipos, jpos) instead of strict numbers @(33,4) these variables can be saved and used next time. This will make new %pl finally IDEAL tool no one ever had. This is how Fortran must operate. Instead it is currently purely suicidal scripting language leaving the major its advantage - almost natural syntax and almost ultimate simplicity (MATLAB language is Fortran-like and it is currently a simplicity and functionality king, if not yet, it definitely will. Because sadly at some point some morons magnetized people's common sense with the absurd claim that Fortran is just the FORmula TRANslation).

I implemented myself some of such visual functions using Clearwin graphics library in my graphics routines long ago and like this very much. Because this is ultimately exactly how it should be done in the ideal world. This is so easy to do that in comparison the correct tic numbering we are still discussing looks like a tedious job

LitusSaxonicum · Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 9:12 am Post subject:

If I can add my very minor contribution, may I add to the plea for grid lines?

I often draw graphs with the same units on both axes: shear stress on one, direct stress on the other, and Excel doesn't let me set the scale the same for both. That effectively makes the grid exactly square. Excel doesn't plot graphs, but charts.

Eddie

LitusSaxonicum · Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:58 am Post subject:

The image posted illustrates my issue precisely, because the grid lines define rectangular, not square, boxes. Thus the scales are not the same. The slope of the straight line plotted can be determined by Excel, and if you are interested in, say, y = m x + c, then �m� is readily obtained, even subject to various constraints, such as c cannot be less than 0. Even if you are interested in the line as y = x tan f + c, Excel can give you f in degrees, radians or whatever you want. The issue is that unless the scales are the same, you can�t measure f with a protractor (thus making a trap for student idiots) and if the scales are very different, the visual perception of the angle f is skewed. Working in a field where f has some meaning (calm down dear, this convention was set hundreds of years ago and isn�t my fault), it isn�t a show-stopper, but it gets in the way of instant recognition when you see the printout.

You need equality of scales if, for example, Mohr�s Circle is not to appear as an ellipse.

Not that it matters for an instant when looking on a screen, but the hard copy has the additional shortcoming that the scale isn�t really rational, as in (say) 10mm represents 20 kPa (or 1 inch = 30 psi). Meaning you can�t scale off it easily.

If someone can point me to a way of getting the x and y axis scales exactly the same and rational in Excel, then I would be in their debt.
As to a matter of semantics, of course it is so, and I have defined things to mean what I intend them to mean, a la Red Queen. But Excel�s charts allow you to plot things that obfuscate data relationships as easily as it can clarify them, earning from me the disparaging �charts� (spat contemptuously!) appellation as against the engineer or scientist�s �graph� (spoken in hushed tones with an air of approbation!). Where does this semantics come from? Probably from �graph paper� usually ruled in squares.

Eddie

DanRRight · Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:49 am Post subject:

John, Here is the link on my Microsoft Onedrive open account, file IdealPL.zip has data, sources and examples made in OriginLab for visual comparison with professional scientific graphics software

DanRRight · Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:02 pm Post subject:

John,
You can rearrange these two windows from stacking vertical to horizontal position adding just a pair of %ob/%cb for these two lines

PaulLaidler · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:21 am Post subject:

The 64 bit case runs OK for me. I will take a look at the 32 bit case.

DanRRight · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:00 pm Post subject:

John,
1) What are your screen dimensions? You may not see all these problems if you resize the plot but the screen size is not large enough

2) The Silverfrost demo code you posted crashes in 32bit case too.
The 64 run OK

BTW, from my quick look : what is ENUMERATOR and the code with it for?

PaulLaidler · Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:02 am Post subject:

John

I have not looked at this yet but I think that Dan has highlighted the problem...
The new ENUM feature is not working in this program for 32 bits. Try using PARAMETER instead.

PaulLaidler · Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:18 am Post subject:

John

I don't reognise the error report and I don't have access to a PC at the moment.

For the code

Kenneth_Smith · Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:45 pm Post subject:

Paul,

I curious to know if you have been able to make any progress with the suggestions I made back at the beginning of May?

Thanks

Ken

PaulLaidler · Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:00 pm Post subject:

Ken

I haven't done any work on this for a while. I am hoping to review this thread an make some final adjustments some time before the next full release.

Kenneth_Smith · Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:06 pm Post subject:

Thanks Paul. I found myself looking at the native %pl again today after 6 weeks doing other things and rediscovering some of the minor issues for a second time - my memory is not as good as it used to be - hence the question.
Ken

DanRRight · Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:01 pm Post subject:

Addition to my post called CONTINUE2 above about LOG scale.

1) With the latest DLLs i found that the code produces initially bad looking Y scale numbering and goes out of scale, see for example this simple code (the code for plotting must be always short and simple like this or even shorter)

DanRRight · Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:11 pm Post subject:

I see same plot like you. Bug.