Peter Hunter wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Three queries: > 1. Regarding the saved session facility - if it is now possible to > save a session that includes the model as well as the graph layout, > could we not just load a session containing the model when you click > on the website link to a model? Hi Peter,
I have already asked Tommy about this, but he was concerned that this would be difficult to do with the current repository. > > 2. How do you find the version of PCEnv you are using (should > 'Help/About' PCEnv indicate this?) For stable releases, it will. However, it is not practical to update this for snapshot builds (unless it is automatically generated somehow during the build process). > > 3. Would you be able to add graph paper-like rulers to the PCEnv > graphical output windows (see COR example below)- makes it easier to > compare values on the traces. I guess it needs to be able to be > switched off. I have now implemented this (as well as fixing the graph rendering artifact that was showing up when zoomed in on Beeler-Reuter models, when you have lines where you have a point on the screen, then one off the screen, and then one on the screen again). This is in the snapshot I have just built. You can toggle it on and off by selecting 'Grid lines' in the View menu. One remaining issue relating to graphs which could possibly be improved is the axis labeling. The current system ensures that the distance between ticks is either a power of ten, or half of a power of ten, such that there is between 2 and 12 ticks on the graph. It then puts the first tick on a multiple of the distance between ticks. This works very well if you zoom in around the origin. The problem is, if you zoom in, say, around 1, the positions of the ticks might be. 1.0000001, 1.0000002, 1.0000003, 1.0000004, 1.0000005. We can't write out the 9 character representation of these numbers besides the ticks, because they would overlap each other, so I rounded them to two significant figures. This means that you get 1.0 beside every tick, which is again confusing. There is not really any standard way of addressing it. We could write something like... 1.000000 + x beside the axis (where we currently write the multiplier), and then write 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 beside each tick, although this could be counter-intuitive. Best regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
