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 > >
