You are not logged in.

#1 2020-01-09 01:07:08

macdarren
Member
Registered: 2017-03-20
Posts: 411

unit conversion in profiles.

I think I have mentioned this before but I would like to see all units in profiles be in mm.

This is in contrast to some being in mm while others are in layers or pixels.

I realize internally they are probably stored in whatever form was deemed best and changing that would lead to profile interchange issues,
so I propose this be a switch that affects only the displayed units, basically doing the math as needed to change 14pixels to say 1mm or whatever.

I do this now with a calculator but it would be nice if I could change it globally or if there was a mini icon like the field description icon that would
present the pixel count * pixel size or the layers * layer height in a pop up or better just change the box to show the mm result.

This might add some confusion so I guess it could be and advanced setting but I think if it is done only on request and box label change properly
it might be sufficiently hidden for the casual user....I would prefer the setting stick so I don't have to click
the icon each time I enter the profile editor or at least I click it only once on any setting and all setting displays change state....

So one click on the icon of any parameter box changes the display for all...clicking again changes it back.  If having this change
seem confusing you could enable the feature in an advanced area or have it always change back to the mixed format we currently
have whenever the profile editor is entered.

Thanks for all the work and suggestion implementation on NanoDLP and NanoSupport!

Offline

#2 2020-01-09 20:01:34

Shahin
Administrator
Registered: 2016-02-17
Posts: 3,544

Re: unit conversion in profiles.

Darren,

Could you let me know parameters which you believe unit should be changed?

Offline

#3 2020-01-10 00:31:32

macdarren
Member
Registered: 2017-03-20
Posts: 411

Re: unit conversion in profiles.

in no particular order or importance:

Erode/Dilate is already in mm, having it in pixels might be reasonable.

Top Cap is in layers...having it in mm as well would be good
Bottom Cap is in layers...having it in mm as well would be good

Outer wall Thickness
Infill pattern wall size (suggest possible name change to "Infill Pattern Wall Thickness")
Infill pattern cell width width  (suggest possible name change to "Infill Pattern Cell Size")
are all in pixels but I usually would prefer mm.

To be clear I would like to be able to see and switch between layers/pixels and mm and be able
to enter data in whatever format is being displayed.

I find for instance that I would like the entire surface to be say 1.75 mm thick so I have to compute how many layers that is for the top and bottom and how many pixels for the outer wall.

Obviously things are actually done in layers and pixels so if 1.75mm is entered an even number of pixels or layers may not be possible...I would generally round down but better would be that the mm number just jump to the closest pixel or layer multiple, so one could then tell exactly what would be printed.

Hope that is clear...

Thanks

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB