Logged under RH-68160, haven’t had a change to test it yet myself.
1 Like
Logged under RH-68161.
1 Like
It’s a bug I think. Or rather, just missing functionality.
Logged under RH-68162.
Well, the panel just isn’t high enough to display that content. Maybe that should be more obvious visually though.
That probably means it was a stack-overflow exception. Those are so severe that none of the usual additional steps Rhino wants to take to report the error are allowed by the OS. If you could remember which steps you took to replicate this crash, that would be great.
Logged under RH-68163.
1 Like
15 Likes
Concerning the bug where certain component categories are not displayed (reported here), I think I’ve found the cause!
It seems that when I open GH1 first, the categories that maybe have the same name in GH2 and maybe same-named components simply vanish.
Here GH1 was opened first and GH2 second.
The same thing happens to GH1, when I launch GH2 first:
It’s mainly the categories Vector, Curve, Surface, Mesh, and Intersect that seem to be conflicting.
Yes, I got confused from older wip videos you posted with panels that resize automatically…
And I forgot to remove that part from my post. 
Hello David!
Amazing news you brought us the 1st of april!
I’ve put together a list of the first thing I noticed with the few hours I spent on the new tool as of now.
Thanks again for the amazing work, I’m dying to see what the completed tool will be capable of.
QUICK KEY
-
Exciting novelty! Looking forward to further evolution! -
GH1 feature that worked well and should survive! -
Why did this change? -
Linked to Mac OS
APPEARANCE/ICONS
-
Extended color coding of data types in icons is interesting and with great teaching potential BUT at the state of things confusing/inconsistent. Same data types should have same (similar) color in the vast majority of cases, no nice color pairings exceptions, or the system creates more confusion than comprehension. Changing the paradigm to colours based on I/O makes the single component more readable but compromises the “what is what” big picture. In my personal experience I find that the initial additional help in discerning the I/O for each component doesn’t pay off in the long term, especially with seasoned users that prefer to capture at a glance which piece in the definition IS what (meaning its output, its effect). GH1 was remarkably coherent at this (albeit not perfect).
This is going to be one crucial approach difference if it stays the way it is as of now! - Dark mode should include ribbon bar. And also be more…dark, not mildly dimmed (yes I work a lot at night…).
- Dark mode icons with reduced contrast are harder to distinguish.
WIRES
-
Wire display section in I/O right click menu is missing. I feel like hidden cables are very important. There could be room for more options, such as custom colouring of cable to better distinguish different pathways of the definition (color inheritable or not by the components further down the chain).
-
New cables aspect makes them harder to distinguish.
-
Wires should maintain the auto straight horizontal snap when close to be so (OCD intensifies).
COMPONENTS
-
Icon based quick menu is varied going to be not-so-immediate to adapt but very rewarding (I love the built-in renumber/sort/randomise, and the data cleaners)
- I/O serif font is less bold and somewhat less legible, could be system driven or user specified.
!
-
1 letter long I/O names are cleaner, 2 letters are clearer, full names are self-explanatory. I feel like all three of these options should be available (in GH1 there was only single or full names) instead of replacing the first option completely with the second one.
-
(On Mac OS, not sure of command on other OS) cmd+alt+click on component should indicate its location in the ribbon bar
-
Why change names for already über-clear components that users have been using forever? I can understand renaming “Splop” and “Sporph” but there is simply no good reason to turn “Add Item” into “Expand”. Same goes for non-essential information into the names of the component which also decreases search efficacy: an example is “End Points” becoming “Curve End Points”. What’s the point? (pun intended)
SEARCH BAR
- Machine learning best ones? I think it was already a thing in GH1 but somewhat faulty (wrong first suggestions when repeatedly picking other options after same input)
-
There could be others useful “quick entries” from the search bar! Not everyone likes them so in Settings we could have these options active or not. As for the two previous point: at search input either A) create parameter component with given data or B) create corresponding input type. Pure numbers or “n<N“ for sliders, commas for panels, “0 to Pi” for domains, triplets for points/vectors and so on.
OTHERS
-
Dragging closed planar curve into Surface parameter used to create corresponding planar surface. IMHO it is a useful and logical behaviour, provides intuitive “planarity test”, and removes the need to differentiate “surface from disc” (by the way, from Circle, because disc is already a surface), “…from rectangle”, “from triangle”… etc. Basically it is a Boundary Surface for single curves.
-
(On my machine Mac book pro 16” M1 max) With trackpad 2 fingers no click drag (equivalent to system right mouse click+drag, because I have system setting “tap to click” enabled) should drag viewport (as it did in GH1), not zoom: that I shall do with pinching. Note: 2 fingers CLICKED drag already does it.
- What is going on here…?
1 Like
Brilliant !!
Does it mean there would be at some point some similarly workflow for vanilla GH1 definitions? Or that’s another story?
You can set up a layout rule for the tool panels that removes all custom re-ordering, leaving you with plain old alphabetical listing:
This is very unfinished UI, which is why it’s a bit hard to get to (hold Ctrl while right clicking on the tabs). I think you can’t even properly save a layout at the moment.
There’s a bunch of instructions that will affect how tabs, panels and components are ordered. Basic breakdown is:
- Hide a tab, panel or component.
- Show a tab, panel or component.
- Change the slot of a component within a panel. Slots are separated by dashed lines.
- Change the rank of a component within a slot. There are four ranks (Vital, Important, Normal, Obscure). Ranks override the alphabetical sorting order, with higher ranked components appearing at the beginning of each slot and also being the last to be collapsed when the window shrinks.
- Move a panel or component to a different tab or panel.
- Change the sort order by assigning a sorting key which replaces the name when alphabetical sorting happens.
- Cite another set of layout rules by name. Handy if you want to build on other rule sets.
Tabs, panels and components are selected using a TAB.PANEL.OBJECT notation. Wildcards allowed. So for example Display.*.* selects all components in the Display tab.
What the flying…
That is seriously weird.
I’ve had a fairly rough time trying to come up with a dark mode theme, and I’m still very not happy with the current one (as are you). Do you have a set of colours that work really well for a dark mode theme? Or possibly you know a dark themed app or website out there somewhere which has a palette you really like?
While testing various fonts I found that mono-spaced worked by far the best for inputs/outputs. However Courier New is a terrible monospaced font so always looks awful. In fact I think all serif-monospaced fonts are fugly. At the moment Grasshopper uses the following fallback for monospaced fonts (Consolas, Lucida Console, Menlo, Andale Mono, system default). Can you confirm your OS has none of these fonts installed?
1 Like
[Add Item] is not a component in GH1. And it doesn’t sound like it would be the same as [Expand]. Can you elaborate?
Perhaps that was a mistake. But it is imaginable that there will be other components that get the end-points out of other kinds of objects (for example Graphs). Then you’d end up with one component which isn’t specific in its naming and all the other ones that are. Maybe that’s fine if it’s the most common out of that set… However at the moment we’re trying to make names adhere rather strictly to a small set of templates we’ve created. This helps with overall consistency.
2 Likes
If you type a question mark into the box you’ll see some of the currently supported formats. Panels are indeed not currently available, nor are the arithmetic operators (+, -, *, =, <, >, …)
It’s probably best if you create a new topic here so we can curate a list of requests from amongst a larger group of testers.
1 Like
Quite a few automatic data conversions haven’t been added yes. In fact a lot of data types are still lacking fairly basic functionality. I know that’s important but it’s sooooooo boring writing that code.
1 Like