Search options (Page 27 of 31)

In the attachment you find the Element-File.
I edited the element-file with a text-editor to sort the elements by type and added some blank lines for readability - no changes in position-values!

EDITED
Just created a new version of QET_ElementScaler:
With the newly added optional parameter "-o" or "--stdout" it is now possible to write the scaled element-data to stdout instead of writing a renamed file.

The new option "-i" or "--stdin" allows QET_ElementScaler to be used with re-direction and/or pipes on the commandline:
The input-data is read from stdin and the output will be written to stdout.

Examples to write to stdout:
QET_ElementScaler -o InputElement.elmt 1.4 > NewScaledElement.elmt
QET_ElementScaler -o InputElement.elmt 1.4 | OtherSoftwareBinary

Examples to use re-direction and/or pipes:
QET_ElementScaler -i  1.4 < InputElement.elmt > NewScaledElement.elmt
cat  InputElement.elmt | QET_ElementScaler -i 1.4 | OtherSoftwareBinary

Have a look and give it a try:
https://github.com/plc-user/QET_ElementScaler

Hello jhonathan!

I like your rulers!

They are created with the same scale we agreed with the developers in the other thread: https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 155#p16155

If I understood Joshua correctly, he wants to add the possibility to display the measurement in mm directly when creating an object (line, rectangle, etc.) in the element editor.

I think it is a good way to draw mounting plates with the help of such rulers:
There are so many possible dimensions for mounting plates that it seems impossible to create all variants as a separate element. For DIN-rails (as comparable part) I only created a few in 10cm steps...
The same challenge exists for cable ducts: They even have to be adapted to the respective situation, so there can't be standard lengths either.

Hallo Andreas,

als Problem würde ich das auch nicht ansehen:
Für eine saubere Trennung von Schaltplan und Aufbaubild braucht ihr sowieso jeweils eigene Schaltplan-Symbole für die KNX-Module, weil die Aufbaubilder bekannterweise keine Anschlüsse haben....

Für die Verknüpfung von Schaltplansymbol und Front-Ansicht hat Joshua ja schon für eine spätere Version von QET eine Lösung in Aussicht gestellt. Und für die Aufteilung eines komplexeren Gerätes in mehrere Schaltplansymbole gibt es auch bereits Feature-Wishes in anderen Threads hier im Forum.

via Online-Translator:
I wouldn't consider that a problem either:
For a clean separation of the schematic and the front view, you need separate schematic symbols for the KNX modules anyway, because the front views do not have any terminals...

Joshua has already promised a solution for linking the schematic symbol and the front view in a later version of QET. And for the division of complex devicee into more than one schematic symbols, there are already feature wishes in other threads here in the forum.

Hello Joshua,

just so I understand you correctly:
What is called "front view" in the subject of this thred is what you call "thumbnail"?

These thumbnails are not supposed to appear as "duplicates" of schematic symbols in the BOM, that's right, Laurent. Then it may make sense that we also need a link between the schematic symbol and the thumbnail at some point, doesn't it?
There is Schematic-Software on the market that even goes further: They offer support for creating layout plans from the schematic, from which even drilling plans for mounting-plates are automatically generated that can be fed into a CNC. But that's still in the far future for QET!

Of course, I don't want to leave you alone with the work of scaling: You can count on my support to make the "deprecated" folder smaller! Didn't write "QET_ElementScaler" for nothing... 

Hello everybody!

The discussion about simple rules for elements doesn't seem to be getting "off the ground" properly.

@Joshua and
@scorpio810:
What more does it take to get things going here?
If we agree on rules, then we also need to write them down in the QET documentation and also make sure that they are followed. This also means that we have to regularly point out to the creators of elements that these rules exist. In some cases, this also means that individual elements need to be reworked (scaled) or even rejected...

With the elements that have been added in the meantime, I see again (or rather: still see) that the "wild mixture" of scaling factors continues.

If we do not talk about it, we will not be able to reach an agreement...

Hallo maximalz

Um Deine Logik mal weiterzuführen:
Ein Schalter verändert das Potential auch nicht, also müßte nach der Logik auch dort beidseitig dasselbe Potential sein.

Da widerspreche ich aber mal heftig!
Dann müsste ja das Potential direkt am Eingang eines Schaltschranks vor allen LS und RCDs und dahinter auch dasselbe sein - sind sie aber nicht! Sonst wären ja LS und RCD unnütz!
Abgesichert und vor den Sicherungen ist schon unterschiedliches Potential.

Eine Steckdose mit abgesicherten 400V muss was anderes sein als eine, die vor allen Sicherungen angeschlossen ist.

sounds very similar to why I wrote a bug report:
https://qelectrotech.org/bugtracker/view.php?id=244

(online-translator)
cela ressemble beaucoup à la raison pour laquelle j'ai écrit un rapport de bogue:
https://qelectrotech.org/bugtracker/view.php?id=244

Additionally an on-and-off-switchable dimensioning tool would be helpful, but first we need to find a compromise about the scaling (and other rules) for Elements.
Check out my post in the other thread where I summarized suggestions for a few simple rules.
https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 833#p15833

Please continue the discussion about rules for elements in a language spoken by more users:
I have the impression that many forum participants only read the posts in the language which they can (with simple means) understand. And you don't want to exclude these users from the discussion, do you?
English is not my first language either, but I've found that online French translators aren't a great deal when it comes to technical matters.

Have you looked at the arguments and suggestions for scaling (and other rules) in the other threads? At the moment they don't seem to have attracted any attention here.
In my opinion a factor of 1px = 1mm is too small for most users! This would mean, for example, that the elements cannot be labeled in a realistic manner: Since QET only processes the font sizes in whole numbers, no fine detailing could take place.
Most QET users right now will likely be people building small sub-distributions for the homes or offices. A corresponding level of detail is required here!
In my opinion, a fine level of detail is not necessary for large control cabinets. So only "rough" rectangles for the devices would be necessary for this scope of application. Then we wouldn't even need the detailed images we already have in the common collection. Do you want to achieve that? I hope: no!

Before we (you, Joshua!) implement anything in the source code, we should agree on where the journey with QET should go!
Depending on which areas we want to cover with QET, we may annoy other users. Therefore we should think carefully about what we decide.
I could just repeat the arguments and suggestions from my posts in the other threads mentioned here. But please read for yourself ...

I'm a little confused:
Shouldn't the "qelectrotech-element-contrib" repository only contain obsolete or outdated elements so they aren't completely lost?

via online-translator:
Je suis un peu confus:
Le référentiel qelectrotech-element-contrib ne devrait-il pas contenir uniquement des éléments obsolètes afin qu'ils ne soient pas complètement perdus?