Topic: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hello,

so here is a new thread for the topic scaling factor for the front view of the components.

https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 92&p=2

Currently all views are drawn in 90mm <-> 200px. That makes 1: 2.22.
Now plc-user suggested whether we should not change that to 100mm <-> 200px (1: 2).

This would make the front views a little smaller and the conversion value would be a straight one when drawing new views.

What do you think? I am open. We should just discuss it and write in the design rules so that we all remain compatible and not everyone has twice as much work, otherwise nobody benefits.

So and now to my opinion:

What you should keep in mind, the smaller I make it, the more difficult it becomes with the font sizes at some point and the level of detail also suffers at some point, because I have a grid that I have to follow.
I have to say after my orgy of drawings with the MDT modules, it is already difficult to create a high level of detail with the grid. So we should be smaller than 1: 2 if not, although I sometimes come to font sizes of 4 and below.

So and now I ask for your opinions nomicons/smile

VG
Andreas

Sorry, that's not my Englisch, Google Translator nomicons/tongue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original in Deutsch:

Hallo,

so hier mal ein neuer Thread für das Thema Skalierungsfaktor für die Frontansicht der Bauteile.

https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 92&p=2

Aktuell sind alle Ansichten in 90mm <-> 200px gezeichnet. Das macht 1:2,22.
Jetzt kam die Anregung von plc-user ob wir das nicht ändern sollten auf 100mm <-> 200px (1:2).

So würden die Frontansichten etwas kleiner und die Umrechungswert wäre beim Zeichnen neuer Ansichten ein gerader.

Was meint Ihr dazu? Ich bin da offen. Wir sollte das nur diskutieren und in der Designregeln schreiben, damit wir alle kompatibel bleiben und nicht jeder das doppelte an Arbeit hat, sonst profitiert keiner.

So und nun zu meiner Ansicht:

Was man bedenken sollte, je kleiner ich das mache, desto schwieriger wird es auch mit den Schriftgrößen irgendwann und auch der Detailgrad leidet irgend wann, da ich ein Raster habe, nach welchen ich mich richten muss.
Ich muss sagen nach meiner Zeichenorgie mit den MDT Modulen, es wird schon schwierig mit dem Raster einen hohen Detailgrad zu erzeugen. Also kleiner als 1:2 sollten wir wenn nicht werden, wobei ich da auch schon auf Schriftgrößen von 4 teilweise komme und drunter.

So und nun bitte ich um eure Meinungen nomicons/smile

VG
Andreas

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Sorry, but I think, that you misunderstood something, Andreas!
When I asked, nobody could tell me, if there is a scale what we have agreed on and that is noted somewhere as a given "rule".
So I suggested to have a discussion about it. That's all!

Please have a look at the other thread where I collected some examples:

DIN-Rail TS35:   100 mm -> 200.00 px
circuit-breaker: 100 mm -> 222.22 px
IO-Module:       100 mm -> 236.00 px

and the elements in the attached files "different_elements.qet"

We already have a wild mixture of scalings and all I want is to unify the scale for graphical elements (front-views)!

I don't care what scale it is, because we can have decimals for being detailed in the graphics.
But still I think it would be helpful to have a scaling where everybody can calculate the sizes without the need of an electronic calculator or a spreadsheet! So I suggested something like 100 mm <-> 200 px

This thread should result in a survey, what scale we want to use for ALL graphical elements (not for schematic symbols) inside of QET.

To repeat my suggestion of a scale: 100 mm <-> 200px

Please feel free to take part at the discussion, everybody!

Here two links to my postings in the other thread where I explained my motivation for this discussion:
https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 980#p13980
https://qelectrotech.org/forum/viewtopi … 241#p14241

Post's attachments

Attachment icon different_elements.qet 406.31 kb, 137 downloads since 2021-02-04 

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

On the subject of scaling I see two inconsistencies in the current graphic elements.
With respect to DIN-Rail mounted elements:

1. Within one element the scaling factor is different for the horizontal and vertical dimension.
e.g.
    Schneider Electric    DomA45C16   
    real dimension mm   (81 x 18)       
    qet dimension px      (200 x 40)   
    scaling factors          (2,47 x 2,22)

2. For different elements when real vertical dimension is different the qet dimension is for all the same.
e.g.
    Schneider Electric    DomA42C16    dimension mm (H x W) 81 x 36    qet dimension (200 x 80)
    Schneider Electric    R9F64220        dimension mm (H x W) 85 x 36    qet dimension (200 x 80)
   
The height is different but in QET they are all set to 200 px.
I guess i looks better when all elements on a din-rail have the same height. Maybe also easier to allign elements on the din-rail.

Just things to take into account.

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

@plc-user

Sorry, I put it in a misleading way. I should have written it differently.
It's on my cap!


VG Andreas

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@plc-user

Entschuldige bitte, ich habe es missverständlich formuliert. Ich hätte es anders schreiben soll.
Das geht auf meine Kappe!


VG Andreas

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

@Andreas: Kein Problem: Habe ja von Mißverständnis gesprochen ... passiert schon mal...

@hovel and everybody:
Of course, from an aesthetic point of view, it looks better if all parts share the same height, but:
The drawing of the front view and the placing of the parts on a mounting plate should represent the real dimensions of the switching-cabinet or serve to determine the appropriate size of a switching-cabinet.

What use is it to the planner of a switching-cabinet if the drawing is "just beautiful", but the parts don't fit into the cabinet afterwards, or on the other hand the cabinet could have been chosen one size smaller because the real parts have a different size than the drawing suggests?

So we should also make sure that the elements we draw use the same scale in both directions!
In addition to the scale, this could be a second rule for front views ...

6 (edited by a.funke 2021-04-05 23:26:00)

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hallo alle zusammen nomicons/smile

Na vielen überlegen und auch experimentieren, bin ich zu einer Lösung gekommen, zumindest für mich.

Ich werde auf 100mm <-> 200px gehen. Das macht das umrechnen und Zeichen einfacher und ich werde meine MDT Symbole hierzu mal anpassen.

@plc-user
Ich werde dein Skript mal ausprobieren, danke dafür nomicons/smile

PS:
was muss ich bei Skalierung eintragen?
Bekomme immer die gleiche Größe heraus...

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hallo Andreas,

schön, dass ich zumindest Dich davon überzeugen konnte, eine Skalierung zu wählen, mit der man auch noch im Kopf die Relationen zum Original berechnen kann!  nomicons/smile

Aber zunächst zum Skalierungs-Tool. Der Aufruf ist recht einfach:
QET_ElementScaler.exe ElementDatei.elmt Faktor

Der Faktor wird als Gleitkommazahl mit Punkt als Dezimal-Trennzeichen erwartet. Zum Beispiel:
QET_ElementScaler.exe ElementDatei.elmt 0.9

Das Tool fügt als erste Zeile die XML-Version ein, die bei QET-Elementen nicht enthalten ist und sollte deshalb nachträglich entfernt werden! Wie das bei Win automatisiert möglich ist, dafür habe ich im Moment keine Idee, da ich mit Linux arbeite! Da gibt es das schöne Tool "grep" mit dem man innerhalb eines Bash-Skriptes ganz prima viele Dateien in einer Schleife bearbeiten kann:

for i in  `find . -name "*.SCALED.elmt"` ; do
  # remove "xml version"
  grep -v -i "xml version"  "$i" > "$i".NEW.elmt
  done

Beim Benutzen von skalierten Elementen in QET tappst Du wahrscheinlich in dieselbe Falle, wie ich auch zu Anfang: nomicons/wink
Wenn Du die Dateien mit einem Text-Editor ansiehst, solltest Du einen Unterschied bei den Zahlwerten sehen.
Da das Tool nur die Positionen und Längen ändert und alle UUIDs gleich bleiben, wird von QET beim Einfügen des skalierten Elements nicht das neue Element verwendet, sondern das vom "Cache" des Projektes. Wenn Du das skalierte Element einfügen willst, lösche erst die vorhandenen Instanzen des nicht-skalierten Elements aus Deinem Projekt und bereinige es (Projekt -> Projekt bereinigen). Alternativ geht ein neues Projekt natürlich auch.
Nun sollte beim Einfügen des skalierten Elements die neue Größe verwendet werden. Tut es bei mir auf jeden Fall!

Aufgrund der recht überschaubaren Anzahl von Reaktionen auf den Versuch, Regeln für die Erstellung von Front-Ansichten zu etablieren, sollten wir vielleicht zu zweit ein paar einfache Regeln aufstellen und den Entwicklern und Benutzern hier zur Diskussion stellen. Was hältst Du davon?

Nun wechsele ich mal ins Englische, damit auch die anderen Leser was verstehen. nomicons/wink

I'll start with some suggestions for simple rules:

  • Scaling: 100 mm <-> 200 px

  • Scaling for X- and Y-directions identical

  • element for DIN-rail: Center in Y-direction = center of DIN-rail = 0

The rule for y-center is for the situation that the user needs to rotate the element by 180° on the DIN-rail: in this case you do not need to adjust y-position.
Maybe we need to create a rule for x-position, too? That would mean: Center in X-direction = 0

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

BTW:
There is a new beta-release-Version of the element-scaler available.
https://github.com/plc-user/QET_ElementScaler/releases

Changes: added XML-Element "input" for scaling

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hey nomicons/smile

danke dir, so funktioniert es besser, hatte immer ganze Zahlen eingeben und wenn man das dann mal in 2 verscheide Projekte einfügt, sieht man auch den Größen Unterscheid. Dann habe ich ja wieder etwas zu tun nomicons/smile

Ja das hört sich gut an, es muss ja eine einheitliche Linie her, sonst gibt es nur Chaos.

Das hört sich gut und logisch an.

Ich würde dann auch die X-Achse = 0 setzen, ist es dort auch gleich der Y-Achse.

10 (edited by tito.tit 2022-01-11 18:58:28)

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

why not 1 px = 1mm?

Post's attachments

Sans titre.jpg, 250.15 kb, 796 x 478
Sans titre.jpg 250.15 kb, 42 downloads since 2022-01-11 

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

The drawing of the front view and the placing of the parts on a mounting plate should represent the real dimensions of the switching-cabinet or serve to determine the appropriate size of a switching-cabinet.
The scale 100 mm <-> 200 px seems to be a good compromise between level of detail and clarity.
A "crooked" scale of 100 : 222 is used for many existing graphics (especially from the installation area). This doesn't make much sense to me since you can't calculate the dimensions in your head at design time. These elements could easily be rescaled with the help of my ElementScaler...
At the moment it seems that most users of QET come from the installation area, where the control cabinets are not that huge. If the scale is even smaller than 100 mm : 200 px, a lot of detail that is already present in many elements would be lost.
From my point of view, the level of detail is not that important for a large control cabinet, so that even simple rectangles for the control panel view would probably be sufficient here. In a later version of QET, for example, these could perhaps even be generated automatically if we included the dimensions of the real components as values in the element file.

In summary, here my suggestions for fairly simple rules for creating elements:
  - Scaling: 100 mm <-> 200 px
  - Scaling for X- and Y-directions identical
  - element for DIN-rail: Center in Y-direction = center of DIN-rail = 0
  - element for DIN-rail: Center in X-direction = 0 (centered) or useful alignment for elements that are lined up
  - language of static texts inside of elements: English (or the original texts printed on the part)
  - separate elements for symbols and graphics
  - no terminals in front-view-graphics

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

I agree with you.
What we need to do now is to decide whether or not we go with these rules.

When everything will be OK, I will made it available in the 0.9 dev.

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hallo nomicons/smile

Also ich arbeite mittlerweile so.
Sowohl zuhause, als auch auf der Arbeit. Habe mich auch mit meinen Arbeitskollegen abgestimmt und genau so wie plc-user es geschrieben hat, genau so handhaben wir das auch. (ohne das wir uns abgesprochen hätten....)

Die MDT Materialen passe ich gerade Stück für Stück, an diese Überlegungen an.
Das Kompromiss ist sehr gut. Ich lade später was hoch noch. Wenn man sich mal 15 Minuten Zeit nimmt, dann sehen die Geräte aus wie Klone ^^

So ein Lineal wäre echt eine super Hilfe nomicons/smile

PS: Danke noch mal an euch, für die tolle Arbeit!


G-English:
Hello nomicons/smile

So that's how I work now.
Both at home and at work. I also coordinated with my work colleagues and exactly as plc-user wrote it, that's exactly how we handle it. (without that we would have discussed it....)

I am currently adapting the MDT materials piece by piece to these considerations.
The compromise is very good. I'll upload something later. If you take 15 minutes, the devices look like clones ^^

A ruler would be really helpful nomicons/smile

PS: Thanks again to you for the great work!

14 (edited by a.funke 2022-03-18 23:55:45)

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

So schaut ein Teil aktuell aus nomicons/smile

Ich räume gerade etwas auf, dann stelle ich mal den Berg zu Verfügung.

Das ganze teilt sich in 3 Bereiche auf:

- Aufbauplanzeichnungen (2D-Bilder)
- Allgemeine Elektro Bauteile (Schaltsymbole Allgemein)
- Hersteller Elektro Bauteile (Schaltsymbole Hersteller spezifisch)

Post's attachments

Attachment icon Projekt.pdf 35.29 kb, 66 downloads since 2022-03-18 

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hallo Andreas,

schön, dass meine Vorschläge bei Dir/Euch Anklang finden!  nomicons/smile
In Deinem PDF habe ich gesehen, dass Du auch Hager-Teile verwendest und bearbeitest. Davon hatte ich auch noch ein paar "in der Pipeline", die ich nun bei github als pull-request hochgeladen habe. Dabei habe ich mir erlaubt, die bestehenden Teile nach meinen (scheinbar akzeptierten Vorschlägen) umzuarbeiten.


in English:
happy to see that you support my suggestions! nomicons/smile
I saw in your PDF that you also use and edit Hager parts. I also had a few of these "in the pipeline", which I have now uploaded to github as a pull request. I took the liberty of reworking the existing parts according to my (apparently accepted) suggestions.


geänderte Teile in Verzeichnis / changed parts in directory:
elements/10_electric/98_graphics/99_assembly_plan/01_thumbnails_mounting_plate/hager/

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hallo plc-user,

Oha ja, das hat es, Vereinfachung ist immer gut und dann noch einheitlich nomicons/smile

Hager, ja eigentlich verbauen wir das nur. Ein paar haben wir schon gemacht.
Echt? Dann schaue ich mal, ob da noch was bei ist.

dann sollten sie ja schon in der Dev mit drin sein.

Ich muss noch aufräumen, es wird nomicons/smile

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

PS:
Das sieht schon echt Professionell aus, dafür das es "nur" V 0.5 war..

https://download.tuxfamily.org/qet/sche … roject.pdf

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

a.funke wrote:

PS:
Das sieht schon echt Professionell aus, dafür das es "nur" V 0.5 war..

https://download.tuxfamily.org/qet/sche … roject.pdf

Software ist nichts ohne talentierte Menschen, die sie nutzen und ihre Lücken mit genialen Tricks füllen.
Und das Ergebnis wird auf der anderen Seite mittelmäßig sein, wenn man als Anfänger nicht allzu geschickt mit einer sehr umfassenden, leistungsstarken Software umgeht, die ein wenig zu komplex ist und oft ein kleines Vermögen kostet ......

Software is nothing without talented people who exploit it and fill its gaps with brilliant tricks.
And the result will be on the other hand mediocre with a beginner user not too skilful on a very complete software, powerful, a little too complex and also often costing a small fortune .....

nomicons/wink

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

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...

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Hello plc-user

plc-user wrote:

In summary, here my suggestions for fairly simple rules for creating elements:
  - Scaling: 100 mm <-> 200 px
  - Scaling for X- and Y-directions identical
  - element for DIN-rail: Center in Y-direction = center of DIN-rail = 0
  - element for DIN-rail: Center in X-direction = 0 (centered) or useful alignment for elements that are lined up
  - language of static texts inside of elements: English (or the original texts printed on the part)
  - separate elements for symbols and graphics
  - no terminals in front-view-graphics

 
  For me I'm ok with your suggestion.
 
 

plc-user wrote:

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...

  I think we need to add it in the documentation and also in the wiki.
  About folders found in the "thumbnails for assembly plan" we need to move it into a new folder named "deprecated" and each time an element is drawed with the good scale factor add it to the good folder.
  This will take a lot of time.... Also I need to add a new element type "thumbnail".

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

This will take a lot of time.... Also I need to add a new element type "thumbnail".

I was also thinking about  thumbnails because I don't want them to appear in the BOM pages ... like terminal I want to uncheck them.

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

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! nomicons/smile

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...  nomicons/wink

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

plc-user wrote:

What is called "front view" in the subject of this thred is what you call "thumbnail"?

Yes

plc-user wrote:

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?

Exactly, this is the reason why we need to add a new element type : "thumbnail".

plc-user wrote:

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!

far⁹ future...

plc-user wrote:

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...

Thanks.

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

Add the new element type : thumbnail
This type must be used for element who goal is to display a
thumbnail/front view of an element, notably used for cabinet contents
view and placement.
https://git.tuxfamily.org/qet/qet.git/c … f4ed73a9ed

I added the type "thumbnail" (vignette in french) you can use it now.
Presently we can do nothing more with thumbnail type than simple type, but the element is marked as thumbnail and ready for future.

Re: scaling-factor for Drawing of front view

https://git.tuxfamily.org/qet/qet.git/c … f2196cdbc6