Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make axis views in Instrument view consistent with Viz programs #2384

Closed
mareuter opened this issue Aug 25, 2010 · 2 comments
Closed

Make axis views in Instrument view consistent with Viz programs #2384

mareuter opened this issue Aug 25, 2010 · 2 comments
Labels
Framework Issues and pull requests related to components in the Framework Low Priority Things that you don't ever want to be done.

Comments

@mareuter
Copy link
Contributor

This issue was originally TRAC 1537

The predefined axis views should operate in the same mode as ''VisIt'' and/or ''ParaView''. Both programs agree that the direction of the predetermined view is away from the observer. Also, the locations of the other axes should be aligned to the way these programs work. They both agree on the orientations for Z and Y, but not X, so for that one any choice will do. Also, the programs specify their labels with the signs in front, so we should make them consistent (i.e. +Z). Here are the orientations for the axes:

  • +Z: +Y up, +X left
  • -Z: +Y up, +X right
  • +Y: +Z up, +X right
  • -Y: +Z up, +X left
    ''ParaView''
  • +X: +Z up, +Y left
  • -X: +Z up, +Y left
    ''VisIt''
  • +X: +Y up, +Z right
  • -X: +Y up, +Z left
@mareuter
Copy link
Contributor Author

@NickDraper (2010-11-01T17:22:16):
I'm not sure about this one, I think we should just make the axes actually respect the values set in the instrument definition file. It was clear in the past that the scientists will not agree across instruments what axes mean.


@Anders-Markvardsen (2010-11-19T15:58:17):
(In [7649]) Remove a couple of methods no longer needed in IkedaCarpenter. re http://trac.mantidproject.org/mantid/ticket/1537.


@NickDraper (2014-02-14T11:07:56):
bulk move to assigned at the into of the triage step

@mareuter mareuter added Low Priority Things that you don't ever want to be done. Framework Issues and pull requests related to components in the Framework labels Jun 3, 2015
@NickDraper
Copy link
Contributor

This is not a user requirement, and not worth the effort

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Framework Issues and pull requests related to components in the Framework Low Priority Things that you don't ever want to be done.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants