-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Consolidation of light bulb styles #170
Comments
Basically, the halo style tends to be preferred for very dynamic changes (such as in faraday's law), and the ray style tends to be preferred when you have a more static representation that can be changed by a parameter in the sim (such as with the conductivity meter). The rays give an easily "countable" comparison, we will want both styles. If that means keeping these separate "raylightbulb" and "halolightbulb" or something like that, it would be fine. But we need both styles. |
@jessegreenberg feel free to make a topic for dev meeting as to the best approach. |
If both are needed, then my recommendation is:
After 1 & 2, someone can review to see if there's enough commonality to warrant a base type, or a single type with {string} lightType "rays"|"holo" |
Thanks for the recommendation @pixelzoom. I will go ahead with this plan. |
I'm getting close to a point for Circuit Construction Kit: Basics where I could use the appropriate light bulb artwork together with the rays representation. For CCK, it is supposed to look like the light bulb artwork from Faraday's Law and Capacitor Lab: Basics, not the one from Acid Base Solutions. I asked over email if Acid Base Solutions could use the same light bulb as CCK/Faraday's Law/Capacitor Lab. @ariel-phet can you please review the status of this issue and help delegate? |
As noted #170 (comment) it is the light brightness representation that needs to be different, I am completely agnostic as to the the lightbulb artwork that is used for acid-base solutions, but that lightbulb is also used in Energy forms and changes, and the filament glowing red is an important property for that sim. However, @pixelzoom should not be spending time in acid-base right now. |
On Jul 13, 2015 @jessegreenberg said he would proceed with the plan described in #170 (comment), is he available to work on this? What is the status and schedule for Capacitor Lab: Basics? |
Not sure if @jessegreenberg is available @jessegreenberg what say you? |
Yes, I am available to work on this now. Leaving assigned to me to follow through with the recommendation in #170 (comment). |
Thanks @jessegreenberg, let me know when it is ready to take for a test drive in Circuit Construction Kit. |
@jessegreenberg asked whether we need two representations of light bulb images in scenery-phet. I said probably not, but it is really a question for designers, so I have emailed @ariel-phet and @arouinfar to ask if we can use the new bulb across sims. @jessegreenberg is putting this issue on hold until we have a game plan. |
@ariel-phet responded: @samreid, please also note the use in EFAC is even slightly different 1 - the filament "glows" more red as the bulb gets brighter I am not opposed to unifying these representations, but it involves some subtleties. Ariel EDIT: the=>they |
Also, at the very least we would need to have different bases for the bulb (one of the EFAC style, and one of the two obvious connection points style). |
Here's an image of the single connection point style @ariel-phet was referring to from EFAC: |
Also of note, the filament in Acid Base Solutions is glowing red even though there is no current. |
@pixelzoom said he cannot think of any reason the faraday's law light bulb could not be used in acid base solutions, but it should be double checked with the design team. |
@jbphet says it is important that the filament is a straight line in Energy Forms and Changes. |
Currently, this bulb appears in CCK: Black Box. In future versions, it will be necessary to show the electron flow through the wire filament. The Faraday's Law-style bulb has a zig-zag filament, which is not ideal to show electrons moving through it. @samreid I think we should stick with the light bulb currently in CCK. |
Discussion for this issue stalled almost 5 years ago, and it's assigned to @jessegreenberg. I'm going to reassign to myself to read through the comments and figure out what has been done, and what's left to do. |
Discussion for this issue stalled almost 5 years ago, and it's assigned to @jessegreenberg. I read through the comments, and I'm still confused about what work remains to be done. But I will note that the situation has been made worse by work in CCK that has apparently ignored this issue. The most recent comment on this issue was 4/11/2016, where @arouinfar said:
But looking at CCK:AC, I see that the design changed. And presumable to satisfy that design, @samreid created yet-another lightbulb design and implementation, So now we have:
Related classes that should be addressed:
There are also many image files to support the above classes. I have not done an inventory. I don't have time to devote to this issue now. So I think the path forward is to label this as an epic, start with a design phase where PhET identifies what is needed (by current and future sims), followed by an implementation phase where we decide how to refactor, eliminate duplication, remain flexible for future features that have been identified, etc. |
A quarterly goal will include progressing this as it makes sense with @samreid's CCK work. |
I'm tracking the CCK aspect of this issue in phetsims/circuit-construction-kit-common#679 and will wait for this issue to be planned as a quarterly goal before going further. I confirmed this issue is listed in the spreadsheet. Self-unassigning. |
There are two styles of light bulbs requested across sims. One is currently used in acid-base-solutions and uses light rays to indicate brightness.
The other style is used in Faraday's Law and is requested in Capacitor Lab: Basics, uses halos to indicate brightness.
The ray style bulb exists in scenery-phet and we need to decide how to organize the two styles. The following are previous discussions about this issue.
On 7/13/2015, @pixelzoom brought up the following point:
@ariel-phet, we need to decide why the two styles are necessary, do you know who in the design team might like to comment on this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: