Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven
Responding to Bill's 'feature suggestion' in the other Bug List thread, if I understand you, you'd like to see distance equalized lines and raw lines in 2 separate panels stacked on top of each other in the main Analysis section, so you can see in one glimpse how extracted/projected lines compare to raw. Further, you would like the adjusted panel to be distance equalized only (and not ITV and DTV adjusted), and the distance equalization to be per Jim Bradshaw's 6.4 (tenths) per half-furlong method, rather than the Val/Spec variable table.
Did I get that right? I have a plan to update the existing Adjusted tab to show various flavours of adjusted, plus show the 4 call times as on the raw screen. (BTW, it would be on such a modified screen where Projected Pace should really go, because all the lines are at least distance equalized. Also Richie's composite paceline creation tool would go here)
Can I ask if anyone else would like to see, and can make a good case for, multiple stacked Analysis tabs where you can display any 2 tabs simultaneously, similarly to how you can do this with the Past Performance tabs. Please take a moment to give your reasoning (thanks Bill L.), as this would be a bit of work.
This would be aside from wanting to see an onscreen 'print-out' listing of PPs and preferred Analysis screens, in one big long scrollable and printable readout (which is coming). Rather, I'm referring here to another interactive collection of Analysis tabs.
Thanks,
Ted
|
Ted: I think I took the question too far the first time. I think the first sentence of your reply captures what I was trying to convey, which was, a visual transition from raw pacelines to distance-adjusted pacelines on those occasions when mixed distance structure lines are being used. This would be the end result of what someone using MATCH UP techniques would be mentally calculating or writing down. Hopefully Richie will weigh in on this point because I value his input in this process, especially since it is his and HAT's subject matter.
On further review I would strike everything in your answer starting with ...(Further,...") because as I view it now that's a bit of overkill. (and also cause I don't want to kill the programmer.)
Bill