Quick Graph and Results Graph

[fostertom]

The difference in ease, clarity and usefulness, between Quick Graph and Results Graph, is striking.

If only Results Graph was as easy to zoom and compose pages, as Quick Graph is. Results zoom facility is very poor.
And having zoomed in, in Results, the curves look like they're drawn with an old paint brush, while QuickGraph curves stay crystal clear.
In Quick you can zoom in and in, to really see e.g. how Temp stays just below Dewpoint even in the most critical, crowded areas of the graph. Can't see that, or present it for printing, in Results.

I dread trying to compose print sets in Results. Easier to use MS Snipping Tool in Quick, which can be dropped straight into Paint or whatever for polishing.

On another point, when working with Monitor positions, in Quick the '0.0319m from left side' is inadequate to keep track of which part of which material is being studied; likewise in Results 'Monitor position 7,8' is equally uninformative.

These may be necessary to see, but more useful would be 'Monitor position 35% through Mineral Wool' (you may have placed monitors at positions 5%, 35%, 65% and 95% of the thickness from left to right of the Mineral Wool).
Water Content in Layer is already half way to that intelligence, which makes it quick and easy to use. As it is I have to hand-write a list of what material each '0.0979m' figure means, or what 'Monitor position 3' means.

The wording format of these suggested auto-descriptions could be chosen in Preferences and could be pre-entered by default in the Edit facilities in Results.

[Christian Bludau]

Hello Tom,
you are right, there are some problems with the result graphs. The two kinds "quick" and "result" are more historical from the time the computers were quite slow.
We are working on a new tool for result analysis, easier to use, more functionality and faster. But that will need some time.

Thanx for your annotations. I will suggest to realize them in coming versions of WUFI.
Regards,
Christian

[fostertom]

Thanks.

Maybe a single consolidated Report facility, manipulated using CAD-style vector graphics (fine line at any zoom) until finalised, then exported as a complied Report to file/print in dumb bitmap format.

i can see the editing/ordering/titling facilities are good.

Reports could be optionally filed in tree/hierarchy form, to easily see which is a child/variant of which, when doing 'what-if' comparisons.

As part of that, a VERY COMPACT table of all the Component, Control, Climate etc settings that were current for the setup being Reported, could be available as a dumb graphic to optionally drop into the compiled Report at file/print time. The changes from 'parent' that were made to the 'child' variant, could be highlighted in that table, or somehow made at-a-glance obvious.

[Christian Bludau]

Hello Tom,
thank you again for your ideas. You are right, there is a lack of the possibility to compare cases. We are working on that with the new analyzing tool.
In the report (it is called "status of last calculation", but i want that to be changed to "report") you can get a short overview of what you made in your case. In the settings you can switch on/off the parameters you like to see.
i like your idea with the tree structure for the cases in the report. I will suggest to implement that.
Regards,
Christian

[EN-J]

I'm glad to hear that the developers are working on an updated graphing solutions. I would also second the users comment, I also dread having to use the Results Graph as it is painstakingly slow, and frustrating that there is no assembly overlay on the graphs, instead one has to do mental math to figure out what depth in mm a certain component is located. Also makes for very difficult reporting and presentations.

My suggestion would be to include for the possibility of plotting out material moisture content over time, with data overlayed from other cases/scenarios (or any other transient material property/metric). I do understand that data can be exported to excel and you can then graph it as you please, but this is time consuming and divorces data analysis from WUFI and is an unnecessary extra step.