Software that makes placemats

[PhilW]

The radius chosen, those of the new form are then moved along the straight line from (x y) to (x1 y1), as far as possible without crashing into another circle. This will be done pairwise, each circle being moved a proportion p along the line, p chosen to be the lesser of 1 and first crash. Each circle will be moved the least of its pairwise p’s. (This is robust and simple, but wouldn’t handle complicated sequences of possible collisions.)

The simple algorithm has the advantage of simplicity. Can better be done?

As an example, let the pattern include [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 1 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ], and that the ellipses include circles much closer to each other, such that the three circles shown aren’t initially touching, and by a good margin. Then there are multiple solutions: for example, any of the three could land at (0, 0). And what about [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 2 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ]?

Algorithm suggestions welcomed.

I see what you're aiming to achieve, but I think this might be over-complicating? For the more advanced case where a simple [x y] with subsequent affine transform (as currently) is not sufficient, I would suggest an easier option for the advanced user to make specific patterns would be to use an [x y] with affine=off - still performing suitable H/W scaling and max circle size selection as before.

In the example we've been using, you could move from the following with affine=on which creates the pattern with four regular along the top:
[ [0 4]; [2 4]; [4 4]; [6 4]; [0 2]; [3 2]; [6 2]; [0 0]; [3 0]; [6 0]; ];
to using the following with affine=off which would keep the required pair together.
[ [0 4]; [2.5 4]; [4.5 4]; [7 4]; [0 2]; [3.5 2]; [7 2]; [0 0]; [3.5 0]; [7 0]; ];
(or scaled up by 10 if we're only allowed to use integers, you get the idea).

This would then seem straightforward to use for any unusual bespoke patterns required?

[RAYC]

The radius chosen, those of the new form are then moved along the straight line from (x y) to (x1 y1), as far as possible without crashing into another circle. This will be done pairwise, each circle being moved a proportion p along the line, p chosen to be the lesser of 1 and first crash. Each circle will be moved the least of its pairwise p’s. (This is robust and simple, but wouldn’t handle complicated sequences of possible collisions.)

The simple algorithm has the advantage of simplicity. Can better be done?

As an example, let the pattern include [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 1 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ], and that the ellipses include circles much closer to each other, such that the three circles shown aren’t initially touching, and by a good margin. Then there are multiple solutions: for example, any of the three could land at (0, 0). And what about [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 2 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ]?

Algorithm suggestions welcomed.

This makes my head hurt...but i will be more than happy to give an opinion based on napkin sketches at the next tasting!

In general, the critical element to my eye is symmetry, and alignment of the first and fourth columns. I do not think i feel strongly about what i think you are debating.

[jdaw1]

over-complicating?

I plead the fifth.

In the example we've been using, you could move from the following with affine=on which creates the pattern with four regular along the top:
[ [0 4]; [2 4]; [4 4]; [6 4]; [0 2]; [3 2]; [6 2]; [0 0]; [3 0]; [6 0]; ];
to using the following with affine=off which would keep the required pair together.
[ [0 4]; [2.5 4]; [4.5 4]; [7 4]; [0 2]; [3.5 2]; [7 2]; [0 0]; [3.5 0]; [7 0]; ];
(or scaled up by 10 if we're only allowed to use integers, you get the idea).

This achieves something different. In the general case it could shrink the radii of the circles. I was trying to have, in order: the general pattern specified; radius as large as possible; then things touched. If the touching is done too early the radius would be shrunk.

Also, no requirement that numbers be integers. Easier for examples, but reals fine, subject only to the requirement that yi≠yj ⇒ division by (yi”“yj) does not produce an error.

[PhilW]

This achieves something different.

True, although I thought it might be useful for the general case for other purposes too (rather than simply enabling the touching issue) as well as providing a possible solution to that specific example. Agreed that it could lead to non-maximised circles, which I would have accepted in return for ease of use. Always just suggestions though, no problem with them being rejected

[jdaw1]

So, just to check, please confirm that you think that the current generality of outcomes is sufficient.

[DRT]

So, just to check, please confirm that you think that the current generality of outcomes is sufficient.

Rob and I vote yes. Three times each.

[PhilW]

So, just to check, please confirm that you think that the current generality of outcomes is sufficient.

Aye. For now

[jdaw1]

This makes my head hurt...but i will be more than happy to give an opinion based on napkin sketches at the next tasting!

The proposed new feature would allow a move of the two circles from their evenly-spaced position (green) to a central-touching position (black). I thought that this is what you wanted for the GC/SW/QH tasting, with the horizontally central circles being the 1977s.

However, the consensus is that it isn’t needed, so won’t be added. (Unless I’m bored, at home, and for some reason unable to work on the book.)

[jdaw1]

First feedback on sticky sheets do we have water tick-boxes?

(There was also a link to this post on FTLoP, but it was deleted. Still pretending to be the only port forum on the web. Cool.)

[jdaw1]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets. If the latter, a possible location is shown in green. (This example derived from the first page of the ‘Placemats’ (meaning stickers and tasting-note sheets) used at The Bell on Thu 15 Dec 2011.)

Does that work? It certainly intrudes into the space for the last port’s tasting note. Should the boxes be on the other side, so also switching ↔ name? Or should the boxes surround the name?

Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

[g-man]

I check off on the placements actually since i usually drink some water with pen still in hand after drinking previous port.

This way I check off, put pen down, grab next glass all from the same sheet.

[jdaw1]

I check off on the placements actually since

You probably check the glasses sheets because that is where the check-boxes are, at least currently. But should they be?

[jdaw1]

Alternative arrangement in dark red.


Or the name could be one box to the left, with the boxes starting one row further down (shown in purple).


Comments?

[SushiNorth]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets.
Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

Choices: Tasting Note, Placemat, Both

I might choose both, and print that way, then the taster can decide.

[jdaw1]

Choices: Tasting Note, Placemat, Both

‘Both’ is an excellent suggestion. What should be the default? And where on the TN sheet should the boxes go.

Currently there is a line

Code: Select all

/WaterCounts true def

This might become something like

Code: Select all

/WaterCountLocations /Both def  % /Glasses /TastingNotes /Both /None

[Glenn E.]

Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

No. I have a notebook that I use when taking Port TNs, as do most of the people with whom I taste, so I typically do not even print the TN sheets. Yet I do find the water boxes useful and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

[jdaw1]

and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

Wilco. SushiNorth’s ‟Both” is looking better and better.

[SushiNorth]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets.
Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

Btw, I vote for a solid line (clarification: of tickboxes) across the bottom -- after all, I'll probably have it flat on the table, it's good to just be able to tick them casually as I go. Unlike the placemats, they won't be covered with glasses.

[PhilW]

Presumably there should be a flag specifying whether the water boxes go on the glasses sheets or the TN sheets.
Indeed, should the water boxes always be on the TN sheets?

Btw, I vote for a solid line (clarification: of tickboxes) across the bottom -- after all, I'll probably have it flat on the table, it's good to just be able to tick them casually as I go. Unlike the placemats, they won't be covered with glasses.

Agree with horizontal preference over vertical (though am happy with current 'cluster'). Personally prefer them bottom right (since am right handed), either next to the name or would happy with initials being bottom left instead with logo+glasses cluster at right (option: left side for lefties, right side for righties?).

[jdaw1]

Henceforth let’s assume right-handed. Obviously sides reversed for lefties.

I think I would prefer having icon and name on the left, and water boxes on the right. The water boxes would be in a cluster, like the green example above, excepting on the right.

Does that work for others?

[DRT]

That works for me.

[PhilW]

Henceforth let’s assume right-handed. Obviously sides reversed for lefties.

I think I would prefer having icon and name on the left, and water boxes on the right. The water boxes would be in a cluster, like the green example above, excepting on the right.

Does that work for others?

Sounds fine.

[Alex Bridgeman]

My preference would be to have the tick boxes on the glass sheet (because I will often make my notes, fold up and safely stow away for later use and then carry on drinking) but where no glass sheets are used then having checkboxes on the tasting notes pages would work.

Of course, instead of glass labels 23 and 24, perhaps I could have had an adhesive water glass label that I stuck on my water glass and ticked off as I went along.

[jdaw1]

perhaps I could have had an adhesive water glass label that I stuck on my water glass and ticked off as I went along.

Interesting idea. If water glasses are large wine glasses, with stem and foot, that might work. But it would be more awkward on a pint glass.

[jdaw1]

and would like to continue having the option of them being on the placemat itself.

Wilco.

But what if there aren’t placemats? What if it’s stickies? AHB’s suggestion of a water-box sticky is growing on me and it wouldn’t have to be stuck to a glass.