The new update is great. The new variable added, "other", allows me to do exactly what I wanted to and the new way to display ev (not splitting up by action) makes it easier to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
You put me in a tough spot here: that's the discussion I am not interested in having on the public forum. On the other hand if I leave it unanswered someone may think I admit that there is a point in what you wrote, having in mind the assertive tone of your comment. That couldn't be further from the truth.
If I answer with technical details I would compromise the goal of not having this discussion in the first place so that's not going to happen. I can offer you some explanation privately though if you are interested and want to be assured bad things are not going to happen to honest people
Thanks for contacting me privately, I now understand why this anti piracy method presents no harm to honest buyers of the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karganeth
I strongly dislike this view for one simple reason: the value of one data set (range) affects my ability to see the value of a separate data set (strategy).
It will always be the case with more information on the screen.
You missed my point. Yes my ability to see data becomes worse as more data appears on the screen but my point was that the
value of the area used to represent one data set (range) affects my ability to see another data set (strategy). By having the cell split into 3 sections, the value of the range wouldn't affect my ability to see what strategy to use because the size of the area used to represent strategy remains constant. If the cell is split in three equal sections it doesn't matter if the range is 0.1% or 100%, it's still easy to view strategy. But in the case of the current implementation it becomes harder to view strategy depending on value.
This is after taking a rare line (OOP donking). It is very clear in this image what the range %s are (they are all clearly very low), but it is difficult to judge what the strategy and ev is because the area used to show strategy and ev is so small. If the cells were split into 3 sections (range, EV and strategy), it wouldn't be made any harder by the particular value of range.
That leads me onto another feature request: normalization of the visualization of range data. The hand with the highest range value would be multiplied by a number that brings it to 100% (so would take up the full cell) and all the other ranges are multiplied by this too. So it would no longer be hard to see the differences between the hand. Now it's hard to tell if one hand is twice as common as another if it takes up 2 pixels vs 1 pixel, but with this method it would take up the whole cell vs half a cell making it much easier on the eyes. This feature would be useful now and also would be useful if the cell is split into 3 sections.
Quote:
Some people we showed it to love it. It's optional anyway, you don't have to use it (it's implemented in a way that the checkbox scales the squares by weight in every view)
Allow me to clarify my harsh criticism. I do appreciate the new feature very much. But in my view it is much worse than the alternative of splitting a hand cell into 3 sections. PioViewer was going in the right direction by allowing cells to be split in two, but instead of also allowing the user to split it into three cells in the new update it now does something totally different which I feel is very inferior.
I did find a small bug in how the data is displayed shown in the next image.
There's some kind of visual artifact that sometimes causes the very edge of cells to appear red for no reason. If you zoom in you can see the very edge (one pixel) of the JJ cell is red when it should be green. Also there is no black border completely surrounding many cells on the edge of the range such as J9s, JJ and A8o and this artifact is also present in the previous image in my post.
Alongside the exploitable for x%, it may be wise to add some kind of description to help users understand the level of accuracy attained. The accuracy rating could say very low (3%+), low (2%+), medium(1%+), high(0.6%+), very high (0.3%+), excellent (0%+). I say this because there's already been some confusion over what % accuracy should be targeted. There should also be a loading animation while the program is calculating its results. Like a rotating square or something that cycles through colours, some kind of animation that tells the user the program is doing something. Right now I have to read the text to see if the last message is "SOLVER: stopped" to figure out if it's running or not.
Last edited by Karganeth; 03-16-2015 at 11:47 AM.