Welcome to Synthiam!

Program robots using technologies created from industry experts. ARC is our free-to-use robot programming software that makes features like vision recognition, navigation and artificial intelligence easy.

Get Started
Asked — Edited

Ez-Script Control Re-Sizing Itself

@DJSures
Of late I have noticed that the EZ-Script controls are re-sizing themselves when I reload a project. I will set them to a certain (small) size and save. When the project is reloaded, they have become wider and are overlapping. This makes it difficult to structure the controls as I would like. Have they been programmed to some minimum and are disregarding the width to which they were set and saved if that width is below a certain limit?

AI Support Bot
Related Content
Synthiam
Based on your post activity, we found some content that may be interesting to you. Explore these other tutorials and community conversations.
#1  
I haven't noticed that one. Are they resizing bigger, smaller or both when reopening? I have noticed the title bar in the Script m\Managers resize smaller to the (maybe) default size. I'll slid the bar open wider so I can see the whole title I've typed in there and save. Next time I open the box is back to the old smaller width and I can only see part of the title I've typed. I wonder if your and my issue are related? Perhaps the auto resolution sizing that goes on in the background? Just a guess and I really don't know, I'm really dumb about these things. I agree with you that it is a little frustrating to go back and resize things after an adjustment.
PRO
Synthiam
#2  
Welcome to Windows....

Wonder if there's a way to redirect these kind of comments directly to Microsoft:)

I'll take a look and see what hacks are necessary lol
#3  
Hmm.. Do I see a possible refactoring of EZ-Robot into Linux on the horizon? You seem to be complaining about Microsoft a lot lately :P
PRO
Synthiam
#4  
Don't get me started about linux:) Boy, i tried a year ago for the v4 launch and maaaaaan what a pain. There's no documentation. Everything is buggy. Each distro has different library versions. Dozens of branches per library. No consistency per distro windowing interface. I seriously considered a port to it, but it's just not a consumer grade OS.

OS/X is on the horizon for sure - there has been a serious decline in new os/x apps, as most apple users are running windows on their mac hardware ... meanwhile, the die-hards continue to use os/x mostly because they're PC requirements are limited to checking email, opening and editing word/excel documents, and browsing the internet.

I think my frustration with microsoft is that they sit between linux and os/x on the scale of usability, features and reliability. I am absolutely blown away with .Net and the documentation surrounding it - specifically since every release of .Net gets faster and connects to OS level system calls. It's the OS i have trouble with.... not the dev environment.

What would be ideal you ask? Oh man, that would be really awesome if microsoft created a 100% compatible .Net framework for OS/X. My dreams would come true!

Ps, don't direct me toward Novell's Mono acquisition - that's just linux in disguise.
#5  
I was expecting a "no", and maybe a laugh. Thanks for the detailed explanation. No argument here.

Alan
PRO
Synthiam
#6  
lol - a "no" would not have justified the frustration from attempting to use that terrible operating system!

Think if i emailed microsoft and asked nicely for an OS/X version of .Net they'd take me seriously?
PRO
Portugal
#7  
DJ, go for a Linux version of ARC.
That is an OS.;)
PRO
Synthiam
#8  
yeah - that would be awesome:)

Just need the framework to start building it from. Didn't we read somewhere a while ago that microsoft was going to release .Net for linux? Rather than mono...
#13  
@bhouston
It's possible that it is related to that problem. I have my display set to 100% as well. I still can get the problem described in that thread when opening someone else's project, but never on my own. This re-sizing the script controls to a wider size happens no matter what. And it is something relatively recent, so it could be related to some update modification. So far it is only the script control that does this for me. Other resizable controls don't do it, but that could be because I bring the script control down to such a small size.

For example:
Looking in the .EZB file I see that the size to which I set one of the script controls is:
<Width>141</Width>
<Height>150</Height>

Then, of course, I save it.

When I reload it, the script control window is wider again, yet the numbers in the .EZB file are still the same (I also reloaded the .EZB file in my text reader to be sure I had the latest numbers).

If I then save it again at that point and look at the numbers, they are:
<Width>174</Width>
<Height>150</Height>

So it appears something is expanding the script control window to 174, regardless of what is in the .EZB file.

It does not appear to be expanding it so that the title will fully appear since it is still partially cut off even with the expansion.
PRO
Synthiam
#14  
Yeah, windows

I'll look into it and see what system level work around i can find for you.
PRO
Synthiam
#15  
After further investigation, controls resize based on the widgets within them. For example, if the script control is resized to be smaller than the size of the button, the next time it loads the script control will be resized to display the button.

This is desired behavior so controls are not resized to lose visibility of buttons and widgets, etc.
#16  
@DJSures
I see. Thank you for the explanation. I guess that varies somewhat from one control to another and applies primarily to the width. The Camera Control, for example, can be made small enough in height to hide all of it's sliders and some of it's buttons, but width-wise it won't go narrower than the width of the sliders and it's buttons. And it will stay that way between loadings.

If I may make a suggestion, it would be good if the Script control was like that. Not allowed to go below whatever the widgets they contain indicate the min. width it must be. This, as opposed to how it is now with it being allowed to be sized smaller than that and re-sizing itself on the next loading.

Thanks again.