What problems does SciDraw still solve?Why does GridLines option fail with Function?Missing arrow tips and colorsMathematica does not recognize RegionPlot3D?Plotting issue — possible bug?SciDraw error loading packageSetting SciDraw defaultsSciDraw Ticks not working?SciDraw: Nested MultipanelsPlotMarkers does not scale properly in SciDraw FigurePanelSciDraw increases point size
Do you play the upbeat when beginning to play a series of notes, and then after?
Can a Beholder use rays in melee range?
What does "Marchentalender" on the front of a postcard mean?
Yandex Programming Contest: Alarms
Is my router's IP address really public?
How to capture more stars?
Looking after a wayward brother in mother's will
What does the behaviour of water on the skin of an aircraft in flight tell us?
How do I remove these transparent pixels?
What are the benefits of cryosleep?
Were pen cap holes designed to prevent death by suffocation if swallowed?
A Mathematical Discussion: Fill in the Blank
Where did the “Vikings wear helmets with horn” stereotype come from and why?
Do firearms count as ranged weapons?
Smart people send dumb people to a new planet on a space craft that crashes into a body of water
What is the most important source of natural gas? coal, oil or other?
How many chess players are over 2500 Elo?
If a massive object like Jupiter flew past the Earth how close would it need to come to pull people off of the surface?
Inverter Power draw from 12V battery
What is the best linguistic term for describing the kw > p / gw > b change, and its usual companion s > h
Black-and-white film where monster/alien gets fried
Employer demanding to see degree after poor code review
Could I be denied entry into Ireland due to medical and police situations during a previous UK visit?
Why colon to denote that a value belongs to a type?
What problems does SciDraw still solve?
Why does GridLines option fail with Function?Missing arrow tips and colorsMathematica does not recognize RegionPlot3D?Plotting issue — possible bug?SciDraw error loading packageSetting SciDraw defaultsSciDraw Ticks not working?SciDraw: Nested MultipanelsPlotMarkers does not scale properly in SciDraw FigurePanelSciDraw increases point size
$begingroup$
I came across SciDraw (link) that can be used for preparing scientific figures with Mathematica. It seems the latest version was in 2015 (link). What are the main problems that SciDraw still solves? Or does Mathematica 12 make much of SciDraw redundant now?
plotting scidraw
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I came across SciDraw (link) that can be used for preparing scientific figures with Mathematica. It seems the latest version was in 2015 (link). What are the main problems that SciDraw still solves? Or does Mathematica 12 make much of SciDraw redundant now?
plotting scidraw
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I came across SciDraw (link) that can be used for preparing scientific figures with Mathematica. It seems the latest version was in 2015 (link). What are the main problems that SciDraw still solves? Or does Mathematica 12 make much of SciDraw redundant now?
plotting scidraw
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
$endgroup$
I came across SciDraw (link) that can be used for preparing scientific figures with Mathematica. It seems the latest version was in 2015 (link). What are the main problems that SciDraw still solves? Or does Mathematica 12 make much of SciDraw redundant now?
plotting scidraw
plotting scidraw
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
asked 10 hours ago
TomTom
1,4021121
1,4021121
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, it does not make SciDraw redundant. Take a look at the SciDraw examples and try to reproduce them with plain Mathematica. It is going to be more difficult than just using SciDraw.
One of the biggest shortcomings of Mathematica's visualization system is that it can't easily create multi-panel figures. I expect the frames to be correctly aligned in a multi-panel figure. Until Mathematica 12.0, this could not be done automatically, and required setting (and re-setting) the ImagePadding setting for each panel manually. Matematica 12.0 is better in that it can do this automatically with GraphicsGrid, GraphicsRow and GraphicsColumn. However, it still cannot do nested panels, and it does not have as many options as SciDraw. Nor are the options as easy to apply.
A shortcoming of SciDraw is that it basically forces you to think about all the adjustments one can make to a figure. But in those cases where you need to do this anyway to achieve a sufficient quality, it can do it more consistently and with fewer steps than Mathematica's built-ins.
I would recommend SciDraw when:
You are creating publication figures which must be of high quality, and find yourself fussing with the settings.
You need multi-panel figures.
I would not recommend SciDraw when:
- You need to create figures quickly, and the quality is not a top priority (in particular, you are happy with the automatic defaults).
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I also agree that SciDraw is not yet redundant. I still use some SciDraw features, but one I often use the CustomTicks portion of SciDraw (although this can be installed as a standalone package if you prefer). It was a bit broken for MMA 11, but it seems like Wolfram finally fixed a few bugs in their tick marks coding and now it works again.
While it's possible to create your own tick mark function, I usually find it to be much more of a pain that simply using SciDraw. Quite often I need to increase the length of tick marks for export since MMA makes them much shorter on export. This can easily be done with SetOptions[LinTicks, TickLengthScale -> 2].
Similarly, if I want to use outside tick marks SetOptions[LinTicks, TickDirection -> Out] works a treat. Then I can get away with allowing Mathematica to choose where to put the tick marks, but I can control the length and direction. If I wanted to do this otherwise, my understanding is that I would have to specify the minimum tick mark, the maximum tick mark, the step size between ticks, their labels, how to decide on major tick marks, and the inner and outer tick mark lengths. This is a pain if I just want to change the length or direction, and I'm honestly surprised that Wolfram didn't decide to adopt some of these features into MMA 12, or at least give tick marks a little bit of TLC to make customization easier.
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199187%2fwhat-problems-does-scidraw-still-solve%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, it does not make SciDraw redundant. Take a look at the SciDraw examples and try to reproduce them with plain Mathematica. It is going to be more difficult than just using SciDraw.
One of the biggest shortcomings of Mathematica's visualization system is that it can't easily create multi-panel figures. I expect the frames to be correctly aligned in a multi-panel figure. Until Mathematica 12.0, this could not be done automatically, and required setting (and re-setting) the ImagePadding setting for each panel manually. Matematica 12.0 is better in that it can do this automatically with GraphicsGrid, GraphicsRow and GraphicsColumn. However, it still cannot do nested panels, and it does not have as many options as SciDraw. Nor are the options as easy to apply.
A shortcoming of SciDraw is that it basically forces you to think about all the adjustments one can make to a figure. But in those cases where you need to do this anyway to achieve a sufficient quality, it can do it more consistently and with fewer steps than Mathematica's built-ins.
I would recommend SciDraw when:
You are creating publication figures which must be of high quality, and find yourself fussing with the settings.
You need multi-panel figures.
I would not recommend SciDraw when:
- You need to create figures quickly, and the quality is not a top priority (in particular, you are happy with the automatic defaults).
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, it does not make SciDraw redundant. Take a look at the SciDraw examples and try to reproduce them with plain Mathematica. It is going to be more difficult than just using SciDraw.
One of the biggest shortcomings of Mathematica's visualization system is that it can't easily create multi-panel figures. I expect the frames to be correctly aligned in a multi-panel figure. Until Mathematica 12.0, this could not be done automatically, and required setting (and re-setting) the ImagePadding setting for each panel manually. Matematica 12.0 is better in that it can do this automatically with GraphicsGrid, GraphicsRow and GraphicsColumn. However, it still cannot do nested panels, and it does not have as many options as SciDraw. Nor are the options as easy to apply.
A shortcoming of SciDraw is that it basically forces you to think about all the adjustments one can make to a figure. But in those cases where you need to do this anyway to achieve a sufficient quality, it can do it more consistently and with fewer steps than Mathematica's built-ins.
I would recommend SciDraw when:
You are creating publication figures which must be of high quality, and find yourself fussing with the settings.
You need multi-panel figures.
I would not recommend SciDraw when:
- You need to create figures quickly, and the quality is not a top priority (in particular, you are happy with the automatic defaults).
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, it does not make SciDraw redundant. Take a look at the SciDraw examples and try to reproduce them with plain Mathematica. It is going to be more difficult than just using SciDraw.
One of the biggest shortcomings of Mathematica's visualization system is that it can't easily create multi-panel figures. I expect the frames to be correctly aligned in a multi-panel figure. Until Mathematica 12.0, this could not be done automatically, and required setting (and re-setting) the ImagePadding setting for each panel manually. Matematica 12.0 is better in that it can do this automatically with GraphicsGrid, GraphicsRow and GraphicsColumn. However, it still cannot do nested panels, and it does not have as many options as SciDraw. Nor are the options as easy to apply.
A shortcoming of SciDraw is that it basically forces you to think about all the adjustments one can make to a figure. But in those cases where you need to do this anyway to achieve a sufficient quality, it can do it more consistently and with fewer steps than Mathematica's built-ins.
I would recommend SciDraw when:
You are creating publication figures which must be of high quality, and find yourself fussing with the settings.
You need multi-panel figures.
I would not recommend SciDraw when:
- You need to create figures quickly, and the quality is not a top priority (in particular, you are happy with the automatic defaults).
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
$endgroup$
No, it does not make SciDraw redundant. Take a look at the SciDraw examples and try to reproduce them with plain Mathematica. It is going to be more difficult than just using SciDraw.
One of the biggest shortcomings of Mathematica's visualization system is that it can't easily create multi-panel figures. I expect the frames to be correctly aligned in a multi-panel figure. Until Mathematica 12.0, this could not be done automatically, and required setting (and re-setting) the ImagePadding setting for each panel manually. Matematica 12.0 is better in that it can do this automatically with GraphicsGrid, GraphicsRow and GraphicsColumn. However, it still cannot do nested panels, and it does not have as many options as SciDraw. Nor are the options as easy to apply.
A shortcoming of SciDraw is that it basically forces you to think about all the adjustments one can make to a figure. But in those cases where you need to do this anyway to achieve a sufficient quality, it can do it more consistently and with fewer steps than Mathematica's built-ins.
I would recommend SciDraw when:
You are creating publication figures which must be of high quality, and find yourself fussing with the settings.
You need multi-panel figures.
I would not recommend SciDraw when:
- You need to create figures quickly, and the quality is not a top priority (in particular, you are happy with the automatic defaults).
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
answered 9 hours ago
SzabolcsSzabolcs
168k16457968
168k16457968
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I also agree that SciDraw is not yet redundant. I still use some SciDraw features, but one I often use the CustomTicks portion of SciDraw (although this can be installed as a standalone package if you prefer). It was a bit broken for MMA 11, but it seems like Wolfram finally fixed a few bugs in their tick marks coding and now it works again.
While it's possible to create your own tick mark function, I usually find it to be much more of a pain that simply using SciDraw. Quite often I need to increase the length of tick marks for export since MMA makes them much shorter on export. This can easily be done with SetOptions[LinTicks, TickLengthScale -> 2].
Similarly, if I want to use outside tick marks SetOptions[LinTicks, TickDirection -> Out] works a treat. Then I can get away with allowing Mathematica to choose where to put the tick marks, but I can control the length and direction. If I wanted to do this otherwise, my understanding is that I would have to specify the minimum tick mark, the maximum tick mark, the step size between ticks, their labels, how to decide on major tick marks, and the inner and outer tick mark lengths. This is a pain if I just want to change the length or direction, and I'm honestly surprised that Wolfram didn't decide to adopt some of these features into MMA 12, or at least give tick marks a little bit of TLC to make customization easier.
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I also agree that SciDraw is not yet redundant. I still use some SciDraw features, but one I often use the CustomTicks portion of SciDraw (although this can be installed as a standalone package if you prefer). It was a bit broken for MMA 11, but it seems like Wolfram finally fixed a few bugs in their tick marks coding and now it works again.
While it's possible to create your own tick mark function, I usually find it to be much more of a pain that simply using SciDraw. Quite often I need to increase the length of tick marks for export since MMA makes them much shorter on export. This can easily be done with SetOptions[LinTicks, TickLengthScale -> 2].
Similarly, if I want to use outside tick marks SetOptions[LinTicks, TickDirection -> Out] works a treat. Then I can get away with allowing Mathematica to choose where to put the tick marks, but I can control the length and direction. If I wanted to do this otherwise, my understanding is that I would have to specify the minimum tick mark, the maximum tick mark, the step size between ticks, their labels, how to decide on major tick marks, and the inner and outer tick mark lengths. This is a pain if I just want to change the length or direction, and I'm honestly surprised that Wolfram didn't decide to adopt some of these features into MMA 12, or at least give tick marks a little bit of TLC to make customization easier.
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I also agree that SciDraw is not yet redundant. I still use some SciDraw features, but one I often use the CustomTicks portion of SciDraw (although this can be installed as a standalone package if you prefer). It was a bit broken for MMA 11, but it seems like Wolfram finally fixed a few bugs in their tick marks coding and now it works again.
While it's possible to create your own tick mark function, I usually find it to be much more of a pain that simply using SciDraw. Quite often I need to increase the length of tick marks for export since MMA makes them much shorter on export. This can easily be done with SetOptions[LinTicks, TickLengthScale -> 2].
Similarly, if I want to use outside tick marks SetOptions[LinTicks, TickDirection -> Out] works a treat. Then I can get away with allowing Mathematica to choose where to put the tick marks, but I can control the length and direction. If I wanted to do this otherwise, my understanding is that I would have to specify the minimum tick mark, the maximum tick mark, the step size between ticks, their labels, how to decide on major tick marks, and the inner and outer tick mark lengths. This is a pain if I just want to change the length or direction, and I'm honestly surprised that Wolfram didn't decide to adopt some of these features into MMA 12, or at least give tick marks a little bit of TLC to make customization easier.
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
$endgroup$
I also agree that SciDraw is not yet redundant. I still use some SciDraw features, but one I often use the CustomTicks portion of SciDraw (although this can be installed as a standalone package if you prefer). It was a bit broken for MMA 11, but it seems like Wolfram finally fixed a few bugs in their tick marks coding and now it works again.
While it's possible to create your own tick mark function, I usually find it to be much more of a pain that simply using SciDraw. Quite often I need to increase the length of tick marks for export since MMA makes them much shorter on export. This can easily be done with SetOptions[LinTicks, TickLengthScale -> 2].
Similarly, if I want to use outside tick marks SetOptions[LinTicks, TickDirection -> Out] works a treat. Then I can get away with allowing Mathematica to choose where to put the tick marks, but I can control the length and direction. If I wanted to do this otherwise, my understanding is that I would have to specify the minimum tick mark, the maximum tick mark, the step size between ticks, their labels, how to decide on major tick marks, and the inner and outer tick mark lengths. This is a pain if I just want to change the length or direction, and I'm honestly surprised that Wolfram didn't decide to adopt some of these features into MMA 12, or at least give tick marks a little bit of TLC to make customization easier.
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
answered 7 hours ago
MassDefectMassDefect
2,815311
2,815311
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199187%2fwhat-problems-does-scidraw-still-solve%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
