What problems does SciDraw still solve?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}
$begingroup$
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 May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
asked May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
asked May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
asked May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
asked May 27 at 13:16
TomTom
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
1,49411 silver badges22 bronze badges
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 May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
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 May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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 May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
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 May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
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 May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
edited May 27 at 13:33
answered May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
answered May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
answered May 27 at 13:28
SzabolcsSzabolcs
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
172k18 gold badges468 silver badges1004 bronze badges
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
I'd endorse these comments. SciDraw provides more control easier than default methods for figures intended for publication.
$endgroup$
– dwa
May 28 at 0:26
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
$begingroup$
Ok, sold ;) Downloaded and enjoying :)
$endgroup$
– Tom
Jun 2 at 18:41
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 May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
answered May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
answered May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
answered May 27 at 16:12
MassDefectMassDefect
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
3,9684 silver badges17 bronze badges
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
