Graphics

Right, so one of the elements I am making is a general purpose stat sheet, and I would like to make it easy for the operator to select the number of rows visible in the element.

Elsewhere in the package I use 'is empty' to drive visibility, and I could do that here too, but I feel it would be more elegant to have a hidden text object called 'Rows? 1-10' by which the operator could enter a numerical value and the corresponding number of rows would subsequently be available. I do see that my text object is outputting a string value which corresponds to the number present in that text object, but I cannot seem to get it to drive correctly the other rows' visibility. I have tried the less than or equal to, input selector, and string compare nodes without success. I feel certain this is doable (and I really can't understand why the less than or equal to didn't work, it seems ideal for this), so hopefully one of you can help me connect the dots.

Cheers
- Willie

So, in messing with this more, I have a simple setup with the aforementioned text object being fed into the Base port of a Smaller Than/Eq To node, and a value node with 7 entered feeding the <= port. When I have a value LOWER than 7 I get the predicted Boolean 0, but a value of 7 is returning a Boolean 1, which it seems to me it shouldn't be given that the condition the node puts forth should return a Boolean 0 for a value of 7 or less... is this a bug, or am I not understanding the logic of this node correctly?
#XPression

Can we get a screen capture of the visual logic of a simple example of the issue?
#XPression

Yes, I;ll get that to you straight away. I did discover that adding an Add node with a +1 value 'fixes' it, but that shouldn't be needed... I also found that running it through a 'Smaller Than' rather than a 'Smaller Than/Eq to' works, but it shouldn't... very odd.. let me get those screen shots.
#XPression

Ok, I comped some screen shots together so you can see what I see with string values and boolean returns:

#XPression

The little add node you see in there, if I feed the value node into the add's base, and then the output to the Smaller Than/Eq To node, it 'fixes' it. But, I am concerned that if this is a bug then a future update could break the logic, so it's not an ideal solution.
#XPression

Incidentally the smaller than node works in the way the smaller than equal to node seemingly should work. It's almost as if the names have been switched. It's like one of those 90's body swap movies.
#XPression

I had also wanted to try this a while back, but never got much traction. Instead, I opted to just use isEmpty to turn off the visibility of the group that the text object is in. If you figure out a simple solution, please share!
#XPression

Well, there is a simple solution, but it's presently hampered by a dysfunction in the software. I'm sure they'll fix it ultimately, but for now the Is Empty node is about as good as you can do I think.
#XPression

You've got the inputs to the logic block reversed; the Base is the value that gets compared against. So the "7" in your screenshot should feed into "Base", or just set the Base property in the block to "7" (no need to use the input connector for this). The text object should feed the other (non-base) input.
#XPression

Interesting... it feels counter-intuitive, but from a certain perspective makes sense. I'm working the L3rds and Side Slabs right now, but when I get back around to the full screens, I'll definitely have a go. Thanks B, savin' asses as always ;)
#XPression

So would you have to do the same visual logic over and over for each number of rows? As in, would you have to have one smaller than corresponding to row 8 and then another for 7, 6, 5 etc? Seems like a very drawn out method to do something that should be pretty simple in theory.
#XPression

It is a little more cumbersome a setup than I would prefer, but it's nice and elegant from the operator's POV. They need only enter a number rather than keep up with where they are or are not needing to enter text to achieve the desired result. I suppose if it comes down to only a 1 or 2 line variance, it's not really worth it, but for a 6 line variance as I am looking to do, it makes sense. But yes I would prefer if there were a simpler approach. Maybe there is, my experimentation on it came to a halt when I hit the roadblock above, and I am focused at the moment elsewhere in the package.
#XPression