Although we did successfully run the competition as part of the previous proposal I think we (as a team) made a mistake in selecting the 3D designs (see result here). While they are pretty they are not as good as the 2D designs (see examples here) in terms of quickly informing the user the motor number and order.
Sorry to be a thorn! I hope others gave their opinion on the 3d designs as well?
Just a thought - 99designs.com is quite an expensive option (although a good one) - as this is a relatively simple design requirement you may well get the same service on the likes of upwork.com for $50.
Not sure if non-devs can answer or even reply to these but I for one think the 2D designs are much easier and cleaner looking and are what we are all accustom to, just my opinion!
MRC87, of course you can answer/reply here, that’s why proposals are listed on the forum . Thanks for your opinion! We are actually revisiting the diagrams again …
The one advantage, and weakness in the original drawings, is the lack of reference. The new 3D do show the motor is on the top side of the arm giving you the reference to know whether you are looking top down or bottom up in the drawing. Your new 2D, once again, make it uncertain which view you are looking at the drawing from.
The reason I’m asking is that I was going to add these kinds of diagrams into our prototype web GCS. It’s MIT licensed, so I can either use these diagrams that you produce if they’re compatible, or as an alternative I could have a go at creating the diagrams/graphics (for free!) and if you liked them then you could use them. It would depend if you could/would use MIT licensed artwork, although I’d certainly be open to dual licensing them if that would make it easier.
IANAL but I don’t see any conflict between MIT code and linked CCSA artwork.
They’re both basically attribution licenses, and neither consumes the other.
@fnoop
I second what @anon67614380 said could you please elaborate on your web based GCS? Sorry for the off topic post. I also agree with letting the community decide which motor diagrams they like better, considering this is a community driven project anytime you can seek the input of the vast amounts of folks using it I believe that everyone wins. Of course there is always someone not happy but tis’ life eh!
Sorry to hijack this proposal thread. I’ve realised I need to do visuals throughout the interface so I’m going to produce these diagrams in 2d and 3d anyway. If Ardupilot doesn’t think they’re rubbish and wants to use them I’m happy for you to do so - I’ll aim to get concepts out within the next couple of weeks.
Re: web gcs, we’ve finally got a bit of momentum going and making good progress but we’re still working down at the data/api level so nothing to see yet. Hoping to have a very basic prototype of the interface within a month or two (but been saying that for about a year now). We’ve had interface components working for nearly a year so fairly confident the basics won’t take that long. Will post something in the forum when we have something to look at.
Leo (the guy doing the 2D designs) is nearly done - probably just another day or two and then I’ll put them on a trial wiki page so we can do a final review.
those two are probably enough but it’s pretty common to get the .ai as well (if the drawings are done in adobe) or xcf (if done in GIMP), which are the raw source files.
You’ll ideally want .svg to display on the wiki, but as @james_pattison says you definitely want the source vector files - these are the most important as without them you can’t make any future updates. The vector files are your .c files, your .png are like your compiled binaries
