Family Historian User Group

Hi All,
  I have just noticed some strange spacing occuring on all the different standard diagrams, which i can't seem to fix, does anybody have any ideas ?
  Bascially, what seems to be happening is the child1 (and family if one exists) always seems to shift left to line up with the edge of child2's family. However child3's family does not do the a similar thing on the right hand side, so the diagram then looks odd. See the attached example image.



  As far as i know i have not adjusted any options to trigger this, and i can't see one that would cause this.

Richard

ID:2671

I tried the same family structure but don't get the same spacing.

One way I can get a gap like you do is to add a child to 1 and s1, but then you can see that child.  The other is to do a Fixed Point move using either 2 or 2's spouse as the fixed point.  Once you have done the move FH remembers it, so if you later add children to 1 and then delete them you still end up with the gap.  Have you done a Fixed Point Move?

You could try a Fixed Point move with child 2 as the fixed point and see if it will allow you to drag child 1 back in.

Hi Tombaston,
  I have not done any moves on the diagram, i use the daigrams as working tools rather than using all the layout options to move items around.
  I did try doing the move like you show, but i can't pull child1 back to the right.
  Attached are screen shots of my diagram settings, which i even tried resetting to 'installtion settings' with no joy.





Richard

Richard

I notice the distance between generations on your diagram is much smaller than on Daves's.  You can change this by clicking on the 'Enable Moving/Resizing' button and then using your mouse, just grab the line connecting all the children and physically move it down.  If I've got this right, this should bring all the children together and close the space for you.

I'm not sure but I think by increasing the value of (d) and (e) in your 'More Dimensions ...' settings you can permanently create the same effect.

John

Thanks John, [grin]
Changing d) & e) did the trick, but why they only effect the left side[confused]

Richard

Richard

Sorry, I only just got back to this.  I tried what John said and changing d) and e) to 0.1 gives me exactly the same gap as you get.  In fact just changing e) to 0.1 will create it. I can only assume there is some strange relationship between different dimensions here.  I cannot get the same effect on the right hand side.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for that confirmation, as you say there must ba a relationship between a couple of items that we just would not expect.

Richard

I think I can see what the problem is.  Looking at Richard's settings in the 'More Dimensions' dialog, he has changed some values to make rows thinner, and bring boxes closer together.  The combined total of the (d), (b) and (e) values give the total gap between any given childbar, and the bottom of its parents' boxes above it.  In your case, Richard, this comes to 0.45 cms.  However, the 'Min Proximity gap below boxes' value is 0.5 cms.  FH has to ensure not only that boxes don't overlap; but also that they don't get too close to each other.  The min proximity gap specifies how close one box can get to another, from below.  As the min proximity gap is greater than the gap down to a childbar, the childbar is effectively invading the space of spouse1.  Consequently spouse1 is moved out of range of the childbar.  To solve the problem, you only need to reduce the min. proximity gap, or increase other values until the combined to total of (b)+(d)+(e) are greater than it.

It ought to be the case that reducing the min proximity gap to 0.44 cms should fix the problem.  However, I found I had to reduce it to 0.43 cms.  This is probably a conversion/rounding issue of some kind.

Given that this is what caused the problem, you well might ask - why did the gap only appear on the left.  Surely it should have appeared on the right as well.  That is a valid question.  Without looking in more detail, I can't say for sure why it didn't, but I would guess that it was probably a consequence of an optimising assumption (wrong in this case), designed to make the whole thing run faster.  I will make a note to look into this.

Another moral of this case is perhaps that FH should warn you when your min proximity gap is too big, as in this kind of case.

Richard - one other thing.  You say that your tried to revert to installation settings without success.  And it is true that your 'More Dimensions' settings are not the default ones.  If you are in Diagram Options, clicking on the Installation Settings button only applies to the tab you are viewing.  So I would guess that you clicked it on the wrong tab.

If you want to get all settings to revert to their installation defaults, either click 'Installation Settings' on all tabs, or click on 'Restore Installation Settings' on the Diagram menu.

Thanks Simon,
I did only do the installation settings on the main dimensions tab, rather than the 'more dimensions'.

Richard