Skip to main content

Input list format

It would be very helpful to be able to format the input list/table manually or enter a preferred number of columns, etc. For a 32 channel board, 3 columns seems like a strange choice. In my particular case, input text is fairly short so having 4 columns of 8 channels each would be ideal and still fit comfortably.

I’ve attached my input list as it appears now (unusual input order is purposeful) as well as an example of what I’d like to be able to do (thanks, MS Paint!).

Status: Completed2 comments

Log in to comment and vote

Comments2

  • mcidesarrollo

    Team•

    Oct 19

    Hello Dave, this is now live in Ridermaker. In each rider you can now choose how many blocks the channel list is split into in the PDF: Auto, 4, 3, 2 or 1, separately for inputs and outputs. So 32 inputs in 4 blocks now print as 4 blocks of 8, just as you suggested.

    To set it, open the ⋮ menu at the top of the channel list and click "Channel list blocks…" (it is also in Rider options). If a name doesn't fit in the blocks you chose, the letters that won't be printed turn orange in the channel list, so you can shorten it or pick fewer blocks. It's available on Pro and Premium.

    More details here: https://ridermaker.com/help/channel-list-blocks

    Thanks for the suggestion, and to everyone who voted for it!

  • mcidesarrollo

    Team•

    Jul 21

    Hello Dave, thanks for your suggestion and for the detailed screenshots!

    The software's internal architecture is designed to calculate and optimize blocks based on their width to make the most of the page width. Blocks with less text or custom columns use channels in 3 blocks, while those with more text use 2 blocks.

    This process is fully automatic to simplify things for the user and works for most cases.

    We could explore implementing a system that allows for forcing a specific number of blocks or automatically splitting smaller blocks into up to 4 blocks instead of the current 3.

    However, we would need to thoroughly investigate whether the software would allow this without causing new problems (it's more complex internally than it seems).

    We've passed this suggestion to "Planned" for evaluation and for others to vote on it and see if there are more users interested in this change.