Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#2I'm a big fan of system dynamics but the gray-on-gray text on the website makes it so hard to read I didn't stay long enough to investigate.
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#3Could we replace animated arrows between different blocks, to something that is easier to interpret. I had to train my mind to search for negative/positive sign and current state and then add it and say in my mind "encourages doing things".
Instead of "demotivation", you could use "motivation". So that, we wont have to worry about double negatives.
I would prefer to add weights, to the connecting arrows, to give more detail.
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#4Like in process flow diagrams we need different shapes to represent different ideas. Circles alone can't be used for it.
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#5I love it! It's like the simulations of iThink [1], with the "analogic" sketching UI of GRaIL [2].
[1]: https://www.iseesystems.com/store/products/ithink.aspx [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQhVQ1UG6aM
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#6From two years ago
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#7From two years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13939645
[deleted]
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#8Great tool, though it would be good if you could set rate flow on the items or set quantities, because it gets a little crazy just working off 'events' that perpetuate.
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#9I'd love to be able to change the multiplier of arcs through a dynamic quantity. Here we can just state a fixed value on each arc. In dynamic systems, these multipliers change.
Re: Loopy: a tool for thinking in systems (2017)
#10Could we replace animated arrows between different blocks, to something that is easier to interpret. I had to train my mind to search for negative/positive sign and current state and then add it and say in my mind "encourages doing things". Instead of "demotivation", you could use "motivation". So that, we wont have to worry about double negatives. I would prefer to add weights, to the connecting arrows, to give more…
> I would prefer to add weights, to the connecting arrows, to give more detail.
Second this. The other thing is that your diagram layout is defined by the 'weight' you want to apply to a relationship. Sometimes adding a new, less influential relationship will require moving every other node.