I suppose I should qualify my remarks by first saying that, though I'm a newbie to ES, I'm a retired computer programmer who has been doing computer handicapping for many years. ES is the best commercially available software I've ever encountered and Nathan's recent posts re: Formula View sound great but...

(1) ES really needs a user-definable paceline selection method. It doesn't need to be complicated - just a few selectable parameters (hopefully including the old reliable DRF sr + var as a part of the mix) that ES will apply consistently.
(2) ES needs a contender check box that is more than cosmetic. Having it on the Summary View would be really helpful.
(3) Not to be picky, but a few cosmetic changes would help - e.g. have the "floating" windows float in the same place each time they're opened, preferrably where they won't obscure the data to be viewed.

I think ES is a tremendous effort, Nathan and I can barely wait for the new release.

See you in the short line,
Lou

Thanks for the compliment Lou - I wish I were a _retired_ programmer too

1) I've been wanting to add a mechanism for user defined pace line selection for a long time now. What has stopped me is that it seems there is either the very _limiting_ approach of having a set of fields (check boxes, etc), or there is a way to "script" how to pick pace lines. The scripting is very powerful, but requires people to write scripts (or share them, or for me to come up with enough interesting ones that people could plop them in). The good news here is that the work that went into the new Formula View -- making all of the pieces of info in ES avialable through "variables" brings scripting capability for picking pace lines (and other things) much closer to reality.

2) Yes, I know. When I first added it, that's what I wanted to do. But I got stuck trying to think of what a "contender" method was. After all, the top profiler, sim pick, etc., are all not only out there for the looking, they are _measured_ by the program. What then is "yet another mechanically derived contender"? I could impliment any of 100 ideas, but which one, and why? Here I like the idea of being able to "script" one's own contender selection method too... Stay Tuned.

3) Yes, floating windows that move around bother me, although I have to say ES's floaters don't bother me since once I stick them somewhere they stay there until I restart the program.

Thanks for the feedback.

-N

Nathan,
I wasn't actually thinking of an automated contender method - more like a check box on the Summary View that the user could check manually and thus pursue his own notions of what contenders belong in the race. Thanks (as usual) for the prompt response.
Lou

I am also new to using this software, but it seems, very much, to fit my idea of how a handicapping program needs to be built?/made?/structured?. Anyway, I'm lovin' it.

On Lou's #1 point, I believe that one of the strengths of this program is the Simulation Tuning, allowing the most recent similar races to be "polled" about what is working, and the ability to apply that to future races. Especially in the area of determining what type of paceline method should be used.

I also believe that if you DO implement some sort of scripting feature, you will find a lot of your users will start filling in the blanks with their own work, and sharing it around. I have seen the same happen with many programs, especially games that have user programmable "level editors" or "campaign editors" and the like. People just love to fiddle with that stuff, and then show off what they can do by sharing their ideas with their colleagues.

Looking forward to seeing V5 !
Ken