TM1 Forum

I am just writing some training notes and asked myself the question why do we refer to base level elements as N: level.

I was unable to answer my own question (my best guess was Numeric, but that is a type not a level) but I know someone here will know (or guess and provide a reasonable sounding explanation anyway )

My guess would be numeric too, I suspect the Table Manage 1.0 never dealt with text (and maybe rules) so you only had only 0 level elements that held numerics and C level elements that held consolidations. So all N type elements were 0 level and vice versa. With the introduction of text the terminolgy becomes more confused. The term N level is probably "wrong" anyway. We have 0 level elements and N type elements it's just that 0 level elements doesn't roll off the tongue so people say N level, 'cause why would you do text in TM1 anyway...
Cheers,

Level 0 would also thoroughly confuse people with backgrounds from tools that started counting from the top of the heirarchy, rather than the bottom like we do.

N for Numeric has always been my understanding. S for string, C for consolidation.

Martin

I always understood it to be same as the definitions stated by Martin as well,

Jim.

Yep, N for Numeric, because that is the only level at which you can enter Numbers.

Yep, N for Numeric

OK seems we are all agreed on that then

because that is the only level at which you can enter Numbers.

[Loud Chorus - All together now ] Oh no it's not!

Talking of spreading -Has the new version got Undo Spread yet by the way? Still haven't had a chance to download it and look.

John Hobson wrote:I am just writing some training notes and asked myself the question why do we refer to base level elements as N: level.

I was unable to answer my own question (my best guess was Numeric, but that is a type not a level) but I know someone here will know (or guess and provide a reasonable sounding explanation anyway )

The reason I've always done it is quite simple; when I'm training users to create a view I tell them that there are two things they need to do, (a) Arrange the dimensions and (b) Select subsets of the elements.

While I'm showing them how to do (b), I point out to them that if they want to WRITE to elements through the view, they have to ensure that they select the elements which have an "N" as opposed to the ones with a sigma sign[1]. Since those elements appear indented in a hierarchy in the subset editor, "N Level" just kinda flows automatically from there.

Of course you could always use that other official Iboglix term "Leaf", but then I even had a TM1 Administrator say to me once "Hey, what's a leaf element?"

[1] Yes, yes, I know, but spreading comes in a later course.

John Hobson wrote:

Yep, N for Numeric

OK seems we are all agreed on that then

because that is the only level at which you can enter Numbers.

[Loud Chorus - All together now ] Oh no it's not!

Talking of spreading -Has the new version got Undo Spread yet by the way? Still haven't had a chance to download it and look.

BWAAAA-HAAAA-HA-HA!

You mean 9.4? It hasn't even got a replacement for the "C" command yet, that will be in a future patch, I'm told.

Spreading undo is mebeee version 14, 15 perhaps... mañana, anyway.

You mean 9.4? It hasn't even got a replacement for the "C" command yet, that will be in a future patch, I'm told.

Spreading undo is mebeee version 14, 15 perhaps... mañana, anyway.

Well there's always Palo until then

Some companies do listen to and act on feedback!

John Hobson wrote: Some companies do listen to and act on feedback!

Oh Iboglix listens all right! It's just that as the revised security model in 9.4 shows, what they think they HEAR may not have a 1 to 1 correlation to what the users actually SAID.

Have Iboglix employed some directors from SOE (Sony ONline Entertainment)? They managed to destory a fairly good game by "Listening to the user".

jim wood wrote:Have Iboglix employed some directors from SOE (Sony ONline Entertainment)? They managed to destory a fairly good game by "Listening to the user".

It is a truth universally acknowledged that there are only two good games, neither of which are put out by SOE:
- The Civilization series, and in particular Civ IV (http://www.civanon.com/); and
- The Total War series. (In particular Rome, and Medieval II.)

Indeed, it is my fervent belief that Executive Viewer will not be a viable piece of software until it contains an option of blowing the bejebbers out of Carthage.

This list of course discounts various flight simulators, which are not games thank you very much.

An outsider for the list is a very occasional dose of The Sims 2; this is useful for when you start to realise that computer characters have richer and more fulfilling lives than you do. That is until they tick you off, at which time you delete the doors of their houses and remove their toilet facilities. Not that I've ever done that of course. Often.

I'm also prepared to consider Halo 3 for this list even though I've never played it, since it spawned one of the funniest spoof videos I've ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkF0McZKIw
(Warning: It may be hard to get the song out of your head for a while after seeing it.)

Only 2 good games? What about KOTOR (Knights of the old republic)? What about WOW? Galaxies was tops until SOE wrecked it,

Jim.