Since many people that doesn't have (or actively use) scope that has Lecroy/Picoscope/Siglent type of memory management is absolutely sure it is evil and unusable, based on prejudice, wild accusations and no real data, here is an example why all this is a BOGUS problem.
[...]
Used Pico as example:
[...]
Since many people that doesn't have (or actively use) scope that has Lecroy/Picoscope/Siglent type of memory management is absolutely sure it is evil and unusable, based on prejudice, wild accusations and no real data, here is an example why all this is a BOGUS problem.I have to stop you right there... I have owned a Siglent scope and the automatic memory mode drove me nuts because it got in the way of working efficiently. So from my side there is no prejudice; only hands on experience and hard facts. I also own a Lecroy scope BTW but I got that because it was cheap and has oodles of bandwidth.
Besides all that: stop attacking people's workflow and force your workflow on others. Nobody is attacking your workflow or forcing a workflow upon you. In the end it is about adding more flexibility to cater more usage scenarios and not coming up with workarounds (which don't work in all cases).
[...]
Used Pico as example:
[...]
The "root cause" of the whole discussion is that the typical oscilloscope doesn't have a very big screen, so the various zooming ideas being discussed are essentially ways to overcome that in a smooth and convenient way.
Having the scope run on your PC gives you a whole bunch of new advantages, obviously. With a comparatively gigantic screen, you can have several windows open with different degrees of zoom.
On the other hand, a PC based scope requires that you are totally comfortable with a mouse-and-keyboard workflow, rather than physical knobs. Personally, I like both approaches!
Elasia's solution I believe is to use the primary timebase of the Zoom mode framework but hidden as the basis for capture zoom out.
Max memory depth selected for ordinary Zoom mode would work as normal but could be toggled to a hidden Zoom UI and then provide capture zoom out capability from the full mem depth the user has set.
Is that right Elasia ?
[...]
Used Pico as example:
[...]
The "root cause" of the whole discussion is that the typical oscilloscope doesn't have a very big screen, so the various zooming ideas being discussed are essentially ways to overcome that in a smooth and convenient way.
Having the scope run on your PC gives you a whole bunch of new advantages, obviously. With a comparatively gigantic screen, you can have several windows open with different degrees of zoom.
On the other hand, a PC based scope requires that you are totally comfortable with a mouse-and-keyboard workflow, rather than physical knobs. Personally, I like both approaches!
Elasia's solution I believe is to use the primary timebase of the Zoom mode framework but hidden as the basis for capture zoom out.
Max memory depth selected for ordinary Zoom mode would work as normal but could be toggled to a hidden Zoom UI and then provide capture zoom out capability from the full mem depth the user has set.
Is that right Elasia ?
Correct, you use the code base of zoom mode but are just hiding the shown UI components and rescaling the zoom area to full screen
And you don't get rid of either, you allow the user to use split screen or hide what they want... in the end its all functions of telescopic zooming people are doing, only thing going around and around are semantics of what it looks like
Elasia's solution I believe is to use the primary timebase of the Zoom mode framework but hidden as the basis for capture zoom out.
Max memory depth selected for ordinary Zoom mode would work as normal but could be toggled to a hidden Zoom UI and then provide capture zoom out capability from the full mem depth the user has set.
Is that right Elasia ?
Correct, you use the code base of zoom mode but are just hiding the shown UI components and rescaling the zoom area to full screen
And you don't get rid of either, you allow the user to use split screen or hide what they want... in the end its all functions of telescopic zooming people are doing, only thing going around and around are semantics of what it looks likeOf course not.
What will be interesting is exactly how it's implemented. Zoom in and Zoom out capture capabilities !
When I have some more 2kX Plus hopefully I'll get see a beta of the proposed solution but it's a little way off yet.
Existing strategies will not apparently be changed only capture memory management.
Elasia's solution I believe is to use the primary timebase of the Zoom mode framework but hidden as the basis for capture zoom out.
Max memory depth selected for ordinary Zoom mode would work as normal but could be toggled to a hidden Zoom UI and then provide capture zoom out capability from the full mem depth the user has set.
Is that right Elasia ?
Correct, you use the code base of zoom mode but are just hiding the shown UI components and rescaling the zoom area to full screen
And you don't get rid of either, you allow the user to use split screen or hide what they want... in the end its all functions of telescopic zooming people are doing, only thing going around and around are semantics of what it looks likeOf course not.
What will be interesting is exactly how it's implemented. Zoom in and Zoom out capture capabilities !
When I have some more 2kX Plus hopefully I'll get see a beta of the proposed solution but it's a little way off yet.
Existing strategies will not apparently be changed only capture memory management.
lol does defprom still have yours?
.............
So now I just have to use a SDS5054X.
video linkJust seen it now..
If I understand it right, they (siglent) sacrifice the manual handling of the full memory for permanent active history ?
It´s a little bit confusing me, because manual "says" the number of stored frames are depending to the timebase setting.
So as you actual got different memory points depending on the timebase, you also would have different amount of frames which will be stored.
So what do they do with the 200 mpts ?
Keep RTFM.
QuoteKeep RTFM.
Nice advice...
The more you repeat this, the more it must be getting important.
Meanwhile the siglent europe support answered me now, on a sunday evening.
It was not an auto-answer you might expect as nearly always as a first reaction.
Just seen it now..
If I understand it right, they (siglent) sacrifice the manual handling of the full memory for permanent active history ?
It´s a little bit confusing me, because manual "says" the number of stored frames are depending to the timebase setting.
So as you actual got different memorypoints depending on the timebase, you also would have different amount of frames which will be stored.
So what do they do with the 200 mpts ?
Way ahead of you on this.......any capture first needs available memory .......but it's already assigned for post trigger History !
Zoom out capture memory depth requirements cannot grab memory from thin air...it's already being used...post trigger !
So to implement capture zoom out another memory management strategy need be developed and this is being discussed privately.
Got a clever plan, we're all ears.
And yes it needs memory... so where is it getting that memory in zoom mode? It was already assigned to buffering.. because the user said they wanted zoom mode.. this is zoom mode without all the fancy UI.. hell.. use the zoom button for it and just make a right side UI control panel for it.. aka another zoom ui if hiding the other parts.. then let the user default that mode if they chooseSeems I missed the full meaning of you earlier post but rf-loop didn't and it seems a very valid solution.
No. Just like you rf-loop doesn't even understand the actual problem at hand. With rf-loop's solution you still lose the zoom function for it's intended purpose. Dave did mis-name this thread by calling the behaviour a quirk; the zoom-out feature actually is there by design in other oscilloscopes. Before making any other comments take the time to study user manuals and watch videos on how oscilloscope's from the competition work and try to understand why they work that way. Or just wait until Siglent fixes the firmware. You'll see there will be zero impact on existing functionality. I really don't understand why you are so opposed on improving the product you are selling.
Please read all of my posts on this topic. I have explained very clearly why and how zoom mode is NOT the solution. And if you think carefully about it then you'll also see that by using zoom mode to force the memory length you sacrifice the zoom function (delayed / dual timebase) as well.
Also, don't get stuck in old grudges and be blinded by them (same problem Tautech has).
Currently Siglent is missing a memory management feature which is easy to add and it seems they are working on it right now.
Please read all of my posts on this topic. I have explained very clearly why and how zoom mode is NOT the solution. And if you think carefully about it then you'll also see that by using zoom mode to force the memory length you sacrifice the zoom function (delayed / dual timebase) as well. Also, don't get stuck in old grudges and be blinded by them (same problem Tautech has). Currently Siglent is missing a memory management feature which is easy to add and it seems they are working on it right now.
Quote from: nctnicoAlso, don't get stuck in old grudges and be blinded by them (same problem Tautech has).Pot calls kettle black.
Please read all of my posts on this topic. I have explained very clearly why and how zoom mode is NOT the solution. And if you think carefully about it then you'll also see that by using zoom mode to force the memory length you sacrifice the zoom function (delayed / dual timebase) as well. Also, don't get stuck in old grudges and be blinded by them (same problem Tautech has). Currently Siglent is missing a memory management feature which is easy to add and it seems they are working on it right now.I know you keep saying it but what we are talking about doesnt even modify siglents UI zoom mode as it is.. im lost why you keep saying zoom is sacrificed?
I'm now using zoom mode as is and it works fine to zoom out and see more data on screen, i mean thats kind of its job right? What do you think zoom mode is suppose to be? I'm a bit lost on that as well
Currently Siglent is missing a memory management feature which is easy to add and it seems they are working on it right now.
Please read all of my posts on this topic. I have explained very clearly why and how zoom mode is NOT the solution. And if you think carefully about it then you'll also see that by using zoom mode to force the memory length you sacrifice the zoom function (delayed / dual timebase) as well. Also, don't get stuck in old grudges and be blinded by them (same problem Tautech has). Currently Siglent is missing a memory management feature which is easy to add and it seems they are working on it right now.I know you keep saying it but what we are talking about doesnt even modify siglents UI zoom mode as it is.. im lost why you keep saying zoom is sacrificed?
I'm now using zoom mode as is and it works fine to zoom out and see more data on screen, i mean thats kind of its job right? What do you think zoom mode is suppose to be? I'm a bit lost on that as wellIn some cases you might want to look at a signal at two positions / different time bases (this is called dual timebase on analog oscilloscopes). With auto memory length the memory depth will be set to the amount needed to fill the screen with the longest time/div setting. However if you want to force the oscilloscope to use more memory you'll need to set the time/div longer. But in that case you likely won't be able to see the details in a signal. So without being able to manually force the memory depth you can use the zoom mode to force deeper memory OR see two parts of a signal at the same time. IOW: With auto memory depth you can't have both deep memory and see two parts of the same signal at the same time.