Display memory = 1400 bytes on the DS2000 = 1200 bytes on the DS1000Z= 50 pixels * screen divs * 2
So actually it's even worst, heck ... i'm embarrassed, we have also a ridiculously slow interface, no sh*t !
The performance of the CY7C68013A USB controller that we can find in 60USD 20Mhz DSOs here seems an unbridled luxury (and they are transferring the whole acquisition buffer to PC).
Ok, as far as i understood, no remote live screen is possible with mine DSO (DS1074Z), so i'm definitively on the market to buy another one.
Still i cannot justify few frames per second, it renders this function useless for a lot of purposes.
I agree with you that those instruments are not natively designed for remote viewing, but if it's only matter to write some more code (and not a system limit) it could be an additional selling point and/or SW option to pay for.
To summarize, please correct me if i'm wrong, DS2000 series has much faster screen transfer function than DS1000Z, in the order of 10 factor.
Both of them have an actual frame BW of some tens per second, otherwise it's like to say that the scope's panel shows 30000 waveforms per second :-)
of course the DISP command might be a special case because the scope might not be too busy. So depending what the scope is doing the waveforms probably hinders the transfer rate.
Have you tried this one btw?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/free-ds6000ds1000z-software/
I haven't had a chance to use it yet, comes with full source
of course the DISP command might be a special case because the scope might not be too busy. So depending what the scope is doing the waveforms probably hinders the transfer rate.
Honestly i never tinkered around this scope for external control, it was enough for me to take occasional snapshots on usb flash key, while i played a lot with front panel controls.
I saw in other threads that lot of work has been done around DS1000Z boards by some capable guys that have already sniffed & scanned spotting lot of important things, i'm wondering if the command interface parser table is fully readable or is buried encrypted in the flash dumps.
There is still margin to discover new commands ?
MSO1000z/DS1000z series:
http://www.batronix.com/pdf/Rigol/ProgrammingGuide/MSO1000Z_DS1000Z_ProgrammingGuide_EN.pdf
There might be new commands added on the firmware as they now support CAN bus on some scopes, but overall those docs have most of the commands, maybe there are others but you can look at all the Rigol threads and probably they are already found by others.
There might be new commands added on the firmware as they now support CAN bus on some scopes, but overall those docs have most of the commands, maybe there are others but you can look at all the Rigol threads and probably they are already found by others.
I think that DZ1000Z scopes have enough power to be turned in a great remote USB scope, but i would bet that this is not what Rigol want.
I think that DZ1000Z scopes have enough power to be turned in a great remote USB scope, but i would bet that this is not what Rigol want.
I don't think so. Appearantly, Rigol scopes don't have enough processing power and memory to handle USB (or LAN) in a
timely matter. The results are low waveform update rates and an eternity to download the deep memory waveform data.
I think that DZ1000Z scopes have enough power to be turned in a great remote USB scope, but i would bet that this is not what Rigol want.
I don't think so. Appearantly, Rigol scopes don't have enough processing power and memory to handle USB (or LAN) in a
timely matter. The results are low waveform update rates and an eternity to download the deep memory waveform data.
I forgot to mention "slowing or disabling LCD panel display update", as already stated in some previous post.
But, hey, you can't have it all for only 400 bucks. Keeping in mind this price, it's extremely powerfull.
I agree that the font is small. But, I believe the real culprit here is the font-family. If you compare the 6's and 9's in this screen capture with the 7x8 pixel Verdana font overlay, you will see that the Verdana font is easier to read even when small. Comparing their 6's, 8's and 9's, you will see that there is only one or two pixels different between them. A font-family where the characters have a larger variation, between the numbers especially, would make a big difference.
I agree that the font is small. But, I believe the real culprit here is the font-family. If you compare the 6's and 9's in this screen capture with the 7x8 pixel Verdana font overlay, you will see that the Verdana font is easier to read even when small. Comparing their 6's, 8's and 9's, you will see that there is only one or two pixels different between them. A font-family where the characters have a larger variation, between the numbers especially, would make a big difference.
Good point. It's also true for the alphabet characters: The measurements, i.e. the smallest text that appears on the scope screen, are the only place where Rigol decided to use a serif font. The serifs waste quite a few pixels and make the main strokes of the characters even smaller and harder to read, at least for me.
Well, just select "Large fonts" in the Measure menu. How often do you really need five measurements displayed on screen simultaneously?
But I agree completely, using the serif font in the small measurement display is just asinine.