SDS800X HD Wanted Features

[eTobey]

Performance improvement:
When in the zoom modus, moving the curve in the upper view with the touchscreen is rather coarse. It jumps sometimes.

[rf-loop]

Mr. X, who is  hammer hobbyist, has a hammer on a table and twirls it around in his hands
and criticizes it and find all sorts of things about it that would be nice to develop.

Other person, master of carpenter, wear coveralls and he do work in the building using also  hammer.
Does excellent and skillful work. Of course, because the hammer is good.

An acquaintance asks the master of carpenter what would be a good hammer
when he needs to do some wood works in his house.
The master tells what hammer he uses.

An acquaintance gets one from a store and starts using it. The work doesn't quite work out.
Bad hammer.

He then tells Mr. X his work fails because the this hammer is perhaps poorly designed and executed.
They have many things in mind how to improve it and they discussing about these.

Master hear they talking, smile silently, he do not want say anything.

The master, on the other hand, continued his very smooth and skillful work.
Of course because hammer is good.

[ebastler]

You should not write off all feature suggestions by saying "learn how to use the tool you have". Yes, one can get by without those features or improvements -- but some of them may add real value to many users when implemented, e.g. by making the scope smoother to use. 

For centuries, hammers did not have rubberized grips on their handles. But this feature has caught on and many users like it now -- including many experienced craftsmen.

Hence I don't see any harm in proposing many ideas for improved functionality -- as long as there are realisitic expectations, namely that only a small subset of these ideas will ever get implemented. Changes that break existing user habits will most likely be weeded out right away. And from the remaining proposals, only the most impactful ones will get implemented since there is limited development capacity.

electronics hobbyist had mentioned the need for a selection process (scoring, voting?) a while ago. That down-selection will need to be made, by Siglent. It would be nice if this forum could provide part of the input that goes into that process.

[rf-loop]

You should not write off all feature suggestions by saying "learn how to use the tool you have". Yes, one can get by without those features or improvements -- but some of them may add real value to many users when implemented, e.g. by making the scope smoother to use. 

For centuries, hammers did not have rubberized grips on their handles. But this feature has caught on and many users like it now -- including many experienced craftsmen.

Hence I don't see any harm in proposing many ideas for improved functionality -- as long as there are realisitic expectations, namely that only a small subset of these ideas will ever get implemented. Changes that break existing user habits will most likely be weeded out right away. And from the remaining proposals, only the most impactful ones will get implemented since there is limited development capacity.

electronics hobbyist had mentioned the need for a selection process (scoring, voting?) a while ago. That down-selection will need to be made, by Siglent. It would be nice if this forum could provide part of the input that goes into that process.

My previous message is in no way inconsistent with the fact that I basically agree with you. 

ETA:
Good observations about errors or bugs, ideas and suggestions have also appeared here among the messages in the discussion thread.
Siglent is also listening.

When filling out proposals, it is perhaps good to be so-called self-censorship and takes into account many different needs, taking into account many different usage situations and needs. When a lot of suggestions start flooding in and sometimes too immature, maybe even good ideas get drowned in the flood.

It is also good to remember that the manufacturer does not want their own products of different price groups and target segments to compete with each other.

[eTobey]

When a lot of suggestions start flooding in and sometimes too immature, maybe even good ideas get drowned in the flood.

Well, my suggestions could actually improve things (it just needs a bit more work - its possible to have different UI functions, just make an option for it), but many flood this topic with a lot of unnessary text, that has actually nothing to do with the scope.

The worst thing are people, that want everything the way it always has been. No matter how good a suggestion is. They just dont wanna see the value in it!

[2N3055]

You should not write off all feature suggestions by saying "learn how to use the tool you have". Yes, one can get by without those features or improvements -- but some of them may add real value to many users when implemented, e.g. by making the scope smoother to use. 

If I may?

I think you missed the point from RF.

He didn't think learn as it is and suffer.

In order to make a critique of Paganini finger technique on violin, you need to first learn it properly to grasp it as a whole before passing judgement.
Before that you are not qualified to "make it better" because you don't know what it is, really.

As a man of science yourself, you will recognize scientific process here.

It took me good 6 months of use of Keysight MSOX3104T before I really "got a feeling" what I really like and what not, and what I really don't care one way or another..
Before that, ALL but trivial things were weird and nonlogical.

Of course, obvious things are obvious..

[ebastler]

Maybe I really misunderstood the point? I only read in the story that the master craftsman considered the hammer "good" as it is, while the novice came up with improvement ideas (which may not be required to make use of the hammer, but may or may not still be good ideas to improve it).

I did not see any hint in the story that the master craftsman, based on his extensive experience, suggested any improvements himself. And I am concerned that he may be inclined to discard some valuable improvement suggestions because "I have always done it this way".

[eTobey]

Suggestion:
Dont save Trigger settings (trigger source etc.) on a trigger type. Rather save trigger setting for each trigger type for each channel. This way one could quick and easy change trough all the set up triggers, without changing everything back and forth.

I made a more visual description about my suggestion:

The way settings are saved now:
- Last/current Trigger type used
- Trigger type A
      - Channel 1
      - Level 2V
      - ...
- Trigger type B
      - Channel 2
      - Level 3V
      - ...

The way i suggest:
- Channel 1
      - Last trigger used
      - Trigger type A
         - Level 1V
         - ...
      - Trigger type B
         - Level 2.5V
         - ...
- Channel 2
      - Last trigger used
      - Trigger type A
         - Level 1.5V
         - ...
      - Trigger type B
         - Level 1V
         - ...
- Channel 3
      - ...


Set up a Trigger (at current firmware):
   - Choose trigger type A
   - Choose channel 1
   - set level
   - ...
   
After having used only one other channel with the same trigger as before, and used any other type of trigger,
one has to do the following to go back to channel 1 Trigger as used before (at current firmware):
   - Choose Trigger type A
   - Choose channel 1
   - set level
   - ...
   
With my suggestion, one has to do the following, to go back to channel 1 Trigger as it was before:
   - Choose channel 1

If you wanted to use the other trigger you had set up for this channel, no worries:
   - Choose trigger type B

[rf-loop]

You should not write off all feature suggestions by saying "learn how to use the tool you have". Yes, one can get by without those features or improvements -- but some of them may add real value to many users when implemented, e.g. by making the scope smoother to use. 

If I may?

I think you missed the point from RF.

He didn't think learn as it is and suffer.

In order to make a critique of Paganini finger technique on violin, you need to first learn it properly to grasp it as a whole before passing judgement.
Before that you are not qualified to "make it better" because you don't know what it is, really.

As a man of science yourself, you will recognize scientific process here.

It took me good 6 months of use of Keysight MSOX3104T before I really "got a feeling" what I really like and what not, and what I really don't care one way or another..
Before that, ALL but trivial things were weird and nonlogical.

Of course, obvious things are obvious..

You find it.

[2N3055]

Maybe I really misunderstood the point? I only read in the story that the master craftsman considered the hammer "good" as it is, while the novice came up with improvement ideas (which may not be required to make use of the hammer, but may or may not still be good ideas to improve it).

I did not see any hint in the story that the master craftsman, based on his extensive experience, suggested any improvements himself. And I am concerned that he may be inclined to discard some valuable improvement suggestions because "I have always done it this way".

That is why I "intervened" ... 
Because I sensed a "disconnection", so wanted to clarify.

I have been communicating with RF for some time now, and can sometimes better understand nuances....

[electronics hobbyist]

I'm glad to see everyone having a friendly discussion. Some suggestions are indeed good, such as  "The Save button under the Bode Plot need to be work", “Using the scroll wheel to change the current frame”, "Add some commonly used characters to the soft keyboard letter page", etc. For most people, when they see it, they will say: I also need it.

Some ideas can be discussed, and the final decision on whether to modify them lies with the manufacturer. 

[ebastler]

Feature request: Pattern search function

Compared to the large choice of triggers, the options for the Search function are limited. Would it be possible to add the "pattern" option, i.e. to look for a particular combination of signal states?

I am mainly thinking of use together with the digital channels, e.g. when monitoring a data bus. Say you want to study all (!) write accesses to a particular device on the bus. So in addition to the data lines, you also capture the R/W signal and the CS for that device. You can currently trigger on the relevant combination of R/W and CS state -- but then you may miss many access cycles during trigger re-arming time.

So instead you capture the bus activity over a longer time -- but now you cannot use the search function to highlight the access cycles of interest.

Is there another way to achieve this with the current SDS800X HD functionality? Or is there a "hard" technical reason why pattern search cannot be implemented? If the answer should be "no" to both, I would appreciate if this could be considered as an added feature.

[eTobey]

...
With my suggestion, one has to do the following, to go back to channel 1 Trigger as it was before:
   - Choose channel 1
...

Today i changed the triggger again... forgot about that you have to set up everything again... Wondered why it didnt work. 

Even if i ever get used to set up all the things again after trigger change, it will always be a lot of clicks (too much for a simple trigger change) to set it up. I am talking about the simple triggers, that only use one channel. Id say: "Simple triggers, simple setup!"

[ebastler]

Even if i ever get used to set up all the things again after trigger change, it will always be a lot of clicks (too much for a simple trigger change) to set it up. I am talking about the simple triggers, that only use one channel. Id say: "Simple triggers, simple setup!"

I can relate to that as far as the "simple" triggers (based on a single channel) are concerned. I would also prefer if they don't remember the channel they were last used with, and automatically set that as the input. It practically always means extra taps or clicks for me.

But then there are the complex triggers which rely on multiple channels: Pattern and Serial protocol triggers. Setting those up takes significant time, and I think it is a good idea that they remember their settings. If I go back to, say, SPI triggering later, I will probably want to set up the scope with the same physical channel assignment, and benefit from the fact that the decoder and trigger settings are still remembered.

So should "simple triggers" behave different from "complex triggers" in that respect? And how about the "semi-complex" ones which use two channels (Qualified, Delay, Setup/Hold)? Having inconsistent behaviour in the way triggers do or don't remember their channels might get confusing too?

[eTobey]

So should "simple triggers" behave different from "complex triggers" in that respect? And how about the "semi-complex" ones which use two channels (Qualified, Delay, Setup/Hold)? Having inconsistent behaviour in the way triggers do or don't remember their channels might get confusing too?

I see no difference for the UI. If you setup a trigger that has more than 2 channels (complex), then it would just setup the trigger as it works now. The developer just needs to give those channels their own simple trigger settings. Its a simple matter of switching between the simple trigger, where the channel has the settings, or to complex trigger, where the trigger itself has the settings saved.

[2N3055]

There are many good reasons to keep remembering separate settings for separate trigger types.
Sometimes when you are probing on several channels and jump between different trigger types but from different source ch.

For instance, you start with simple edge trigger on CS. Then you setup protocol trigger and switch to that.
You see that sometimes a clock have some pulses wider. So you switch to pulse width trigger on CLK channel.
And once setup you can just switch between.

People that do only limited usage of scope think there are only few scenarios of usage and think it can be "easily optimized".

There are 3 basic settings on a scope (any scope) that user has to constantly "twiddle" and be mindful of.

1. vertical channel level and position
2. timebase and position
3. triggering

And on CRT analog scopes we had to setup trace brightness all the time, on digital scope not so much.

[eTobey]

So should "simple triggers" behave different from "complex triggers" in that respect? And how about the "semi-complex" ones which use two channels (Qualified, Delay, Setup/Hold)? Having inconsistent behaviour in the way triggers do or don't remember their channels might get confusing too?

It would not be much of a deal:
If people are used to set up all the settings in the trigger over and over again, they can keep doing so, with my suggestion. But at some point they will realize, that settings are those, that they set up before. Complex trigger behahiour will NOT change.

I wrote a pseudo code, that might be better to understand:

Code: [Select]

if(trigger_type = A){ // simple trigger
check_channel(){
case 1: read settings from channel 1 for trigger_type A;
case 2: read settings from channel 2 for trigger_type A;
...
}
}
else if(trigger_type = X){ // complex trigger
read settings from trigger_type X;
}

[2N3055]

So should "simple triggers" behave different from "complex triggers" in that respect? And how about the "semi-complex" ones which use two channels (Qualified, Delay, Setup/Hold)? Having inconsistent behaviour in the way triggers do or don't remember their channels might get confusing too?

It would not be much of a deal:
If people are used to set up all the settings in the trigger over and over again, they can keep doing so, with my suggestion. But at some point they will realize, that settings are those, that they set up before. Complex trigger behahiour will NOT change.

I wrote a pseudo code, that might be better to understand:

Code: [Select]

if(trigger_type = A){ // simple trigger
check_channel(){
case 1: read settings from channel 1 for trigger_type A;
case 2: read settings from channel 2 for trigger_type A;
...
}
}
else if(trigger_type = B){ // complex trigger
read settings from trigger_type B;
}

If triggers remember every setting individually all the time, why do you keep struggling to set it up every time?
Trigger didn't change.

What you are doing changed. It is your practice that necessitates changes all the time. You are moving the goalpost all the time.

That is because there are ways to streamline your work.
Every time you connect SPI, connect it to same channels. And do it in sequence how signals are set in menu of scope CLK-MISO-MOSI-CS/. 1-2-3-4
Next time you enable Decode and boom, it works. You enable SPI trigger, boom it works.
No setup at all.
Despite fact that you used 3 other triggers in meantime.

Like I said before, most of your "complaints" and "optimizations" are just you trying to force the scope to "telepathically understand" what you want, instead of learning how to use it how it is.

[RAPo]

Well, is the following a solution for triggers as mentioned in the above posts:

  Add two buttons, "Save Trigger info" and "Recall Trigger info", and then a dialogue screen for which channels you want this action to take place, together with an option in the setup to load the specified trigger info?

[eTobey]

  Add two buttons, "Save Trigger info" and "Recall Trigger info", and then...

Why buttons? My solution does this automatically. Its just like other settings on every (almost) device, that just remembers the setting that you set up. My suggestion does this for every channel, so you can quickly just change the channel to trigger on another channel without setting everything up again...

[eTobey]

... 

Why are you talking about "complex" triggers, when this is not what i am suggesting to change? Read and try to understand!

Why are you talking about other things that do not really matter with the trigger directly.

You could set up any trigger for any channel, and then just change the channel! Try switching between edge triggers on 2 channels with all settings different. Not a quick job. Funny enough, i have found out, that the trigger level is remembered for each channel. Just as i would like for every setting!

[electronics hobbyist]

... 

Why are you talking about "complex" triggers, when this is not what i am suggesting to change? Read and try to understand!

Why are you talking about other things that do not really matter with the trigger directly.

You could set up any trigger for any channel, and then just change the channel! Try switching between edge triggers on 2 channels with all settings different. Not a quick job. Funny enough, i have found out, that the trigger level is remembered for each channel. Just as i would like for every setting!

Keysight and Lecroy have separately saved parameters for each trigger type, which means the trigger type is the main one, this is a common practice within the industry.
At the same time, the software needs to maintain consistency.
If it is only a habit of some people, this Wanted Feature may be difficult to meet.

[electronics hobbyist]

Feature request: Pattern search function

Compared to the large choice of triggers, the options for the Search function are limited. Would it be possible to add the "pattern" option, i.e. to look for a particular combination of signal states?

I am mainly thinking of use together with the digital channels, e.g. when monitoring a data bus. Say you want to study all (!) write accesses to a particular device on the bus. So in addition to the data lines, you also capture the R/W signal and the CS for that device. You can currently trigger on the relevant combination of R/W and CS state -- but then you may miss many access cycles during trigger re-arming time.

So instead you capture the bus activity over a longer time -- but now you cannot use the search function to highlight the access cycles of interest.

Is there another way to achieve this with the current SDS800X HD functionality? Or is there a "hard" technical reason why pattern search cannot be implemented? If the answer should be "no" to both, I would appreciate if this could be considered as an added feature.

The SDS800X HD digital channel is an independent system and does not support search, making it impossible to achieve pattern search.
Perhaps an integrated digital channel product can achieve mixed pattern search.

[eTobey]

Keysight and Lecroy have separately saved parameters for each trigger type, which means the trigger type is the main one, this is a common practice within the industry.

Common practice... "we have always done it like this". No Innovation, no progress. This suggestion could be implemented as an option so users change decide if they like it or not.

At the same time, the software needs to maintain consistency.

When i just change the channel on trigger edge, then the level of it is remembered for each channel. So this works like my suggestion. But this is inconsistent, and the level should be saved on the trigger type. 

[electronics hobbyist]

  Add two buttons, "Save Trigger info" and "Recall Trigger info", and then...

Why buttons? My solution does this automatically. Its just like other settings on every (almost) device, that just remembers the setting that you set up. My suggestion does this for every channel, so you can quickly just change the channel to trigger on another channel without setting everything up again...

No, this is not innovation, it is a complete change in existing user habits. I have been emphasizing not to modify the current way, because some people are already accustomed to this, unless it can be set and considered, but you are emphasizing to follow your own way. And the years of historical experience of these manufacturers are still worthy of respect.