07-02-2008 10:37 AM
07-02-2008 10:56 AM - edited 07-02-2008 10:57 AM
Overall, you entire code should fit on one normal screen. You need a maximum of two loops, one event strcuture, a few shift registers, and 90% of your local variables a value property nodes can be eliminated. If I had a gigantic monitor, I could clean it up a bit, but like this I'll get carpal tunnel syndrome from all the scrolling. 😮
07-02-2008 11:23 AM
07-02-2008 11:26 AM
07-02-2008 11:28 AM
Size does not matter. What counts is the resolution, or so I was told. 😄
smercurio_fc wrote:
I think altenbach just wants to see the size of your monitor.
07-02-2008 11:33 AM
07-02-2008 11:47 AM
07-02-2008 12:40 PM - edited 07-02-2008 12:41 PM
07-02-2008 08:19 PM
07-02-2008 09:34 PM
I don't think it was skipping any iterations. The loop just runs so fast that you may not see the display get updated for a given iteration. Updates of indicators occur in the UI thread. If you have numerous updates to be made (as Altenbach said, these updates are asynchronous) the UI thread may batch them together in a way that they get updated at the next CPU opportunity and they happen so fast, there is no way you can see them all. With a wait statement, you slow down the code, and also give the CPU more time to service the UI thread.
exo wrote:
Haven't yet figured out the loop indexing problem but the code is certainly running better. Thanks.
The loop indexing problem is better in the sense that I can see it stop on the next increment for longer before skipping it. I guess that points to it being over ridden some where else in the program.
Sure you don't want to visit Mt. Palomar?