Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Channel 1 waveform in glscopeclient differs from oscilloscope screen, timebase settings differ #480

Open
dan-gies opened this issue Aug 28, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@dan-gies
Copy link

System Info:

Glscopeclient version: 0.1-0ec5f20
OS: Windows 10
Oscilloscope: Siglent SDS6204A
Probe: SAP2500D

Description:

The waveform I see on the oscilloscope is different from the waveform in glscopeclient. The timebase settings also differ between glscopeclient and the oscilloscope; glscopeclient won't allow me to configure the timebase settings that I see on the scope.

glscopeclient waveform:

image

Oscilloscope waveform:

image

glscopeclient timebase settings (set to maximum possible sample rate, memory depth):

image

Oscilloscope timebase settings:

image

@dan-gies
Copy link
Author

Reducing the memory depth manually (on the scope) to 12.5 Mpts worked. My assumption is that glscopeclient doesn't support 500 Mpts memory depth per channel.

image

@azonenberg
Copy link
Collaborator

Max memory depth in the Siglent driver is I think 12.5M; the waveform download on Siglent scopes is incredibly slow with deep memory so we add an early-out to avoid timeouts on these huge waveforms.

  • @mubes, can we improve failure behavior here in the driver if the user has deep memory enabled when connecting to a scope where memory depth is higher than the driver allows?

@bvernoux
Copy link
Contributor

bvernoux commented Jun 9, 2023

This issue is probably obsolete as anyway glscopeclient is replaced by ngscopeclient which probably does not have such limitation
@dan-gies Could you test with ngscopeclient ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants