Resistor settings

0.5.16-R404_Win64
Some observation...

Potentiometer settings:
There is a unit selector for Current Value,  it seems to have no effect. Is it supposed to set the other unit settings?

Resistor Settings:( also applies to some other components)
If I start with 1 kΩ & edit to 0.5 it results in 0.5 Ω, the circuit shows 500 Ω
if I set unit to KΩ value result is 500 KΩ. (it seems related to value less than 1)

VarResistor Settings:
Dial Step is coarse when low ohms. eg: 10Ω, 5Ω
If set Maximum Resistance to 0.1 (100mΩ) step effective = 0
. I know this is WIP...

Potentiometer settings:
There is a unit selector for Current Value, it seems to have no effect. Is it supposed to set the other unit settings?

This defines the position of the pot.
If you change that value you will se that the dial will move.
This is useful to set an exact value or to see the value that is currently set.

Resistor Settings:( also applies to some other components)
If I start with 1 kΩ & edit to 0.5 it results in 0.5 Ω, the circuit shows 500 Ω
if I set unit to KΩ value result is 500 KΩ. (it seems related to value less than 1)

VarResistor Settings:
Dial Step is coarse when low ohms. eg: 10Ω, 5Ω
If set Maximum Resistance to 0.1 (100mΩ) step effective = 0

I will have a look to these issues.

Tonigau
Potentiometer settings:
There is a unit selector for Current Value...

Sorry my mistake, I meant VarResistor (& I didn't describe the scenario)

Observation: VarResistor settings
1. The Minimum & Maximum Resistance are entered in ohms only.
This is good in that it is absolute - but not consistent with other component settings that auto-range to units. Food for thought/discussion...  

2. With the VarResistor Maximum Resistance = 1000. Changing unit to say MΩ the circuit will display MΩ , as soon as the value spinner is adjusted on circuit it changes back to KΩ (which is correct as the max resistance is set within auto-range unit  KΩ (1000.000000 Ω)
The maximum resistance value is overriding the unit setting on circuit displayed value.  
I don't see a bug here, just the interaction/structure  needs to be all working together in an intuitive way.

3. With a value set for Maximum Resistance = 1 ohm, component spinner value adjustment is 0 or 1 ohm.

4. With a value set for Maximum Resistance < 1 ohm component becomes a fixed 0 ohm resistor, even with minimum Resistance = 0.000001 ohm

There are several problems here, and I'm working on it right now:

1- Minimum, maximum and step are truncated to integers, so using decimals doesn't work.
   This is hopefully solved.

2- Setting units does not check boundaries (max - min values)
   Almost solved.

3- Properties dialog is not updated properly, leading to confussion.
   This is more complex. I did know about it, but finding a simple and efficient solution is not trivial.

For step value, A 'number of steps' integer value might be an idea, it would fit all resistance ranges & values.
1k resistor, 500 steps = 2 ohms per step
10ohm resistor, 100 steps = 0.1 ohm per step
You could apply some limit so the step remains reasonable.
And in the settings could have a field that shows the result step value from user inputs.

Observation: VarResistor settings
1. The Minimum & Maximum Resistance are entered in ohms only.
This is good in that it is absolute - but not consistent with other component settings that auto-range to units. Food for thought/discussion...  

This is limited by the implementation we have right now.
Value and multiplier are used for the "main property" (for example "Resistance" in a resistor) which is the one showed in the circuit.

Using value and multiplier for each property would be much more complex.
I want to modify this, but this has wide implications, so better think about it before changing it.

One thing that could be changed to do it much simpler:
Currently if you change the "main" value, the multiplier and the value are changed to match the new value:
For example if you change resistance in a resitor from 100 Ω to 1000 Ω, the value is updated to 1 KΩ.
In 0.5.16 this is not updated properly in the properties dialog, but you can see the change in the circuit.

This implementation makes the code much more complex, buggy, and values difficult to update.

I think it wold be much simpler give total control to the user.
This means that value and unit (multiplier) are totally independent:
If the user changes resistance in a resitor from 100 Ω to 1000 Ω, that is exactly what happens, value will read: 1000 Ω.
If the user wants to use KΩ it must be entered as unit.

What do you think about this?

For step value, A 'number of steps' integer value might be an idea, it would fit all resistance ranges & values.
1k resistor, 500 steps = 2 ohms per step
10ohm resistor, 100 steps = 0.1 ohm per step
You could apply some limit so the step remains reasonable.
And in the settings could have a field that shows the result step value from user inputs.

This is another aproach I was considering.
The implementation is simpler, but more complex for the user: in some cases calculating the number of steps can be time consuming (Example: min=1.320, max = 4.670, and you want 0.015 steps).

Changing the meaning of the property from "step size" to "number of steps" would be incompatible with older circuits.
One possibility would be to add a new "number of steps" property, but this would increase complexity quite a bit and I can't see many advantages.

This implementation makes the code much more complex, buggy, and values difficult to update.

I would definitely be leaning the other way -  simple, modular & easy to fix with a dash of intuitivity for users.

This means that value and unit (multiplier) are totally independent:

I think this is good.++
If I enter 470 & the unit is showing Ω, its a simple matter to spin it to kΩ if I want 470K or spin it first then enter value. Intuitive & user in control.
Sometimes the auto-range has been less than "working properly" even though it is a useful feature (Currently the Oscope has this trait but that's another topic)

This is another aproach I was considering.
The implementation is simpler, but more complex for the user: in some cases calculating the number of steps can be time consuming (Example: min=1.320, max = 4.670, and you want 0.015 steps).

Maybe the value could be entered from either input box (nSteps or Step size), if you need to round or limit value it shows after enter.
Example of step size is if I want to adjust values to simulate 10bit resolution I could enter 1024

Changing the meaning of the property from "step size" to "number of steps" would be incompatible with older circuits.

could calculate the "No. of steps" from the "Step size" property & max/min property.

One possibility would be to add a new "number of steps" property, but this would increase complexity quite a bit and I can't see many advantages

You might not need a new property(you mean in the .simu file?) if it can be calculated from existing Step size. [but this may not solve your integer property value problem?]
Not knowing the C++ code working I can only visualize an outside (user) perspective but this can be useful sometimes.

If you really have to have an incompatible file structure( it could be required in future) where reading older files creates an issue it could be handled with a user prompt to accept extrapolated data or manual input missing data.  ??

I think this is good.++
If I enter 470 & the unit is showing Ω, its a simple matter to spin it to kΩ if I want 470K or spin it first then enter value. Intuitive & user in control.
Sometimes the auto-range has been less than "working properly" even though it is a useful feature (Currently the Oscope has this trait but that's another topic)

I think this is definetly the way to go.

Maybe the value could be entered from either input box (nSteps or Step size), if you need to round or limit value it shows after enter.
Example of step size is if I want to adjust values to simulate 10bit resolution I could enter 1024

That's exactly what I mean by "add a new "number of steps" property":
A "property" is any field in the dialog, for example "Maximum Resistance" or "Dial step"
Currently there is only "Dial Step" meanig "Step SIze".
"No. of steps" would need a new property.
This is due to how Components properties dialogs are implemented:
They are created "automaticly" from Component properties.
Creating a dedicated dialog for each Component would be very inefficient.

You might not need a new property(you mean in the .simu file?) if it can be calculated from existing Step size.

This would require a dedicated dialog for this component.

Using interdependent properties is ussually a headhache and I try to avoid this as much as I can.
By now I will leave the "Dial Step" as it is, solve the rest of the issues, and maybe later add "Number of Steps".

These issues should be solved at Rev 413.

Uploaded a new build with this fixes and also this one: https://simulide.forumotion.com/t262-load-v15-file-in-v16-r404

Details and download here: https://simulide.forumotion.com/t233-simulide_0-5-16-r342#1201

These issues should be solved at Rev 413.

Yes, it is working. looks good.