Graph Grid Display Glitch in Logarithmic Mapping for Precision of 6

[X.]

Not a biggie, but if you use Logarithmic Mapping for a scale, and choose to display the grid, things are fine up to a precision of 5:

Increase that to 6 and you get this:

Notice the useless increase of grid line density towards the end of the scale.

It does not seem to depend of what kind of style you are using (Scientific here).

Tested in LV 2013

[RavensFan]

That is odd.  But it seems fixable.  When I made the graph a bit wider, it cleared up.

It seems related to having the size of the decades aren't consistent across the scale.  (I'm not sure "decade" is precisely the right term to use here, but close enough.)  Equivalent to the spacing of the marks that have a number.   In your problem picture, the decade is generally 100.  But the right most section is only 10.  In that right most decade, it improperly calculated how many lines to display.  (And interestingly, the left most section was only a factor of 10, but did get calculated properly.)

The reason your precision of 5 didn't cause a problem is that the numbers were shorter and it decided it could fit all the labels in when spaced with a decade of 10 throughout the graph.  Going to precision of 6, it calculated it had space for fewer markers, so it spread them farther apart with a factor of 100.  At which time the calculation failed for how many minor grids to show in the right most decade that was only a factor of 10.

[X.]

OK, so now that you have found the cause of the glitch, fix it.

JK.

BTW, there are some similar oddities with the gauge indicator (I may document that some other day, but the behavior is so rich that I feel it will take a video to properly document).

[rolfk]

---

@X. wrote:

OK, so now that you have found the cause of the glitch, fix it.

---

Your tone is misplaced. Ravens Fan is a volunteer on this site just as you and me. He is not in the position to change anything about how LabVIEW behaves.

Also note that such seemingly minor things like this are both in fact minor things and often VERY difficult to fix without breaking some other corner case. So the math is this:

Inconvinience = minor

Possible effort to fix = Huge

Conclusion = don't fix (or at least do nothing until the graph gets a major overhaul anyhow)

[RavensFan]

The short term fix is to make the graph a little bit wider.

Another is don't use 6 digits of precision.  It is very unlikely that you need 7 significant digits on the scale of your graph.

I think Rolf pretty well summed up the rest of it.

[billko]

---

@rolfk wrote:

---

@X. wrote:

OK, so now that you have found the cause of the glitch, fix it.

---

Your tone is misplaced. Ravens Fan is a volunteer on this site just as you and me. He is not in the position to change anything about how LabVIEW behaves.

Also note that such seemingly minor things like this are both in fact minor things and often VERY difficult to fix without breaking some other corner case. So the math is this:

Inconvinience = minor

Possible effort to fix = Huge

Conclusion = don't fix (or at least do nothing until the graph gets a major overhaul anyhow)

---

I think he was just kidding (JK).  🙂

[X.]

Old timers sometimes have trouble keeping up with modern linguo... and I should know!

Anyhow, I am only interested in NI noticing this report and either stating that they are filing a CAR for it or couldn't care less about end user experience.

If others want to chip in, that's fine with me, but this is not the intent of my post.

I am used to the "this is expected behavior", "this is perfectly the way it should be IN LABVIEW" kind of comments.

Now for the background:

- no I do not think that expanding the graph is a workaround, because my UI is not infinitely extensible and again, I am talking about end-user experience here. The end-user CANNOT expand the graph.

- the use of 6 digits of precisions is due to ANOTHER LABVIEW LIMITATION which I have discussed here. So no, using less digits of precision is not an option in this UI, even though it makes is ugly and I would personally not use 6 digits of precision if I could avoid it.

[ejkaiser]

People you call 'old timers' are experienced enough to know that 'modern linguo' (linguo!?) leads to misunderstandings and should be avoided in serious communication.

Also not all the forum participants are English native speakers. So sticking to language standards may make your postings less fancy but a lot clearer and more successful.

Just saying,

Edgar

[rolfk]

---

@X. wrote:

Old timers sometimes have trouble keeping up with modern linguo... and I should know!

---

Yes I'm an old timer. Have played with LabVIEW when some people who post on this board now have still wet their nappies. 

And I'm used to so called smileys to see when someone says something with tongue in cheek.

[billko]

Okay, to get back on track, I don't think this is something LabVIEW needs to fix.  It's simply a matter of designing your interface to be able to properly display your data.  For example, if the default size for a text box is too small for the text you want to display, make it bigger.