Graph scaling

[Pepo]

One wish to the automatic graph scaling:
Currently when any curve touches any 10º line, the graph is resized accordingly, that an additional free 10º area is visible on both sides of the touched line.
When the Throttling curve is constantly drawn at 100% (and the temperature curves are below it), the graph is unnecessarily resized by one more completely free 10º area above the line (100º - 110º). But there is actually one more free area 1º wide.
Could the resizing be redefined to "If any curve crosses any 10º line (i.e. should be displayed at e.g. 91º or 69º), then the graph is resized by one more completely free 10º area above/below"?

A bug:
When my target temperature is set to 75ºC, after changing the preference to use ºF, the target temperature is recalculated to 167ºF, but the graph remains displaying the target temp line at 75ºF. Even after changing the target Fahrenheit temperature, the graph keeps displaying the target line at its Celsius temperature.

[fred]

One wish to the automatic graph scaling:
Currently when any curve touches any 10º line, the graph is resized accordingly, that an additional free 10º area is visible on both sides of the touched line.
When the Throttling curve is constantly drawn at 100% (and the temperature curves are below it), the graph is unnecessarily resized by one more completely free 10º area above the line (100º - 110º). But there is actually one more free area 1º wide.
Could the resizing be redefined to "If any curve crosses any 10º line (i.e. should be displayed at e.g. 91º or 69º), then the graph is resized by one more completely free 10º area above/below"?

A bug:
When my target temperature is set to 75ºC, after changing the preference to use ºF, the target temperature is recalculated to 167ºF, but the graph remains displaying the target temp line at 75ºF. Even after changing the target Fahrenheit temperature, the graph keeps displaying the target line at its Celsius temperature.

That's what you get when you keep adding and forget..
The scaling is now done with all settings e.g. Temperature and Percentage even if the Temperature of Percentage is not there.
If you mean this let me know and I make it a "wish", to scale only on the displayed item.

The bug is noted.

[Pepo]

The scaling is now done with all settings e.g. Temperature and Percentage even if the Temperature of Percentage is not there.
If you mean this let me know and I make it a "wish", to scale only on the displayed item.

Hmm, and I can see the opposite: if I select just the temperature(s) or just the percentage, the graph is scaled accordingly. I believe it is also right this way.

I've meant something else. Just encountered it actually behaves differently at the bottom and at the top of the graph (so my description was not exact, the bottom graph part already behaves exactli how I like it so let me rephrase this):

Currently when any curve touches any 10º line from bootom up (e.g. 90,1º), the graph is resized accordingly, that an additional free 10º area is visible above the touched line.
When any curve touches any 10º line from upside down (e.g. 70,0º), the graph still not resized and just an additional free 1º area is visible below the touched line.
But only when any curve crosses any 10º line from upside down and goes below (to e.g. 69,9º), the graph is resized accordingly, that an additional free 10º area is visible below the crossed line.
An example: When the Throttling curve is constantly drawn at exactly 100% (and just the throttling Percentage graph is being displayed), the graph is displaying the area from 99º to 111º. (With this extreme example, I would expect either 99º to 101º or 89º to 111º.)

Could the resizing be redefined to "If any curve crosses any 10º line (i.e. should be displayed at e.g. 91º or 69º), then the graph is resized by one more completely free 10º area above/below"? (So my example throttling percentage graph would be drawn in a 99º to 101º area graph.)

[fred]

The scaling is now done with all settings e.g. Temperature and Percentage even if the Temperature of Percentage is not there.
If you mean this let me know and I make it a "wish", to scale only on the displayed item.

Hmm, and I can see the opposite: if I select just the temperature(s) or just the percentage, the graph is scaled accordingly. I believe it is also right this way.

I've meant something else. Just encountered it actually behaves differently at the bottom and at the top of the graph (so my description was not exact, the bottom graph part already behaves exactli how I like it so let me rephrase this):

Currently when any curve touches any 10º line from bootom up (e.g. 90,1º), the graph is resized accordingly, that an additional free 10º area is visible above the touched line.
When any curve touches any 10º line from upside down (e.g. 70,0º), the graph still not resized and just an additional free 1º area is visible below the touched line.
But only when any curve crosses any 10º line from upside down and goes below (to e.g. 69,9º), the graph is resized accordingly, that an additional free 10º area is visible below the crossed line.
An example: When the Throttling curve is constantly drawn at exactly 100% (and just the throttling Percentage graph is being displayed), the graph is displaying the area from 99º to 111º. (With this extreme example, I would expect either 99º to 101º or 89º to 111º.)

Could the resizing be redefined to "If any curve crosses any 10º line (i.e. should be displayed at e.g. 91º or 69º), then the graph is resized by one more completely free 10º area above/below"? (So my example throttling percentage graph would be drawn in a 99º to 101º area graph.)

A picture ? To make sure we understand each other.

[Pepo]

A picture ? To make sure we understand each other.

OK, here it goes:

The percentage is somewhere between upper and lower 10º line.

Percentage just reached the lower 10º line. Note that there is still just the 1º wide area below the line. Pretty sufficient.

Percentage just crossed the lower 10º line, it reached 1º below it. The graph was enlarged by one additional 10º area below the line.

Percentage is reaching the upper 10º line. There is still just the 1º wide area above the line.

Percentage just reached the upper 10º line. The graph was already enlarged by one additional 10º area above the line, although the 1º wide area (like in the example with the lower bound) would be sufficient. Especially in the case of the Percentage graph at 100% it is not necessary at all, because it will never exceed 100%.

Percentage just went above the upper line, by 1º and the upper area off course have to be larger.


P.S. Writing any text longer then some 12 lines is a torture, the input field is being scrolled up after each typed character    

[fred]

The reason why is the text, that's why the upper limit is the text C1 C2 and is 1C less than the one below.
At 100, 1 is added to 101 and that means 110 as upper limit.
And in some cases this gives a less than optimal scaling.
It depends highly on the different temperatures and how large you make the window.

[fred]

I made a small change

Was

   iMax = (int) fMax;
   iMax+=10;
   iMax/=10;
   iMax*=10;
   iMax+=1;

100 -> 110 -> 11 -> 110 -> 111

is
   iMax = (int) fMax;
   iMax+=9;
   iMax/=10;
   iMax*=10;
   iMax+=1;

100 -> 109 -> 10 -> 100 -> 101

That makes just the difference at 100 
It means the step is at 101 instead of 100.

[Pepo]

P.S. Writing any text longer then some 12 lines is a torture, the input field is being scrolled up after each typed character    

For clarification - I've meant writing a longer text into the Forum.  Could anything be done with this? 

[fred]

P.S. Writing any text longer then some 12 lines is a torture, the input field is being scrolled up after each typed character    

For clarification - I've meant writing a longer text into the Forum.  Could anything be done with this? 

I don't have any problems with my Firefox browser

[Pepo]

P.S. Writing any text longer then some 12 lines is a torture, the input field is being scrolled up after each typed character    

For clarification - I've meant writing a longer text into the Forum.  Could anything be done with this? 

I don't have any problems with my Firefox browser

You are right. No problem with SeaMonkey as well. Just the iExploder 

[Pepo]

I made a small change
[...]
is
   iMax = (int) fMax;
   iMax+=9;
   iMax/=10;
   iMax*=10;
   iMax+=1;

100 -> 109 -> 10 -> 100 -> 101

That makes just the difference at 100 
It means the step is at 101 instead of 100.

Yes, this made the change. 

I'd just recommend adding a 0.5 prior to the first rounding (or maybe all float->int roundings), like
   iMax = (int) (fMax+0.5);
but this is maybe just a question of taste.

[Pepo]

TTh 1.70 is adding two more 1º lines above the upper 10º line, instead of just one (as it was previously). Intentionally?

[fred]

TTh 1.70 is adding two more 1º lines above the upper 10º line, instead of just one (as it was previously). Intentionally?

Intentionally, it gives the best overall result. Just one is not enough... otherwise it draws right through to text C1C2...

Fred

[Pepo]

I've restarted my system, not touching TTh settings. Prior to the reboot, the CPU temperature (dual-core) was by some 5-7 degree lower than the throttling threshold. After the reboot, the beginning of the graph shows cores' temperatures rising from -12 to -7 degrees below the limit. So I'd assume there should be no reason for throttling.

The beginning of the throttling line seems to be started stright up from somewhere around 45% to 100% during maybe just one second (can't zoom anymore, I've noticed it after 100 minutes) - this is surely no slow de-throttling, which happens slowly, possibly some throttling variable was used to display throttling value with an initial value of 0%?

Although being just an optical glitch, the graphs (especially 12h+24h ones, for a long time) are unnecessarily scaled to show 19-102 area, while a better zoomed 59-102 would be displayed instead

(My throttling range is set to 24-100%, which is matching the displayed area and possibly the reason for low initial throttling value was somewhere else - I'll try to remember to keep my eye on in the next time I'll reboot (usually once in a couple of weeks )).

One more wish:

• To all time selector popup menus, add some value into the large gap between 1 and 12 hours - maybe 3 or 4 hours.

[fred]

I've restarted my system, not touching TTh settings. Prior to the reboot, the CPU temperature (dual-core) was by some 5-7 degree lower than the throttling threshold. After the reboot, the beginning of the graph shows cores' temperatures rising from -12 to -7 degrees below the limit. So I'd assume there should be no reason for throttling.

The beginning of the throttling line seems to be started stright up from somewhere around 45% to 100% during maybe just one second (can't zoom anymore, I've noticed it after 100 minutes) - this is surely no slow de-throttling, which happens slowly, possibly some throttling variable was used to display throttling value with an initial value of 0%?

Although being just an optical glitch, the graphs (especially 12h+24h ones, for a long time) are unnecessarily scaled to show 19-102 area, while a better zoomed 59-102 would be displayed instead

(My throttling range is set to 24-100%, which is matching the displayed area and possibly the reason for low initial throttling value was somewhere else - I'll try to remember to keep my eye on in the next time I'll reboot (usually once in a couple of weeks )).

One more wish:

• To all time selector popup menus, add some value into the large gap between 1 and 12 hours - maybe 3 or 4 hours.

As far as I can check TThrottle always starts with the minimum value, 24% in this case and works it way up.
When you scale to a longer period the values are middled out so it may be that some peaks are not shown but are actually there.
I will see what I can do about the extra scaling option.