| ??? 09/08/08 14:26 Read: times |
#158071 - Brett, that is helpful, I should add.... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
That this is only one calculation of many that must be calculated.
That particular example is only one point along a hyperbolic curve for those limits I've shown. There is a point where the limits are 0x039A to 0x3A9, so based on the devices absolute position (based on another potentiometers position also from 0x00 to 0xFF), the limits will be different. So in the big picture, one pot controls what limits it will use, and the other will move the device between those limits. I figured the scale and offset would make the most sense. I was looking at linear interpolation equation to do this, but then it starts to involve floating point math which becomes a huge impact on code size and speed. I tried to explain this impact to my superiors and they just don't understand what the big deal is.......when I tell them it affects overall quality.....I get the OH, ok.....well keep at then......<laughing> |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Scale offset using ints by byte position location | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Does type casting make sense here?... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Show us more......... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Here are defs and original function | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ints, at leastin Keil, at 16 bits wide. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Christoph, | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That makes things clearer. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A detail | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Take a look at the ranges | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Brett, that is helpful, I should add.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No floating-point math required. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Its working but I have a question on theory | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rounding instead of truncate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh, that is interesting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Russ' comment is right, though. | 01/01/70 00:00 |