Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington
Right, forgot about the old +/- encoders, eons away in my mind.
OK, so the older encoders should work properly with stepped values, and they shouldn't wrap.
Things should only fall apart when you add the new "[...]" syntax.
Will work on the new Accelerated Encoder, thanks for the memory jog
|
Terrific!
Sorry to spring it on you.
Priority is probably stopping at the ends and being able to go CCW (back down the step list).
Acceleration through stepped parameters can wait, the old encoder stepped through the list at a rate of 1 step = 1 encoder tick and the new encoder still does this if you turn the encoder r e a l l y carefully
EDIT: Not sure if we even need to accelerate through stepped parameters now we have such fine control over the step size and acceleration without using SNL.