Author Topic: PI developments  (Read 13086 times)

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: PI developments
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2015, 07:59:54 AM »
I believe that John's team are working on a fix for this at the moment but currently PI can only take around 80 maps (I do mine at 300 square) but it may be fewer for larger maps.  I try to get more data out by using MAN but there is still the limit... :-[

Yes. The next version of PI will have this automatic saving *and* unlimited number of map acquisitions.  Should be out "real soon now". 

Thanks for your patience!
john
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

Malcolm Roberts

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 134
Re: PI developments
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2015, 05:40:49 PM »
Hi Gareth
Good. I have a new PC here with a huge RAM and a Massive video card especially to enable PI to go to the limits. Not that I was doing that. I had a total of 18 maps lined up over three runs. None of them exceeding the maximum size. I fear the cause of the death of PI was due to some kind of miscommunication where for some reason PfEPMA had decided that spec1 "had no label". Although, PfEPMA was not running during the mapping, there may have been a knock on effect into PI as they both use the .elm file which has been causing some grief recently. This is speculation of course and info from those who know on why the spec 1 has no label error appeared and made my afternoon a misery would be appreciated. Bear in mind that the info from the JEOL side of things was correct.
Cheers,
Malc.

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: PI developments
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2015, 05:49:51 PM »
This is speculation of course and info from those who know on why the spec 1 has no label error appeared and made my afternoon a misery would be appreciated. Bear in mind that the info from the JEOL side of things was correct.

Hi Malcolm,
It would be better to provide an actual error message (hit the <alt> <PrtScn> key combo to capture just the error message dialog in the system clipboard) and number rather than speculate. 

Since you updated PFE, this error cannot have been caused by the ELM file issue you reported a while ago.  However, it is very likely that the error was a comms error in the spectrometer electronics (note the JEOL software will not show this type of error if it is just idling), but then again, that is mere speculation on my part until I see an error message...   :o
john
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"