GM said:
GM said:
GM said:
Hi GM,
Thanks for the feedback - I was afraid something like this might happen! Looking on the bright side, I guess we at least now know some of the code that is NOT causing the error
.There are normally no problems using Hornresp with an Intel processor and Windows XP - I have the same platform myself.
In your case though, it appears that when a new record is added, and changes are made prior to opening the Find tool, for some reason the new record and the changes are not being recognised, which results in the array indexing error you keep seeing.
I will think some more about the problem, and see if I can possibly alter the record change detection logic somehow, to get around the issue.
Otherwise, you might just have to learn to live with it
.Kind regards,
David
Hello David,
Few months ago I used Hornresp to simulate a large planar loudspeaker called Infraplanar intended to be used as a sub. It is a nearly unbaffled loudspeaker having a very large rectangular membrane (area = 1 square meter).
http://infraplanar.free.fr/photos.htm
As we possess free field measurements of the Infraplanar , I could optimize in Hornresp the path length between the rear wave and the direct wave in order for the response curve to fit the measured one.(see attached file). The optimal pathlength was 96centimeters which is nearly the width of the loudspeaker.
I try to redo the simulation few days ago but it seems that you modified the max pathlength to be lesser than the length of the horn (here 0,01 centimeter long). An error message indicate to me that I cannot introduce a difference of path larger than 0.01centimeter which is the length of the simulated (flat) horn...
I know this was a very strange use of Hornresp but I considered it very convenient...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Few months ago I used Hornresp to simulate a large planar loudspeaker called Infraplanar intended to be used as a sub. It is a nearly unbaffled loudspeaker having a very large rectangular membrane (area = 1 square meter).
http://infraplanar.free.fr/photos.htm
As we possess free field measurements of the Infraplanar , I could optimize in Hornresp the path length between the rear wave and the direct wave in order for the response curve to fit the measured one.(see attached file). The optimal pathlength was 96centimeters which is nearly the width of the loudspeaker.
I try to redo the simulation few days ago but it seems that you modified the max pathlength to be lesser than the length of the horn (here 0,01 centimeter long). An error message indicate to me that I cannot introduce a difference of path larger than 0.01centimeter which is the length of the simulated (flat) horn...
I know this was a very strange use of Hornresp but I considered it very convenient...
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Attachments
Jmmlc said:
Hi Jean-Michel,
The change was made back in February 2009 at the suggestion of Sabbelbacke - see my post #391 in this thread for details.
At the time it seemed like a good idea to both of us, as it appeared to provide a reasonable "sanity check" of the chosen path length difference value. As a result of your post though, I will remove the limitation and revert back to allowing a maximum value of 999,99 cm. I will let you know when this is done (hopefully by tomorrow).
It never ceases to amaze me how people keep finding new ways of using Hornresp
. In the example you have given, the program’s prediction appears to be remarkably close to the measured results.Many thanks for providing this feedback.
Kind regards,
David
Hi Eva,
Thanks to some brilliant work done by Jean-Michel over the weekend (and not simply on phase un-wrapping) I am now reasonably confident of eventually being able to display the overall system phase response and group delay in Hornresp in a useful format - as you have been requesting for some time now.
As an added bonus, Jean-Michel has also improved his impulse response method - making those results even better.
It will take some time for me to get everything working the way that I want it to, but I will let everyone know once it is done.
Kind regards,
David
David McBean said:
Thanks to some brilliant work done by Jean-Michel over the weekend (and not simply on phase un-wrapping) I am now reasonably confident of eventually being able to display the overall system phase response and group delay in Hornresp in a useful format - as you have been requesting for some time now
.As an added bonus, Jean-Michel has also improved his impulse response method - making those results even better.
It will take some time for me to get everything working the way that I want it to, but I will let everyone know once it is done.
Kind regards,
David
David McBean said:Hi Eva,
Thanks to some brilliant work done by Jean-Michel over the weekend (and not simply on phase un-wrapping) I am now reasonably confident of eventually being able to display the overall system phase response and group delay in Hornresp in a useful format - as you have been requesting for some time now
As an added bonus, Jean-Michel has also improved his impulse response method - making those results even better.
It will take some time for me to get everything working the way that I want it to, but I will let everyone know once it is done.
Kind regards,
David
(need to say more?)
I have the same problem as GM with the new version 2150-090514 and Windows XPGM said:
After i click YES in the "Save changes to current record?" i sometimes get the "runtime error 9"
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Never happened with the older versions.
jogi59 said:
Hi jogi59,
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, because I cannot generate the error myself and because it occurs only intermittently for you, I have no way of identifying the cause. I have checked the code a number of times and cannot find anything that could potentially be a problem. It is a real mystery!
Kind regards,
David
David McBean said:
Bummer. FWIW, it's apparently causing me another, more aggravating, problem since now my machine runs out of virtual memory a lot quicker than normal. I mean, normally I can leave it booted up for weeks before I have to reboot whereas now it's a matter of days, so AFAIK it's HR or MS critical and/or NAV updates that's causing it.
Since the latter two have never caused this particular 'problem' and I haven't installed any other executable programs or seen any new ones in the TASK MANAGER that sneaked in, I don't know what else to attribute it to.
GM