ramdor wrote:@Scott
I spoke to Warren about this back in early 2022, the consensus being that it would be a lot of work to do it 'properly'.
Yes, I remember that, and I also remember it would be a ton of work to do it properly on the existing panadapter and waterfall displays.
There is another method to obtain/display the data, and it can be obtained as part of the 'post filter display send', and is used to display the spectrum display that you mention (broken?). We also talked about displaying the auto notches, and that would be even more complicated and require a bunch of work and may not result in something worth using or viewing.
Yes, exactly! As described on page 29 of the WDSP Guide 1.20. This is the spectrum passband output post passband filtering and post notch filtering. It might even be post ANF.
It's not clear how using this would be more complicated since it already exists and contains the data necessary. However, the current implementation to display it by means of the "Spectrum" entry on the spectral display pull-down menu appears to not be working correctly. If that could be made to work, and then a another split screen mode be added, call it "pana-spectrum", then you could add/modify/delete notches all day long using the existing UI mechanisms you developed on the panadapter and see the real, correct results on the spectrum display.
So as you can see, it has been something that has had a bit of thought behind it.
Never said it didn't, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.
At the end of the day it is just a visual approximation
And that's what I'm objecting to.
Also, with respect, you have to remember that as this is my version I can put anything I like in it. Anyone can get the source, rip stuff out, rebuild it and release it anywhere, even here with moderator approval.
That's being a bit unfair, I think. I've defended the developer's rights in that respect many times. Yours in particular, if you remember.
Anyhow, I don't want this to become an argument. I'm merely providing some input on why this might not be a good idea. No different than discussing any other new or modified functionality, like you and I and others have many times in the past. In this case it violates the long-held paradigm that the program delivers real answers, not made-up answers. Some portion of the user base will not be sophisticated enough to understand that this is a made-up answer. And new users who come after implementation might never understand. They will turn it on and think it real. Obviously it's completely within your rights to agree or disagree.
Cheers,
Scott