New averaging method doesn't feel like an improvement...

Michael - N5TGL

Well, with the change to fast attack and slow delay, it seems we've managed to "un-average" the averaging function.    What you guys had before (1.0.24) looked really great, and this change (US2102) feels like a step backwards to the old spastic display.

Now I realize that you can't please all the people all the time, but having a switch selection for the old method vs. the new sure would be appreciated.  With the last version, I was able to set averaging to right around 11 and it worked great...with 1.1, I have it run up to 95 and it still doesn't look quite right to me.

Can we please consider a switch selectable averaging method in the next release?  Or a way to adjust attack/decay to our liking?  I sure liked 1.0.24's method and appearance better.

Tim - W4TME

Try increasing the averaging time a little bit.

Michael - N5TGL

I've got the "avg" at 95, so there's not much room to increase.    Unless I am missing another setting somewhere?  I've got FPS set at 25, which has been a pretty fluid setting so far.

George KF2T

I concur with Michael. Sweet 1.1 upgrade, but a "miss" on the averaging display. 

Paul Christensen, W9AC

The new display averaging is a big improvement in that peak levels are shown instead of being averaged down where signal strength accuracy is lost.   It makes no sense to average and "dumb down" the peak signal strength.    I'm running FPS at 30, and AVG at 74.  Perhaps a bit more room up the scale to add a bit more decay time may help some users. 

Paul, W9AC

Sergey R5AU

New method is not bad, my sets- avg=65, fps=20. For the thirst time i was surprised but i guess it can be more suitable for further under curve paintbrushing.