phoebe-discuss Mailing List for PHOEBE: PHysics Of Eclipsing Binaries (Page 26)
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
andrej_prsa
Menu
▾
▴
phoebe-discuss — PHOEBE discussion list
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(41) |
May
(15) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
|
May
(10) |
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(19) |
Nov
(12) |
Dec
|
| 2006 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(30) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(11) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(22) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(25) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(44) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(25) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(2) |
Jun
(11) |
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(12) |
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
|
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(9) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
(13) |
Dec
(16) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(4) |
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(5) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(3) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(5) |
Jun
|
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2015 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(4) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2016 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
| 2017 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2018 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
(35) |
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(6) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(9) |
Jun
(21) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(1) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(9) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(24) |
Apr
(12) |
May
(9) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2021 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(7) |
Dec
|
| 2023 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
(1) |
|
From: Andrej P. <and...@vi...> - 2008-06-16 14:18:22
|
> Extinction may be estimated by using the calculator on this page: > <http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/calculator.html>. Another useful link for the LMC: http://ngala.as.arizona.edu/dennis/lmcext.html Andrej |
|
From: Patrick W. <pat...@ya...> - 2008-06-16 14:07:02
|
> what would be the best way to estimate the extinction to the > binary, if I can determine a colour excess? Extinction may be estimated by using the calculator on this page: <http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/calculator.html>. Patrick |
|
From: Andrej P. <and...@vi...> - 2008-06-16 13:50:53
|
Hi Michael, > one last question :) I hope not -- please keep them questions coming! ;) > Considering Pheobe extinction fitting is not operational for the > moment, what would be the best way to estimate the extinction to the > binary, if I can determine a colour excess? I'd suggest you use your favorite A_V (E(B-V)) formula with A_x (A_V) corrections, or A(lambda) directly, and supply them to phoebe one by one. For example, you could use Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, 3rd Ed., page 264: A(lambda) = R * E(B-V) * 0.68 * (1000.0/lambda - 0.35) for lambda given in nanometers and R=3.1 to 3.5, depending on galactic coordinates. HTH, Andrej |
|
From: Michael F. <ps...@gm...> - 2008-06-16 12:52:23
|
Hi, one last question :) Considering Pheobe extinction fitting is not operational for the moment, what would be the best way to estimate the extinction to the binary, if I can determine a colour excess? Michael |
|
From: Michael F. <ps...@gm...> - 2008-06-15 04:34:15
|
Hi, Yes I realised that the CLA shouldnt be able to be adjusted, but I didnt expect an absurd answer either. I didnt want to continue to spend time working on the binary if the chi2 value was identifying a real problem somewhere rather than a simple non-fatal bug. Thanks for your help! Michael |
|
From: Patrick W. <pat...@ya...> - 2008-06-14 22:08:35
|
> > b) The chi2 value for the V filter and the RV observations are always
> > EXACTLY the same... no matter what I do, not matter what I choose to
> > fit.
The chi2 values shown for light curves copied those from the RV curves first. It doesn't affect the calculations, only the displayed values are wrong (when RV curves are present). This bug is present on all platforms, but it has now been fixed in the SVN version. Thanks for noting it.
Also keep in mind that the chi2 values are those for the input parameters to the DC calculation, not for the calculated values.
Patrick
|
|
From: Andrej P. <and...@vi...> - 2008-06-14 13:39:32
|
Hi Michael, > I have encountered a problem in phoebe which I have no explanation or > name for, I've just started playing around with a binary of mine.... > > Here is a screenshot, this one from the windows version > > http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8441/yoolaq1.gif > > things to notice > > a) obviously the cla new value is ridiculous (especially when I set > the upper bound to 100!) The bounds are not applicable for DC, only for NMS. One of the top priorities for the GUI is to grey out the parameters that are not applicable so that they are not confusing. What I think happens in your case is that the secondary star's passband luminosities (CLAs) are constrained by the morphology type you chose in the Data tab and thus cannot be fit (and thus should have been greyed out). The only two situations where CLAs are adjustable are 1) if you select "Unconstrained binary" for the model, and 2) if you decouple secondary luminosities from the temperature in the Luminosities tab. In all other circumstances CLAs are constrained. > b) The chi2 value for the V filter and the RV observations are always > EXACTLY the same... no matter what I do, not matter what I choose to > fit. I can't reproduce this under linux, and I don't have windows to test this. For CLAs I could easily understand this if their values are constrained, but chi2s should be responsive to all other parameters. > It also crashes whenever I try to iterate for the extinction > parameter Yes, extinction has gone a major implementation change and it cannot be adjusted (another widget that should have been greyed out); this will be fixed for the next release. Sorry for the inconvenience! Andrej |
|
From: Michael F. <ps...@gm...> - 2008-06-14 12:14:15
|
Hi all, I have encountered a problem in phoebe which I have no explanation or name for, I've just started playing around with a binary of mine.... Here is a screenshot, this one from the windows version http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8441/yoolaq1.gif things to notice a) obviously the cla new value is ridiculous (especially when I set the upper bound to 100!) but the main problem is : b) The chi2 value for the V filter and the RV observations are always EXACTLY the same... no matter what I do, not matter what I choose to fit. It also crashes whenever I try to iterate for the extinction parameter Any ideas? If it is trying to minimize Chi2... then it never will! Michael |
|
From: Dirk T. <te...@bo...> - 2008-06-12 15:18:13
|
On 6/12/2008 Standa Poddany wrote: > 1) SDSS filters, especialy z-band > (http://www.sdss.org/dr3/instruments/imager/index.html) Andrej, I'll put these together today. > 2) the errors of derived parametres (especially Mass and Radius) I second that second suggestion. :-) Dirk |
|
From: Standa P. <po...@ob...> - 2008-06-12 09:03:59
|
Hi Andrej, I have also instalĺed Phoebe 0.31 under Windows. And I find same disadvantages in the comperisson with the older versions under Linux. 1) As Petr already wrote there are no fitting scripts, "goodness-of-fit" and I also cannot jump to window corellation matrix (window is minimized on Windows taskbar but is impossible to open it) 2) Fitting Quick Bar is missing 3) filters are there only with name without central wavelength (Johnson: I instead Johnson I (900 nm)) Here I write few things that are important for my transiting exoplanet light curves solutions but they still missing in Phoebe code. 1) SDSS filters, especialy z-band (http://www.sdss.org/dr3/instruments/imager/index.html) 2) the errors of derived parametres (especially Mass and Radius) Thanks, Standa |
|
From: Andrej P. <and...@vi...> - 2008-06-09 23:42:48
|
> I'm just starting to test the Windows version. Where is the setting > for using symmetric derivatives? Whoops... O;) The GUI defaults to symmetric derivatives, and the option should appear in the DC settings box, but for some mysterious reason nobody noticed this before... Thanks for the heads-up! Andrej |
|
From: Dirk T. <te...@bo...> - 2008-06-09 19:31:43
|
I'm just starting to test the Windows version. Where is the setting for using symmetric derivatives? Dirk |
|
From: Kaitchuck, R. H. <RKA...@bs...> - 2008-06-06 19:00:41
|
Sorry, I didn't even notice your attached param file. Yes, things do converge now. Dr. Ron Kaitchuck Professor of Physics & Astronomy Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 765-285-8871 FAX: 765-285-5674 -----Original Message----- From: pho...@li... [mailto:pho...@li...] On Behalf Of Patrick Wils Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 2:44 PM To: pho...@li... Subject: Re: [PHOEBE-discuss] windows executable --- On Fri, 6/6/08, Kaitchuck, Ronald H. <RKA...@bs...> wrote: > I can't reproduce those values for UV Leo. On step two > (below) the potentials go negative and the luminosities go > to values in the 30s and 40s. > > Changing step sizes has no effect. Did you use the parameter file I sent, or did you just change the step sizes in the original file? Other values were different as well (limb darkening law, point weight, ...). Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ phoebe-discuss mailing list pho...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phoebe-discuss |
|
From: Patrick W. <pat...@ya...> - 2008-06-06 18:44:00
|
--- On Fri, 6/6/08, Kaitchuck, Ronald H. <RKA...@bs...> wrote:
> I can't reproduce those values for UV Leo. On step two
> (below) the potentials go negative and the luminosities go
> to values in the 30s and 40s.
>
> Changing step sizes has no effect.
Did you use the parameter file I sent, or did you just change the step sizes in the original file? Other values were different as well (limb darkening law, point weight, ...).
Patrick
|
|
From: Kaitchuck, R. H. <RKA...@bs...> - 2008-06-06 18:29:00
|
I can't reproduce those values for UV Leo. On step two (below) the potentials go negative and the luminosities go to values in the 30s and 40s.
Changing step sizes has no effect.
Dr. Ron Kaitchuck
Professor of Physics & Astronomy
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
765-285-8871
FAX: 765-285-5674
-----Original Message-----
From: pho...@li... [mailto:pho...@li...] On Behalf Of Patrick Wils
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:46 AM
To: PHOEBE discuss
Subject: Re: [PHOEBE-discuss] windows executable
The convergence problems in the UV Leo case with the Windows 0.31 version is a problem of the input parameters to dc, not of the Windows executable. For example, the step values for the potentials were set to 0.01 in the parameter file delivered with the Windows installation, while in the legacy version they were set to 0.1. It shows that every parameter is important. The attached parameter file produces the same results with the 0.31 version on Windows as on Ubuntu, for the following steps:
1) Mark passband luminosities for adjustment, adjust:
phoebe_hla[1] 10.000000 -> 8.877335
phoebe_hla[2] 10.000000 -> 16.253720
2) Mark both potentials for adjustment, adjust:
phoebe_pot1 10.000000 -> 4.968316
phoebe_pot2 10.000000 -> 3.659077
phoebe_hla[1] 8.877335 -> 7.692915
phoebe_hla[2] 16.253720 -> 14.219282
3) Same thing, another iteration:
phoebe_pot1 4.968316 -> 4.397114
phoebe_pot2 3.659077 -> 3.851853
phoebe_hla[1] 7.692915 -> 8.050201
phoebe_hla[2] 14.219282 -> 14.756848
Patrick
|
|
From: Dirk T. <te...@bo...> - 2008-06-06 13:41:21
|
On 6/6/2008 Patrick Wils wrote: > The convergence problems in the UV Leo case with the Windows 0.31 > version is a problem of the input parameters to dc, not of the > Windows executable. For example, the step values for the potentials > were set to 0.01 in the parameter file delivered with the Windows > installation, while in the legacy version they were set to 0.1. It > shows that every parameter is important. The attached parameter file > produces the same results with the 0.31 version on Windows as on > Ubuntu, for the following steps: > This is a good point. While GUIs make interacting with the program easier, you still need to understand what is going on underneath. One area that people often neglect is checking that the steps for the numerical derivatives are appropriate. Too big or too small and they will cause problems. Dirk |
|
From: Sotirios T. <st...@ph...> - 2008-06-06 09:46:29
|
Hi Patrick! > The convergence problems in the UV Leo case with the Windows 0.31 version > is a problem of the input parameters to dc, not of the Windows executable. > For example, the step values for the potentials were set to 0.01 in the > parameter file delivered with the Windows installation, while in the > legacy version they were set to 0.1. It shows that every parameter is > important. Great!!!! Now seems that it's working fine :))))) I'm continuing the testings ;) Sotiris |
|
From: Patrick W. <pat...@ya...> - 2008-06-06 07:58:32
|
The convergence problems in the UV Leo case with the Windows 0.31 version is a problem of the input parameters to dc, not of the Windows executable. For example, the step values for the potentials were set to 0.01 in the parameter file delivered with the Windows installation, while in the legacy version they were set to 0.1. It shows that every parameter is important. The attached parameter file produces the same results with the 0.31 version on Windows as on Ubuntu, for the following steps:
1) Mark passband luminosities for adjustment, adjust:
phoebe_hla[1] 10.000000 -> 8.877335
phoebe_hla[2] 10.000000 -> 16.253720
2) Mark both potentials for adjustment, adjust:
phoebe_pot1 10.000000 -> 4.968316
phoebe_pot2 10.000000 -> 3.659077
phoebe_hla[1] 8.877335 -> 7.692915
phoebe_hla[2] 16.253720 -> 14.219282
3) Same thing, another iteration:
phoebe_pot1 4.968316 -> 4.397114
phoebe_pot2 3.659077 -> 3.851853
phoebe_hla[1] 7.692915 -> 8.050201
phoebe_hla[2] 14.219282 -> 14.756848
Patrick
|
|
From: Andrej P. <and...@vi...> - 2008-06-06 01:03:17
|
Hi, > > On the other hand the fitting problems still persist on XP > > and on Vista, too. > > Concerning MS Windows: I'm starting with the initial > > parameters of UV Leo > > and adjusting only luminosities at first. This works fine > > and gives > > something about 8.42 and 15.09. Then, I'm fitting both > > omegas (starting from 10) and luminosity levels. > > On phoebe 0.30, after a few iterations, > > this converges to a good solution. On Windows, this gives > > omega1=-24.59 and omega2=-5.00. > > I get exactly the same result if I run this on Windows and under > Cygwin. Also if I use the dcin.active file created by Phoebe with a > stand-alone version of dc (original Wilson code), it produces the > same result. I think it should really be tested with Phoebe 0.31 on > Linux as well to see whether there is any difference. If so, I'd be > interested in receiving the dcin.active and dcout.active files, to > see where there is a difference. PHOEBE 0.31 on Ubuntu 8.04: 1) Open legacy UVLeo.phoebe 2) Edit RV data to fix obsolete passbands and RV designations: [CHANGED IN 0.30] -> Primary RV / Secondary RV [CHANGED IN 0.30] -> Johnson:V / Johnson:V 3) Marked passband luminosities for adjustment, adjust: phoebe_hla[1] 10.000000 -> 8.877335 phoebe_hla[2] 10.000000 -> 16.253720 4) Marked both potentials for adjustment, adjust: phoebe_pot1 10.000000 -> 4.968316 phoebe_pot2 10.000000 -> 3.659077 phoebe_hla[1] 8.877335 -> 7.692915 phoebe_hla[2] 16.253720 -> 14.219282 5) Same thing, another iteration: phoebe_pot1 4.968316 -> 4.397114 phoebe_pot2 3.659077 -> 3.851853 phoebe_hla[1] 7.692915 -> 8.050201 phoebe_hla[2] 14.219282 -> 14.756848 I'm attaching iter1.dci/o and iter3.dci/o (corresponding to steps 3 and 5, respectively). Andrej |
|
From: Sotirios T. <st...@ph...> - 2008-06-05 21:27:12
|
Hi, > I imported a converged model from 0.29. It converges in the Windows > version as long as omega 2 is not adjusted. Omega 2 just goes negative. Even if we keep omega2 fixed, in the example case of UV Leo, omega1 goes negative too... Sotiris |
|
From: Kaitchuck, R. H. <RKA...@bs...> - 2008-06-05 21:11:32
|
I imported a converged model from 0.29. It converges in the Windows version as long as omega 2 is not adjusted. Omega 2 just goes negative. Dr. Ron Kaitchuck Professor of Physics & Astronomy Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 765-285-8871 FAX: 765-285-5674 -----Original Message----- From: pho...@li... [mailto:pho...@li...] On Behalf Of Sotirios Tsantilas Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:04 PM To: pho...@li... Subject: Re: [PHOEBE-discuss] windows executable Hi! > The new window is minimized, you'll have to click on it in the Windows > taskbar to activate it. This seems to be the same behavior when one plots > in a separate window. I have always plotted in the main window, and that > poses no problems. I'll see if something can be done about it. Yep! That's the whole story about the minimized windows. There are two options: a) The "LC Plot" icon (or RV Plot) at the top menu and b) The "plotting" tab. If you use the icon button, it opens a separate window, which gets minimized after each call and the plotting tab has no buttons. If you use the "plotting" tab, everything is OK. On the other hand the fitting problems still persist on XP and on Vista, too. (I have Ubuntu only at my office, so I wont be able to check it until Monday. The Mandriva distribution I have at home also needs a lot of downloads to work properly, so it might take a while. Sorry! :)). Concerning MS Windows: I'm starting with the initial parameters of UV Leo and adjusting only luminosities at first. This works fine and gives something about 8.42 and 15.09. Then, I'm fitting both omegas (starting from 10) and luminosity levels. On phoebe 0.30, after a few iterations, this converges to a good solution. On Windows, this gives omega1=-24.59 and omega2=-5.00. I also tried to start from omega1=4.5 and omega2=4 (which gives a fairly good fit) but after one iteration I got omega2=-3.33. This windows version of PHOEBE looks really great and I'm sure that a lot of people would appreciate it, so what is wrong? Can I help in any way? Sotiris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ phoebe-discuss mailing list pho...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phoebe-discuss |
|
From: Sotirios T. <st...@ph...> - 2008-06-05 21:04:20
|
Hi! > The new window is minimized, you'll have to click on it in the Windows > taskbar to activate it. This seems to be the same behavior when one plots > in a separate window. I have always plotted in the main window, and that > poses no problems. I'll see if something can be done about it. Yep! That's the whole story about the minimized windows. There are two options: a) The "LC Plot" icon (or RV Plot) at the top menu and b) The "plotting" tab. If you use the icon button, it opens a separate window, which gets minimized after each call and the plotting tab has no buttons. If you use the "plotting" tab, everything is OK. On the other hand the fitting problems still persist on XP and on Vista, too. (I have Ubuntu only at my office, so I wont be able to check it until Monday. The Mandriva distribution I have at home also needs a lot of downloads to work properly, so it might take a while. Sorry! :)). Concerning MS Windows: I'm starting with the initial parameters of UV Leo and adjusting only luminosities at first. This works fine and gives something about 8.42 and 15.09. Then, I'm fitting both omegas (starting from 10) and luminosity levels. On phoebe 0.30, after a few iterations, this converges to a good solution. On Windows, this gives omega1=-24.59 and omega2=-5.00. I also tried to start from omega1=4.5 and omega2=4 (which gives a fairly good fit) but after one iteration I got omega2=-3.33. This windows version of PHOEBE looks really great and I'm sure that a lot of people would appreciate it, so what is wrong? Can I help in any way? Sotiris |
|
From: Patrick W. <pat...@ya...> - 2008-06-05 19:40:57
|
> > But when I try to look to the corellation matrix, it does not work
> > anyway (it appears as it is working, new window is opened, but I
> > cannot jump to this window and see what is inside).
>
> Hmmm, sounds like a wingtk issue; I never saw this kind of
> behavior before.
The new window is minimized, you'll have to click on it in the Windows taskbar to activate it. This seems to be the same behavior when one plots in a separate window. I have always plotted in the main window, and that poses no problems. I'll see if something can be done about it.
Patrick
|
|
From: <pet...@em...> - 2008-06-05 16:31:55
|
Hi, > ---------------------------------------- > Hi Petr, > > > But yesterday I have tried to fit the luminosities together with the > > potentials as the first step, and after then it crashes down (it > > results in value of potential about -75 so the value of the critical > > potential appears in red color). > > I think that is the problem: the initial point is so far away from the > actual solution that solving for the potentials is bound to diverge. > Could you please try to converge only the luminosities and see if that > works well? Only then try to adjust the potentials. This works without any problems. After the luminosities were computed, try to find the values of potentials is OK. But another issue which I wanted to ask is where I could find some "goodness-of-fit" ? Some value of RMS or something like that? (in the 0.29 version which I have used till now these values appears in the same screen as the plots with the fit) And also a question about the scripts? Are there somewhere? Thanks, Petr |
|
From: Andrej P. <and...@vi...> - 2008-06-05 16:20:54
|
Hi Petr, > But yesterday I have tried to fit the luminosities together with the > potentials as the first step, and after then it crashes down (it > results in value of potential about -75 so the value of the critical > potential appears in red color). I think that is the problem: the initial point is so far away from the actual solution that solving for the potentials is bound to diverge. Could you please try to converge only the luminosities and see if that works well? Only then try to adjust the potentials. > But when I try to look to the corellation matrix, it does not work > anyway (it appears as it is working, new window is opened, but I > cannot jump to this window and see what is inside). Hmmm, sounds like a wingtk issue; I never saw this kind of behavior before. > I also vote to skip the sound after each iteration, plotting, etc... It's on the todo list to make it optional; thank you for expressing your opinion! :) > Otherwise the new version looks really very good. Thanks! Andrej |
14 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.