Postglock

Why do you have such a low voltage on the SSC detector? You may well be correct, and honestly, I'm not sure! If it is a low-voltage issue, I guess it just from the poor template on the machine I was using. Unfortunately the software on the machine is so old and unwieldy it's pretty hard to change the settings easily. I might investigate further next time I run it. What's weird is it looks fine on the machine's software from memory. Status: FCSalyzer is a hobby project of mine. That's great. Thank...

Thanks again Sven. 1 and 2 make sense. I agree with your suggestions too. If there were default analyses (including axes limits) and a layout setup, that would likely solve all these issues. 3) Yes, I still meant the parameter multiplication here. I love the concept of the batch output, and I think it makes FCSalyzer extremely powerful. On a related topic, I realised earlier that when exporting as a single file, it is in a slightly fiddly format . It would be great if it were a "simple" csv, i.e....

No worries! Thank you for the explanation. I also had a couple of edits in my comment above that are likely "expected" given the current behaviour, but I just thought I'd mention them because I think I edited the comment after you posted here. I've also been experimenting with derived parameters instead of using the parameter multiplier. Again, I've had to use the overlay trick to get it applied to all the data files. Again, these appear to display fine, but when I export, I get the error: FCS file...

No worries! Thank you for the explanation. I also had a couple of edits in my comment above that are likely "expected" given the current behaviour, but I just thought I'd mention them because I think I edited the comment after you posted here. I've also been experimenting with derived parameters instead of using the parameter multiplier. Again, I've had to use the overlay trick to get it applied to all the data files. Again, these appear to display fine, but when I export, I get the error: FCS file...

No worries! Thank you for the explanation. I also had a couple of edits in my comment above that are likely "expected" given the current behaviour, but I just thought I'd mention them because I think I edited the comment after you posted here. I've also been experimenting with derived parameters instead of using the parameter multiplier. Again, I've had to use the overlay trick to get it applied to all the data files. Again, these appear to display fine, but when I export, I get the error: FCS file...

Thanks Sven. One other note, it seems that when you batch export, the parameter multipliers are not taken into account. To replicate: Use the parameter multipliers as a workaround to see the points more easily Create regions, quadrants, etc. The statistics appear to reflect this all correctly. Attempt to batch export. At this point, the graphs do cycle through the various files as expected, but the graphs are no longer transformed. The exported graphs and statistics reflect the un-transformed parameters....

Thanks Sven. One other note, it seems that when you batch export, the parameter multipliers are not taken into account. To replicate: Use the parameter multipliers as a workaround to see the points more easily Create regions, quadrants, etc. The statistics appear to reflect this all correctly. Attempt to batch export. At this point, the graphs do cycle through the various files as expected, but the graphs are no longer transformed. The exported graphs and statistics reflect the un-transformed parameters....

Thanks Sven. One other note, it seems that when you batch export, the parameter multipliers are not taken into account. To replicate: Use the parameter multipliers as a workaround to see the points more easily Create regions, quadrants, etc. The statistics appear to reflect this all correctly. Attempt to batch export. At this point, the graphs do cycle through the various files as expected, but the graphs are no longer transformed. The exported graphs and statistics reflect the un-transformed pa...