17 replies to this topic

[eew]

Why not use al pixels for dwawing graphs? The screen has a resolution of 64*128. But why draws my calculator functions in al 127*63 screen? Is er a reason for this. I've tested this whit te function y=sin(2pi:1)X in:
Xmin=0
Xmax=126

Ymin=-1
Ymax=1

This gives a straight line. This proofes that te calculator really draws the function in a to small screen. Why?

[The_AFX_Master]

it's logic, that function varies between 1 and -1, each pi, then in a large interval as 126, you only will see a line

[eew]

Of cource but when you change 126 in 127 you wil see soming else.

I want to say that the calculator don't use a row and a column.

[Menno]

Yes i guess you are right, in my programs i always use pixel 1 to 127 i never thought long about it, it is just something to consider when programming.

[eew]

But why didn't we have acces to those pixels?

[Crazio]

Are those pixels so important to you? I personally noticed this the first week I started learning how to program this gadget. It really doesn?t matter do you have those pixels or not, when you have 126*64=8064 more pixels to use.

[eew]

I know, but I want to know why they did this.

[The_AFX_Master]

draw the 0,0 pixel (i can't because i don't have my afx right now), What do you see?

[eew]

Argument Error.

[eew]

I don't know how it workes, but there are 2 positions possible for every pixel, to save 63*127 pixels you need 1001 bytes. And for 64*148 you need 1024 bytes. So it may be possible, but it sounds a litte bit cheap.

[The_AFX_Master]

Well, seems to be that there are only 63*127... when i get my AFX back, i'll post again here

[kucalc]

Why not use al pixels for dwawing graphs? The screen has a resolution of 64*128. But why draws my calculator functions in al 127*63 screen? Is er a reason for this. I've tested this whit te function y=sin(2pi:1)X in:

...

This gives a straight line. This proofes that te calculator really draws the function in a to small screen. Why?

While the AFX_Master is getting his AFX, I tried it out on my Algebra FX 2.0 Plus. It produces the same outcome. Also my fx-9860 draws only to 127x63 screen.

I don't know why it does that, it may have to do with memory. Anyways, it's not really such a big problem, you can scroll the ViewWindow to see other parts of the graph.

[vanhoa]

Viewwindow -6.3,6.3,.1 is better than Viewwindow -6.4,6.3,.1

[kucalc]

Viewwindow -6.3,6.3,.1 ...

I think that is the default setting of ViewWindow on the FX (after the fx-7xxx series), CFX series and the Algebra FX.

[eew]

That's also weird because you've got 127 pixels, but -6,3 to 6,3 would suggest that you've got 126 pixels.

[Overlord]

-6.3 to -0.1 : 63 pixels
0 : 1 pixel
0.1 to 6.3 : 63 pixels

total : 127 pixels

[eew]

Of course, my fault, I am used to think about 0 as a interval, so I [0,1] is one pixel.