PSUD3

[JoeB]

I watched your old uchoob vid on the new bits of PSUD3. Looks like some very nice add ons. I do know that that involved almost a complete rebuild.

Is the any news ( WITHOUT being a pain ) on its release ?. Perhaps evena beta version for discussion ?.

Joe

[duncanamps]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for asking. There's a handful of things I need to fix:

• Docking model where the different "panes" can be left loose on the desktop or docked together as adjoining windows or set up as tabs. This was one of the big ticket items to come out of the original Beta test

• Chart performance. This is pretty good if you have a 1 pixel wide line, but grinds to a halt for thicker lines - no idea why but I've got the choice of trying to dig in and find out, or create my own charting component

• Printing. It doesn't yet

• Flatpak - I need to learn up on this as this, apparently, is the tool to distribute to Linux machines

• Multiple secondary windings. Is this a good thing or should it go in PSUD4? It's quite a big step but I don't want to to hold PSUD3 forever more. Tomorrow is another day...

I normally get time over the Christmas break so will go for broke to at least try and get another Beta out before the end of the year.

Regards,
Duncan

[JoeB]

I wasnt pushing you its just that even PSUD2 was a superb program that made designing a power supply a breeze.
I still have multiple pages of designs I have done in the past. One thing that is a really good idea is the multiple secondary windings on a transformer.
As you know this can radically change the loading on the windings and the core size. It will depend too, on wheather some of those secondaries are rectified or not. Also what type of rectification. Solid state rectifiers are pretty horrible on loading to begin with. Valves seem to be much better mostly with a power factor of one or near to. Solid state can vary quite considerably, and in a quick and dirty design I rate my windings at 50%. If that is generous it just results in a bit of extra power up my sleeve which makes either lower temperature operation, or less stray flux. I design and wind all my own ( except toroids ) so its easy for me to add laminations, or increase wire guage to cater for DC heaters for instance, which generally uses big electrolytics with their peak charging currents requiring larger cores and bigger wire.

As far as specifically compiling for Linux, I would hope most Linux users would have learned to install and run WINE, as it does almost everything that would be needed, and let CUPS do the printing. All your programs have run and printed perfectly well using WINE.

Flatpak is nice I suppose but reeks of windows installers. ( i.e. installers for people that cant compile from source code ) But I will leave that to you.
Its more than 25 years since I had a windows machine so I am not the person to ask on that point.

On that note, dont waste your whole christmas on writing code. You need a life too !!.

Joe

[tgerbic]

I would prefer an RPM but Flatpak would be ok. I don't mind compiling but am not sure how many are comfortable with that process. To some it seems really dangerous.

[JoeB]

For myself I can compile it myself. From Unix to linux for about 40 years.
When it happens!!! I am patient and can wait.

Best regards

Joe

[JoeB]

I have been thinking on what I said a few days ago, and just wondered if perhaps you publish the source code ( perhaps to some that "think " they can help ) and see what we ( your users ) can compile and build themselves. Dont lose sleep over it, but you may, or may not get some ideas from us.
As a besides, I recently converted a windowz user to Linux, and without doing anything myself, Debian fixed a printer that has never worked under windows.
A VERY big Minolta multi function machine with 5 toner jars, no less. It now finds all the paper trays ( MS couldnt ) auto rotates, and has found hundreds more fonts that were not available under MS.


Joe

[duncanamps]

Hi Joe,

Some of my projects are closed source and some are open source (you can see those at https://github.com/duncanamps).

Much depends on the target audience, typically the open source ones are aimed at programmers; people with known technical skill who will be able to understand and use the source code without issue. Where a closed source decision has been made, as with PSUD, it's where the user base is non-technical. Experience tells me the releasing code under these circumstances causes major issues.

Coming back to the Linux side of things as a whole, that in itself can bring challenges:

• Different processors running the OS (x86 / x64, ARM)
• Different distributions
• Different graphic / GUI libraries
• Different font selections
• Different installers

Figuring out all the possible combinations would make it impossible, even with an army of people, to satisfy every situation. So.... I'm looking to test PSUD against WINE, as this is an execution layer that runs under multiple environments. I only have to certify each Windows build on Win, then do it again on WINE running under Linux of some sort, and it should be able to cover off a wide variety of situations.

Regards,
Duncan

[jikson26]

Hi Duncan,

Many thanks for your efforts in the community. I've saved a lot of time taking advantage of your projects.

Is there any interest in creating a web based version of PSUD2/3? I'm also a software developer and would love to get involved.

[duncanamps]

Is there any interest in creating a web based version of PSUD2/3? I'm also a software developer and would love to get involved.

I did look at this, but PSUD is the most math-intensive piece of software I've ever written and it wouldn't take many users to put a heavy load on a web/cloud server. I've got the technology and the ability to do it, but have decided not to because of the potential resource requirements.

Regards,
Duncan