dneary@xxxxxxx (2004-01-16 at 2215.53 +0100): > There are some issues with the patch, though. I don't really get > what's happenning in the if (src == 1 && dest == 1) clause, and > I'm not sure completely reverting the old change is the way to > go. It is the flip point, and I found the sequence is buggy (100 -> 150 -> 200 -> 100, missing the 150 step when going back). It is special cos 1.0 == (1.0 / 1.0). You are sitting in the middle of the roof, so to speak. Once you are in the sequence, you can use the normal look up. > I would go for > 12.5% 18% 20% 25% 33% 50% 75% 100% 150% 200% 300% 400% 600% > > That gives you a smallish set of presets, with extra focus around > 100%, and outside that you let her fly with the newer algorithm. The sqrt algorithm seems to have problems with rounding, btw. I could do a different set, with a first 8 at +1 to last 8 at +32 (first group would be 8, not 16). Or even scaling the factors and playing with the other part of the fraction (I think that would fix the buggy case above). The adventage is that all would be handled with the same code (I am not happy with so many if and switch). GSR
