Products > Test Equipment
Siglent SDS2000X Plus - Bugs / Missing Features / Feature Requests
Martin72:
This is also a wishlist, not a to do list. ;)
ebastler:
--- Quote from: Martin72 on November 20, 2023, 07:07:49 pm ---This is also a wishlist, not a to do list. ;)
--- End quote ---
Sure, but seeing Siglent grant some wishes would please me. (And others too, I guess.) ;)
Performa01:
I think I should clarify some things.
This thread has been started with the intention to have all bug reports and feature requests in one place, so far, so good. Most of the bugs have been fixed and quite some features added, sometimes even without notice in the version history. The scopes wouldn’t be as good as they are without the constructive feedback from competent users.
Other than some of the competition, Siglent has opted to cooperate with beta testers and consultants from the (also high end) industry quite a while ago. These folks build a team that not only reports bugs and requests features, but have also compiled long lists of requirements and corresponding feature requests long before an instrument was released in the western world. Even these folks have had to learn that not every single wish or recommendation would be accepted by the majority within the team, hence wouldn’t make it on said list. And then we had to learn that Siglent R&D always has the last (and most important) vote, as only they can decide what is feasible at all and how big the risk of certain modifications is.
For instance, I’ve fought long and hard to get four math channels on the SDS2104X Plus, it just wasn’t possible because of the lack of hardware resources. The same goes for the HW-supported acquisition modes ERES and Average, which had to be sacrificed because of the 10 bit mode – which has absolutely no speed penalty and most users will value it pretty quickly.
Our fellow forum member Martin72 has pestered me endlessly because of the above shortcomings, nevertheless I couldn’t change the facts. At least we’ve got the formula editor to mitigate the sparse number of math channels a little.
This thread contains many sensible requests and most of them have been or will be fulfilled, either because they happen to be similar to something that was already requested by the beta team, or someone was brave enough to report it to Siglent – every user could do this by themselves, by the way. On the other hand, there are also the users who happily request things without the bigger picture and without knowing much about the details of a modern DSO.
And sometimes we hear arguments like: “but the DS1054Z can do that!”, not taking into account that you can easily implement everything you like on a scope that only uses screen buffer data (some 1 kpts) for everything, whereas e.g. an SDS1000X-E has to deal with up to 14 Mpts for each operation (math, measurements…), hence requires orders of magnitude more processing power and memory space to accomplish the same thing – but also presents usable results in return.
Another classic: “We want some additional info on the screen, and there is some unused space somewhere in the info-bar, why not put it there?” this comes from people who have never seen a full fledged instrument (e.g. with MSO option), where every square centimeter of space is in use.
Nevertheless, thanks to such user complaints the UI of Siglent scopes provides an unrivaled amount of information, hence a clear picture about the setup, which makes screenshots almost self-explanatory. You need not guess about the sample rate, record length, input bandwidth, probe factor, coupling, input impedance – even the acquisition mode is clearly shown with the newest firmware. And never requested by anyone, but provided by Siglent right from the start, the 7-digit trigger frequency counter, which is permanently visible. I would never have a DSO without that feature.
To cut a long story short: we all, users, consultants and beta testers have to live with real world constraints, where limited (also human) resources is one of them. And there might be good reasons, why some wishes cannot be fulfilled. And even when a request is granted, it might have been assigned a low priority and take quite a while until it can be released. Or R&D faces difficulties and they have to discard all the work so far and start again with a new approach.
Whenever you buy a new instrument, you have to make your decision based on the current state of things, as it is documented in the data sheets and various demonstrations in the associated thread in this forum. You cannot say: “oh, I want 4 math channels and HW accelerated average acquisition and this scope doesn’t have it, but hey, there’s a ‘bug and feature’ thread, I’ll place my wishes there and expect it to be available with the next firmware update, which I’d like to receive within the next two months. If not, I’ll call Siglent a bad company!”
Martin72:
--- Quote ---Our fellow forum member Martin72 has pestered me endlessly because of the above shortcomings
--- End quote ---
Sorry... ;)
ebastler:
Thank you for the perspective, Performa01. To be clear, I certainly don't expect Siglent to grant every wish and implement every feature request; that would obviously be unreasonable.
More clarity would help to manage expectations -- e.g. your statement that four math channels just can't happen due to limited computational resources. I had suspected that, but had not yet seen a clear statement anywhere. More transparency regarding timelines would also be helpful in my opinion. I would strongly encourage Siglent to switch to a time-boxed development and release cycle for updates once an instrument is in "sustaining" mode: Set a release cadence upfront, say one feature release per year, then implement features incrementally until the drop-dead date for the test and release phase.
May I also say that the Siglent advocates here on the forum have set expectations pretty high. Siglent is touted as "the company which keeps developing their products and adding features throughout the product life cycle", and also as "the company which does not implement 'checkbox features' just to have them in the spec sheet, but does things properly". Seeing that the last major feature release for the SDS2000X+ happened two years ago, and apparently the next one will not happen soon, conflicts with those expectations. And seeing the very basic AWG in the same scope, and its lack of integration with the scope functionality, is not in line with the second claim.
I have nevertheless ordered the 2000X+, based on its current specs. It still seems to be the best match for my needs within the budget I have set for myself. But it was a painful decision due to some of the unexpected limitations, and I was hoping that the firmware update plans would make it a bit easier.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version