40600421 / open-hardware-monitor

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/open-hardware-monitor
0 stars 0 forks source link

Feature Request: TBan fan speed in % #2

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Using the navigator I found the reported fan speed is often a bit off and
erratical. Using the percentage seems better and more intuitive to me.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by furex.fu...@gmail.com on 19 Feb 2010 at 11:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The Open Hardware Monitor uses an improved formula to calculate the fan speed 
if the
fans are in analog mode (measured voltage is used instead of commanded). This 
leads
to acceptable fan speed results, at least for analog mode case. 

Adding an additional sensor for the fan speed percent for each channel could be 
a
solution. This requires a way to select sensors which should not be displayed in
order to avoid a cluttered GUI.

Original comment by moel.mich on 20 Feb 2010 at 8:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
That's a very good idea and one I was thinking about as well.

It's a bit overkill for the problem at hand. Adding a switch to the menu e.g.
TBanFanSpeedPerc, if true OHM shows the fan speed as % instead of RPM.

Original comment by furex.fu...@gmail.com on 21 Feb 2010 at 4:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The same problem occurs with ATI GPUs, where the fan speed can be read as RPM 
or as
percent. But on some hardware there is only the RPM signal and on other there 
is only
the percent signal. 

Another problem occurs when implementing the plotting of RPM graphs. If a user 
can
switch from RPM to percent and back, then these type of sensors have to record 
two
sets of values, which break the unified sensor approach implemented right now.

So I prefer the general solution with two different sensors. The cluttered GUI
problem will occur anyway sooner or later.

Original comment by moel.mich on 21 Feb 2010 at 4:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
This issue was closed by revision r147.

Original comment by moel.mich on 15 May 2010 at 2:16