One thing I noticed when fixing a ITC vs. NI/SUTTER difference for U_RA_DS is the following:
1.
In PSQ_Ramp for ITC hardware as epochEnd for U_RA_DS DimSize(daqDataWave, ROWS) - 1 is used. For ITC this wave is always the next power of two greater than the DA channel wave.
As result epochEnd is in all cases beyond the size of the DA channel wave and the epoch gets adjusted after the acquisition through EP_AdaptEpochInfo to DimSize(DAChannel, ROWS). If this is really intended one could just use inf as epochEnd.
2.
For NI/SUTTER the end is DimSize(DAChannel, ROWS) - 1 which is in that sense inconsistent with ITC for the same epoch. With the current epoch definition DimSize(DAChannel, ROWS) would make sense, but break compatibility with old data.
1. In PSQ_Ramp for ITC hardware as epochEnd for U_RA_DS
DimSize(daqDataWave, ROWS) - 1is used. For ITC this wave is always the next power of two greater than the DA channel wave. As result epochEnd is in all cases beyond the size of the DA channel wave and the epoch gets adjusted after the acquisition through EP_AdaptEpochInfo toDimSize(DAChannel, ROWS). If this is really intended one could just useinfas epochEnd.2. For NI/SUTTER the end is
DimSize(DAChannel, ROWS) - 1which is in that sense inconsistent with ITC for the same epoch. With the current epoch definitionDimSize(DAChannel, ROWS)would make sense, but break compatibility with old data.Originally posted by @MichaelHuth in https://github.com/AllenInstitute/MIES/issues/2106#issuecomment-2110295696