TheWaterboy
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
But shouldn't the .POS go from 70 to 100 once it goes true?
But shouldn't the .POS go from 70 to 100 once it goes true?
Is a FAL like a compute statement in a loop?
I'm sure it does happen, it starts at 0, rung goes true, we set the position to 70, iterates to the length, then goes back to 0 once complete. I believe it happens in 1 scan, which is probably why you don't see it in the trend.
I'm not as convinced, the section I am looking for (70-100) is static and the section before that (0-69) is moving around and the value I get is moving around so I know its not looking at the right part of the array.
I do have an array like that... any chance its version specific? I'm on 32.11 on a L16ER.
< grabs at straws >
If always 70 to 99, length set to 30 and use [x.POS + 70] as the index.
"The done bit is set when the instruction has operated on the last
element (.POS = .LEN)."
So to do all from 70 to 99, you need to do .pos=70, .len=100
I know, confusing right?
Also, if you start with .pos>=.len, it resets .pos to zero for you.
I regret ever using this instruction.