The split feature is not the same as using multiple feed points. I can do multiples too, but I don't know the dynamics or the technique.
Eznec is slicker than that. On setting the source a window pops up and you just enter the wire #, where on the wire (as a %) you want the FP, the amplitude, phase, and type, and hit the enter key. To do the split, you select split in the type field of the window noted above, and the hit the enter key.
WaLa!!!! you have a FP port.
I would describe Eznec's source feature doing the same, envision where you want the feed point and set it.
I suspect, the way I sent you the earlier model with the wires description only, the source would not been included. You would have to add the source in 4Nec2. I think your 4Nec2 source coded is included in the wires description. I just think Eznec does it different as I've noted above.
That may be DB, but the red circle was showing to be on the base of the radiator between two sections of the trombone tuner. That is all I could see, and it just looked different that my connection. I don't doubt your clarification however and it make sense.
Well we both learned something I guess. You see an apple and I see an orange.
I just typed in the 5 errors on my Eznec spreadsheet, and I saw the same error reporting as you. I fixed the numbers back right, and all the errors and warnings went away. These to programs work the same in this regard, believe me. I work in the box until I feel comfortable out of the box. I'm not comfortable with my model skills just yet.
I also think the problem with my model (the one I posted) I had tapper in the trombone tuner and when I first thought to add the series type matcher to a model some time back...I figured I really need
the wire intersection points to be in the same exact location, for the antenna to be tunable. I also realized early on the Eznec does not like tapper, but I forgotttttttttt.
I always thought tapper was a function of NEC that forced the limitation. So, you could be right...NEC is not the controlling factor in these designs, and it's old Roy's fault.
I figure now you are talking about the Vector, right?
I tried doing the same thing after Martin left, but I failed in the gamma design somewhere in the process of modifying. I think the load needs better or different info, but I'm not sure exactly how or what was done. At the time I thought I had it all down pat. I still have more to try and grasp.
I don't fully understand any of this, but I think I understand the idea, and that is maybe how the optimizer is best used. I sure can't make such a claim. I guess that is why I'm still in the box.
I think I accused you of saying this before...all to find out much later it as GZ24 
as best I recall.
Well about gain, the model I original posted here was probably at 32' feet, again I had tapper in the trombone tuner, and the model was set of Average Earth. All those situation had an effect. IBME as I improved these failings in my models in the past (and this is not the only model like I'm describing here) the model improved...but I seldom fine that improvement as a + or > than...gain in the pattern.
But that is just me I think, and maybe it is backward and wrong headed.
Maybe after this you can help me in areas...I think now we can possibly work together and make headway...instead of playing bumper cars.
How say you?
