Well that is a revolting development (quote from Jackie Gleason days). I understand, but I just didn't want to try and figure it all out and then do all the math...and ultimately end up with errors, and the model fail. I know that 4Nec2 has several editors, but I though maybe they were just different data views and you had a choice which view to print or publish on the Internet.
Don't bother to do it manually, I might get to feeling better someday and take up the task myself.
Thanks for the tips on the math, I think I remember dealing with this before to a lesser degree on one of you previous 4Nec2 models you posted for us.
I have not used auto segmentation. I set my segments to manual, and typically make my models to maximize the segment to show within my limit of 500 segments per model. Typically this works out to be around <>3.5 segments per inch, or <>0.25 segments per foot.
I can set the models to auto and select conservative or minimum. Conservative saves segment over my manual idea, with a little reduction in gain. Minimum does not do well at all, and reduces gain that is excessive. The match on these three segment features is as follows for the antenna I just compared.
My segment idea for my NV4K with my idea for a physical gamma match included: bummer! The numbers below are way too different to suit me...just in changing the segment count for each wire.
VV4K model with matcher. The model show a very good pattern, but it fails on these changes to the segment handling.
SWR = 1.00
Conservative
SWR = 2.08
Minimum
SWR = 3.40
This suggest to me that something is problematic with my model...and I did not know it. I also saw substantial skewing of this antenna pattern. It looked great with my segment setting scheme, but the pattern was skewed when I switched from manual segments to automatic segments, and selecting both Eznec's idea for Conservative or Minimum.
I ran this same comparison using a CFHW model that produces the gain and match that science tells us, within reason, is correct. R=72.56, X= -0.02, SWR = 1.45. This model did not skew the pattern, and only made a minimum of change to the gain.
So, I will have to look into this further...it may be a sign of errors in my modeling or it could be reflecting the importance of getting the segment right, and/or the problem with doing nothing vs. using too few segments.
My manual speaks of segmentation and says it is a variable and each operator has to determine what works for himself. It also says this is what usually happens with different folks...that get an idea and use it routinely in their model making. It also warns of pitfalls in the process of assigning segments to any model.
DB, could you check this out with some of your models and see if you get different results from mine.
