Hi Mike,

Thanks for posting on our forums! At the moment, the only way to define all combinations of a model as you’re describing (5 temperatures & 5 radii) would be to have 25 configuration in the Multi-Configuration Editor.

Just for some added context on your feedback, is the goal of having a matrix method of configuration more for the ease of defining your various combinations? I suppose the net effect of the matrix input method you’ve described will still generate 25 configurations. It just seems like your desire is for a simpler way to define those 25 configurations. I imagine it might also be a bit of extra work to have the matrix method work with the current implementation for multiple configurations, as more than 2 parameters may be changed between configurations (for instance, multiple distances between lenses/the image plane for zoom cameras). But, I still wanted to get some extra insight on what kinds of benefits you were thinking you’d receive from such an interface to pass back internally.

I am not sure if this would help, but if you were looking to obtain some specific data point on the different combinations of temperatures and radii (spot size, wavefront error, etc.), then you may find some utility with the 2D Universal Plot. You could just define a range of temperature and surface radius that modifies the value of a single configuration in your MCE, and you’d be able to display the criteria of interest and assess how it changes for each combination. Not quite the same as having the full 25 configurations, but I thought I’d mention it in any case.

Thanks again for your comments!

“At the moment, the only way to define all combinations of a model as you’re describing (5 temperatures & 5 radii) would be to have 25 configuration in the Multi-Configuration Editor.”

I realize that, that’s why I’m asking about n-D matrix versus n-vector.

Applications of matrix configurations are literally limitless.  Example: a zoom lens with 6 different focal length settings, 5 different object distances, 5 operating temperatures, and 5 different flight altitudes.  That’s 750 separate configuration entries in the current software.  How in the world would you, or I, or anyone scroll left or right through that many separate vector configurations and find anything?  However, represented in a matrix configuration, it’s simply a 4D matrix, easy to parse, easy to generate merit functions and tolerances, and most importantly, easy to navigate.

Could a front end be provided by Zemax that “matricizes” configurations, while leaving the vector structure intact?

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks a lot for your added details. I do see the benefit that a matrix interface would bring for the setups you’ve discussed. I have submitted this information and feedback to our Product Team for their review, but I would say that there isn’t a plan as of now regarding that interface.

Currently, I imagine the best way to get at that kind of interface would be something programmed by the user -- for instance, automating the creation of the array of configurations with the ZPL / ZOS-API, probably also adding in some comment identifier through that automation in the Multi-Config Editor with something like a coordinate position in the n-dimension matrix. That way, you could reference a configuration number in OpticStudio to the position in the matrix, making it easier to define merit functions with specific configurations in mind, etc.

Thanks again for your feedback, and let us know if you have any more questions here!