A topic that is locked under this section, and #1 in google, is misleading

I'm working with the PID library, and I googled "arduino pid manual" to understand how to use it, and this topic appeared as #1: Arduino PID in Manual Mode?

That topic mostly ended with this apparent conclusion from post #8

In MANUAL mode, you can call compute() whenever you like, and the time-keeping is then entirely up to you, The PID will neither know nor care whether you are calling at regular intervals. That's what MANUAL mode is for.

And that is just not true (at least with the current version of the library) if in MANUAL mode then compute() will just return false immediately

See the code for yourself:

bool PID::Compute()
{
   if(!inAuto) return false;

in MANUAL mode the function will not compute the PID, in fact the PID is basically OFF.

I just wanted to make a comment in the same thread and clarify the misconception, but there's no way to give any kind of feedback in that topic, so I had to create this topic :( , which it's not right, but there is no other way.

Thanks for sharing the knowledge. That thread does not appear to be locked to me. I checked another thread that is locked (which is very rare on this forum) and it has no reply box but the PID thread does have a reply box.

Are you talking about the message above the reply box:

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days. Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

If you have something relevant to add to the thread then it's fine to post to it, no matter how long it's been since the last post.

I just did a test post on that thread; it isn't locked. You could ask a moderator to merge threads.

PID is a very simple algorithm, write your own. Then you don’t need to complain about other peoples’ efforts.

//=======1=========2=========3=========4=========5=========6                main
//
int main(void)
{
    Kp = 1.2;
    Ki = 0.17;
    Kd = 0.1;
    noise = .04;
    setpoint = 100.0;
    
    for (dt = 0.1; dt <= 10.0; (dt += 0.1))
    {
        update_pv();
        pid_control();
        _delay_ms(30);
    }
}
//=======1=========2=========3=========4=========5=========6           update_pv
//
void update_pv()
{
    process_value = process_value + (output * 0.2) - (process_value * 0.1) + noise;
}
//=======1=========2=========3=========4=========5=========6         pid_control
//
void pid_control()
{
    error = (setpoint - process_value);
    integral = (integral + (error * dt));
    derivative = ((error - pre_error) / dt);
    output = (Kp * error) + (Ki * integral) + (Kd * derivative);
    pre_error = error;
}

@madacol, although the Thread in the link in your Original Post does not seem to be locked it is very old and it would make more sense to start your own Thread with your own questions. By all means include in it a link to the older Thread is that seems relevant.

And I have a lot of sympathy for the view in Reply #3

...R

Change your coefficients to get the response you want:

PID:46
1   0.040
2   44.398
3   49.625
4   57.676
5   63.511
6   68.152
7   71.943
8   75.159
9   77.985
10  80.542
11  82.903
12  85.108
13  87.178
14  89.115
15  90.916
16  92.572
17  94.072
18  95.408
19  96.573
20  97.566
21  98.390
22  99.050
23  99.559
23  99.931
24  100.183
25  100.335
26  100.407
27  100.417
28  100.385
29  100.326
30  100.254
31  100.180
32  100.111
33  100.053
34  100.009
35  99.979
36  99.961
37  99.954
38  99.956
39  99.962
40  99.972
41  99.982
42  99.991
43  99.999
44  100.004
45  100.007
46  100.007
47  100.007
48  100.005
49  100.003
50  100.002
51  100.000
52  99.999
53  99.999
54  99.999
55  99.999
56  99.999
57  99.1000
58  99.1000
59  100.000
60  100.000
61  100.000
62  100.000
63  100.000
64  100.000
65  99.1000
66  99.1000
67  99.1000
68  99.1000
69  99.1000
70  99.1000
71  99.1000
72  100.000
73  100.000
74  100.000
75  100.000
76  100.000
77  100.000
78  99.1000
79  99.1000
80  99.1000
81  99.1000
82  100.000
83  100.000
84  100.000
85  100.000
86  100.000
87  100.000
88  99.1000
89  99.1000
90  99.1000
91  99.1000
92  100.000
94  100.000
95  100.000
96  100.000
97  100.000
98  100.000
99  99.1000

I'm sorry, I was wrong, I'm checking again and indeed the topic isn't locked, I was pretty sure the reply-box at the bottom wasn't showing, maybe it was something to do about my account being recently created.

I'm really sorry for the trouble :(