I forgot how many decimal places can be stored in a higher precision value.

I was thinking of something along the line of removing any whole part of a floating number any way I can and using shift with the fractional parts of a number even if a loop had to be in it for high number of decimal places.

The real I am putting this post out is because I am not intimate with the effects and I wanted to maintain as much accuracy to the original floating point number.

Maybe my thoughts are way off.

We had some goood code before but I believe it might of used strings.

It would seem better to shift as many decimal places as can be shifted then chop off any whole number part to fit the decimal placed wanted for a result. In other words over reach your decimal places wanted then work out the chopping code of the whole numbers.

The last math part might be to multiple the whole number by 1 in decimal format such as 170 x .01 = 1.70 there by providing a result to 2 decimal places.

I was thinking of something along the line of removing any whole part of a floating number any way I can and using shift with the fractional parts of a number even if a loop had to be in it for high number of decimal places.

The real I am putting this post out is because I am not intimate with the effects and I wanted to maintain as much accuracy to the original floating point number.

Maybe my thoughts are way off.

We had some goood code before but I believe it might of used strings.

It would seem better to shift as many decimal places as can be shifted then chop off any whole number part to fit the decimal placed wanted for a result. In other words over reach your decimal places wanted then work out the chopping code of the whole numbers.

The last math part might be to multiple the whole number by 1 in decimal format such as 170 x .01 = 1.70 there by providing a result to 2 decimal places.

## Comment