NI-DAQmx Tasks can frequently have dozens of channels, sometimes hundreds. Renaming each channel can prove tedious when the format needs to be more complex than rootname_#, indexed from zero.
This change will allow developers to batch rename channels in a more flexible format, saving task setup time.
This idea includes:
1. Using rootname as it is now, allowing for all channels to have a common base name
2. Creating wildcards for naming channels. Each channel would then have the base name, a changeable separator character if specified, and an incremented number or character(s) specified by the wildcard. Examples include:
a. Current_ = Current_001, Current_002, Current_003...
b. Temp [AA] = Temp AA, Temp AB, Temp AC, ..., Temp BA, etc.
c. _Reactor = 05_Reactor, 06_Reactor, 07_Reactor, etc.
A piece of feedback received from a regional seminar:
It would be great if MAX could tell you what different modules are used for (e.g. NI 9235 - strain gage module or NI 9213 - thermocouple module) or include information such as what is on the product page for the module. Of course, you could rename the modules as soon as they are detected to make it easier to identify but you would still need to go one by one matching up a number to the measurement type.
In simple, to have a way of downloading different versions of MAX from ni.com without having to download drivers.
This would be useful if problems with MAX arise whereby it needs repairing or even if a specific version of MAX is required.
For security reasons, many customers using Volume License Manager to administer licenses to client machines do not authorize users to download and install anything from the web. Therefore, if a critical patch is released, the client machines are unable to download this unless it is distributed by the administrator. It would be useful for the VLM administrator to be able to configure the Update Service such that all Users can run the Update Service but the service has been configured to point to an internal network share rather than an internet location outside the firewall. This way, the administrator could make critical updates and patches available for the client machines and the clients can be notified and install them.
Currently licenses use the sort key word within a server's license file to specify the priorotized check out of similar software products ( a preference to check out DIAdem professional over DIAdem Advanced for example when a user has permissions for both). With concurrent licenses, right clicking on a software product from a client's License Manager application and selecting the Do not Allow License Request from the context menu as shown below will also bring about this functionality.
Without a set preference, sometimes two licenses are checked out, and this is a known issue:
DIAdem is double-checked out from VLA when several versions are licensed
Do Not Allow License Request for Concurrent License
Sort Keyword Within a Server's License File
My suggestion is that we create a way within VLM to modify the server's *.lic file (by changing sort key word's value) to reflect software check out priority. Currently this change can be made by manually modifying the sort value in the server's *.lic file. This works since the server's license doesn't need to be resigned after said modification. However, it would be nice if this change could be made through the VLM user interface and the *.lic file would be modified behind the scenes.
Feel free to comment or Kudo!
Why don't we integrate PuTTY or some version of it into MAX? "Console out" is powerful troubleshooting tool for all NI RT targets and more because it tranfers vital information such as errors and IP address information regardless of whether you can find the device in MAX. It's especially useful for devices that don't have hardware dipswitches. It's a great tool, but is useless without a program like PuTTY. Hence, my suggestion remain to integrate PuTTY or some form of it into MAX.
Today we need to configure the hardware in MAX and in System Explorer.
Allow VS to import the hardware configuration from MAX and eliminate the DIO number of ports and port size manual definition.
I guessed the PXI2569 and PXI2570 configuration in a trial and fail matter till I found the number that did not cause an error during deploy.
Import all board I/O configuration and let the user remove what is unused later.
As I understand it now, with VLM, groups were introduced.
I could create a group of Developers that has two members and I could create a group of New Hires with 8 members. Then I could issue permissions to the ten licenses of LabVIEW that I purchased to each group.
When I add the LabVIEW licenses to the Developers Group I notice that only 2 of the 10 licenses are used for the members of the Developer group. Then I add the remaining licenses to the New Hires group.
The problem that I see with groups now is connected to what happens when more people are hired at the company.
If two more people are hired at the company, and all of the new hires are using LabVIEW licenses, then the Developers will see a message that all of the LabVIEW Licenses are checked out.
Could R&D make a way to lock the number of concurrent licenses in a group? For example, if we could lock the 2 concurrent licenses issued to the Developer group, then in the previous scenario when all ten of the new hires attempted to open and use LabVIEW, two of the licenses would be reserved for the Developers and the last two New Hire members to attempt to open LabVIEW would get a message that all licenses had been checked out.
I think this could be a very useful addition to the current functionality of VLM and that it could benefit many companies who utilize it! Feel free to post, comment, or kudo. Thanks!
I had recently a problem with Max : I got an error when viewing my NI hardware.
MAX was running very slowly ... like when its database is corrupted.
All board autotests were failed !
With the NI FRANCE support, we fixed the problem ! In fact one of the NI low level services was not running !
( NI device loader was not running )
We fixed the problem by changing the restart option of the windows service !
The problem was, that MAX wasn't working properly ... and was showing to me hardware errors !
But it fact there were no hardware problem, only a software issue !
It would be nice if MAX could check the working status of all its required components ( services ... ) !
A message at MAX startup saying "The NI device loader is not running !!! Max will not work properly" would have save us a lot of time !
I think that showing the problem at the launching of MAX is more user friendly that to let MAX hang and show a bad hardware configuration.
Thank you for your help.
Many times, I find myself wanting to compare different I/O traces side-by-side, but I can only have one instance of I/O Trace in memory and hense can only view one capture at a time. Would it be possible to view two different captures within one instance of I/O Trace? I believe a lot of people would appreciate either a split screen option or the ability to open another instance of the I/O Trace application in memory.
There should be an option in MAX to be able to show remote systems by hostname, OR by IP address.
When managing several targets it can be very hard to keep track of which target has which IP address and it is incredibly tedious to look through every target to determine it's individual IP address.
Posted this in Data Acquisition Ideas as well, but it seems like it would be implemented with something like MAX, so...
When dealing with various remotely deployed cRIO hardware configurations, it may be impossible to keep a sample configuration of every type of system we ever sell. Unfortunately, if upgrades or revisions are made to the base code in our system, remotely deploying to our customers becomes impossible unless we have their exact configuration on-hand for the programmers to compile. Remote connection to the hardware for this type of operation is also not typically possible.
To be able to simulate or emulate a full cRIO system (processor & hardware modules), then compile the RT code for deployment on that system as if it is physically connected to our development system would be ideal. This would allow images to be created, which can be sent to customers for local deployment at their facility. Dramatic decrease in "hardware library" requirements on the development end, reduction in "on-site upgrade" service trip costs to the customers. Plus, easier for OEMs like me to justify the move away from PLC types of hardware and towards cRIO, once you take away some of the potentially nightmarish continued support and update issues involved with basing systems on cRIO platforms.
Hello to all,
it what nice, if we rotate not only the components but also the complete circuit including the wires.
or we can reflect the schematic.
at the moment
I recently had a service request where a customer was unsure why 30 day evaluation licenses were not made available when using unmanaged concurrent name based licenses. I explained that this was expected behavior.
Then I generated a license file, used a test machine as a server, and my work PC as a client.
Witihin NI License Manager on the client machine, the software package I checked out showed as 1 of 2 licenses checked out.
However, on the admin side, there was no notification of the number of checked out licenses. The total was displayed as well as the Total Seats Granted. However, the total seats granted is unmanaged, so this number stays at 0 even once a license is checked out to a client machine. I believe that another column should be added on the server copy of Volume License Manager to display the number of licenses currently checked out as is displayed on the client (1 of 2 licenses checked out).
Server View While License is Checked Out and Server is Running
Client License Manager Screen Shot While unmanaged name based license of LabVIEW 2011 is Checked Out
This is a very small issue, albeit an annoying one:
When using <F2> to call a rename dialog in MAX, it would be very intuitive to have the focus on the name field, since this is ultimately the field of interest for the user.
Currently, the dialog has no focussed field and pressing <TAB> does not even move focus except to the <Abort> field.
So now, I do not only have to change from keyboard to mouse, but also, I have to mark the entire name in the field to change the name. As I tend to give meaningful names to my channels, this makes for a good many time-consuming "mouse/keyboard/move/click and back" journeys
If the <TAB> key would at least move focus, this would be equally helpful.
In Ultiboard it is possible to export a 3D IGES, but it is not possible to import these 3D IGES files in to Solid Edge or Solid Works. It would be a big improvement of Ultiboard if this was possible in the next update.
Simulated Devices in LabVIEW projects
Simulated Devices in TestStand Workspaces
Link to those ideas in next post.
For integration and station troubleshooting the Sessions, Aliases, Tasks et al would be organized by Project, Application or deployment in MAX and fault identification has all the "tools" any repair tech could want to isolate a failure.