In certain circumstances it would be helpful to see exactly what license file ties to each piece of activated software within NI License Manager. This would be an additional field in the right hand pane of License Manager as shown below.
The Update Service supposedly already checked in the background and found I needed updates.
Yet when I say “view updates” it makes me wait on a progress bar while it checks for updates.
And then when I click “Upgrades and Service Packs” it has to check AGAIN with another, extra-slow progress bar.
It should just do all the checking in the background, retrieve the full list of updates, and stop interrupting our work to wait on progress bars.
The current Device Driver Installer dialog is not obvious to use. First of all you have to figure out which drivers that you need for your products and then you would probably prefer to remove other unnecessary drivers. However, this is a tedious process with a lot of dependencies.
I have seen many people just installing everything (with its drawbacks) to be safe, eventhough they only needed the NI RIO driver.
I'd like to see a more user friendly dialog where drivers are automatically selected.
My suggestion is that the user instead filters out the drivers on a product level like this:
Let say you choose Modular Instruments. Then next page could let you filter on what type of instrument you have; Scopes, FlexRIO, DMMs, RF, Switching etc...
One of the buttons in the bottom would be something like "Add more products?" so you could iterate this process and finally all needed drivers would be filtered out.
What do you think?
/Pelle - NI Sweden
This is a bit of a feature request for the service request manager and/or as a stand-alone (my NI web) tool!
It is needed because the NI webpage makes it terribly hard to search for CAR#'s and a CAR# is only listed when solved, and only listed for the one version where it was resolved, making it nigh-on impossible to check lists of (new) CAR#s and get notified when they are resolved.
For example, I know this CAR exists, but I'm not sure if it has been resolved and the NI search just didn't find it, or if does not exist (user input error for example) or anything..
As far as how it relates to the service request manager, I would prefer a separate tool but that it also can link to the service request manager as outlined below:
A small but significant number of tickets either relate to, or create one or more CAR#'s (or at least mine seem to create a large amount of CAR's).
When a support tech adds / associates a ticket# with a CAR#, ideally this CAR# would be automatically added to the user's CAR Tracking list..
In addition it would be great if the back-end database tracked CAR#'s and offered up a list of these numbers in the webpage overview, for example next to the "status" column. Taking it a step further, it would be very nice if NI could make it simpler to check if a CAR has been resolved and if so, what version of LabVIEW it was resolved in/with. This information could be displayed in the same web page table, or a new page to itself. The "Status" column could then also be expanded with a green check-mark if (all) associated CAR#'s have been resolved..
Tracking CAR's and manually trying to search and check them off lists locally is labor intensive, especially since the web-page "search" does not do even a passable job when you enter CAR numbers.
It would be nice to add a tool like RAD (NI Replication And Deployement utility) directly into MAX.
But a RAD compatible with all Targets LabVIEW Runtimes.
... a kind ok target cloner, saver , restorer ...
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.
I was thinking for very large systems that use the same channel configuration for multiple channels on the system configuration can be very tedious. A work around for this is the API to build a system definition file but for those customer's with limited or no LabVIEW or .NET experience this isn't valid.
Since we can test the IO channels in MAX by creating tasks for all of our hardware I would like to add the ability to pull the configuration information from a task we've created in MAX and apply them to our channels in VeriStand. So in stead of setting MIN, MAX, input configuration, shunt resistor location and value for 100 channels I can configure it in one location (MAX) and apply the settings to all my Current Channels.
The other issue is if the channel doesn't support all the configurations from each page then we need to contact NI support to add functionality. Recently I worked with a LVDT sensor for a SCXI chassis. This allows customers to have an instant workaround rather than having for NI to allocate resources to update the page.
By adding MAX task to act as the template for our channels we can edit the parameters for all channels of the same setup from one location (MAX) vs each individual page. This also allows you to test individual channels instantly in MAX to make sure the configuration is valid without resolving other errors across the whole system definition.
Again this is more for deployments where they have 100s of channel similarly configured where configurating each channel is tedious but they are not unique.
the company I work for designs automotive infotainment products, and we used products from NI extensively in product validation an testing, including TestStand, Labview, DIAdem, FPGA, RT. etc...
In order to simplify license management, we chose to used the NI Volume License Manager (VLM). This provides centralized managment of licenses, including easy addition and removal of licenses, as well as license recovery from PCs no longer in service (broken or decomissioned by IT).
Since I am the technical lead for test system development, it falls to me to perform license capacity planning, request disconnected licenses, manage license groups, and all the other administrative things that go with license management. I am not, however, in the IT department, and since the VLM runs on a Virtual Machine inside the VM park, I always have to request license changes from our IT specialists.
I would very much appreciate it if there were a tool to remotely administer the VLM. This would allow the IT department to give me access to just the VLM to perform administrative duties there, sort of like the MMC in Microsoft Windows Server lets users administer remote servers.
I was asked to post this here instead of in the VLM forum:
Every time there is a new update of LabVIEW we typically hunt down the installation disks from ni.com as soon as they are available, and start the process of making volume license installers...(Or, if the update seems less exciting, we wait patiently for the shipped DVDs).
I wish it the whole provcess could be made smoother. Based on the volume license installers we have, the VLM could simply subscribe to newer versions.
When 2014 comes out, the package would automatically go out to all the VLMs out there, and new volume license installers would pop up on our local VLM as soon as the software was ready...OR, alternatively, the VLM could be hosted by NI instead (possibly supported by a local VLM for offline use), so that the process of creating new installers were really done by NI (or automatically by NI hardware that is) based on whatever setup we as VLM admins had chosen...and the source material from NI.
(This idea came about as a side note to this related discussion about LabVIEW cloud services).
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.
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!
attached is a MAX view from a typical process control application: There are dozens of cDAQ-modules there and hundreds of Global Channels.
The question is for instance: which cDAQ-modules have any free inputs? There is currently no easy answer to this without physically accessing the cabinet
Would it not be very easy to provide a tab in the right-hand part of my MAX-view where I can sort my Global channels based on the physical channel that they refer to ?
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.
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.
Hello NI guys,
I want to know when NI will develop a better software than MAX, each new release is more unstable than the previous one.
With the release 5.1.0f0, each MAX execution starts or stops by a crash. It's totaly unusable.
I want to change the name, it hangs !
I want to see the boards on the target, it hangs !
I don't know why it hangs, I can use a computer with only NI Products and nothing else, it will hang on each time.
I'M NOT ALONE IN THIS CASE !
Please hurry up and develop a new software to setup the target !!!!
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.
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.
Title pretty much says it all. I can create them programmatically,why not with a configuration?
Workaround: create the channel programmatically and save it to the configuration.Very inconvenient.
<1% Use case? Perhaps.
I can display it in MAX and it shows the internal channel. It's not like it's hidden from anyone. Being able to select internal channels from a dropdown, just like a Channel Control in LabVIEW, would be entirely logical and consistent. Default behaviour could be external channels, with filter checkboxes just like the aforementioned control.