PCI DIO-96

[seed-e-one]

We have some old LabView code (probably 5.1 or so) that uses the PCI DIO-96 module and a PCI-6031E module. The DIO module runs on the Legacy 7.4.4 with LabView 2012 but our old code does not configure the module correctly. Use of the PCI DIO-96 is far from transparent particularly for someone who did not write the original VIs. When I look for examples of this I get comments that are so out of date that the menu items suggested do not even exist.

Is there a handy example of how to configure and use the PCI DIO-96 in LabView 2012 in either DAQmx (where it does not seem to exist) or in Legacy 7.4.4 where it does? I find several VIs in the functions palette, DIO Config.vi, DIO Group Config.vi, DIO Mode Config.vi, and DIO Port Config.vi, for DIO configuration but their application to the PCI DIO-96 is far from obvious. The original code we have from years past does not appear to have any configuration VIs.

John Chapman

[Dennis_Knutson]

According to the readme for the latest DAQmx, the PCI DIO-96 is supported. If it only shows under traditional DAQ, you need to do a reset in order to switch drivers.

I'm not sure what sort of configuration help you need. All you can do is set a port to be input or output. That is done with the appropriate DAQmx Create Channel function.

[seed-e-one]

Things learned since the last exchange:

1. Within MAX both the PCI-DIO-96 and PCI-6031E devices are seen in DAQmx and Traditional NI-DAQ.

2. With Legacy code installed the subVIs called for by the old code are found but do not work correctly.

3. Within MAX the Traditional representation of the devices can be deleted but the DAQmx version cannot be deleted.

Questions: how can one be assured that the old code and the legacy sub-VIs are communicating with the correct drivers? Are the windows drivers the same? Is there some way to insure that the legacy subVIs and drivers are being chained together appropriately? Is the only assured mechanism to trash the legacy subVIs, delete the NI-DAQ traditional drivers, and rewrite the code for the DAQmx?

JWC

[Dennis_Knutson]

Simply saying something does not work is an inadequate description. You should be getting some sort of error and you should provide the code.

You'll get an error if the driver is not installed and your code is trying to use it.

Difficult to detect poor design. All functions should be linked by the error in/out connections.

Traditional DAQ is no longer supported and won't even install on a modern OS. There are few devices as simple as the DIO 96 and transitioning to DAQmx would be the best thing you could do.

[seed-e-one]

Knight of NI,

The error is "Error - 10001 occurred at DIO port config" which I have assumed is for the PCI-DIO-96 but that remains to be seen. There are 4 VIs in the code that reference the DIO-96 and 3 are pictured in the attachments. I could send the actual *.vi files if that is more useful. The code came from a contract programmer who left us little documentation. We completed testing of some 1200 custom interconnect boards but found too many boards failing and have now made an additional 50 spares which we would like to test. Sorry Files generated by LabView (.tif) will not send. I will try to send the .vi files tomorrow when at work.

For amusement I will tell you the sorted tale of this activity. The US built boards (350) tested with a good yield. The rest made in Israel were not up to specs and were not flow soldered well. The computer and tester were sent to the manufacturer to permit them to clean up the errors at the shop. The tester was broken there (the custom board, not the NI instruments) and was return to us at CERN. It was made to work again (we had two custom test boards) so we got the unit working. Before we finished the entire test facility was stolen from CERN. The University insurance bought us another computer and another NI set of PCI modules. Now we did have the code preserved but LabView has evolved far from the original and we still need to test the 50 spares. What a sorted tale!

JWC

[Dennis_Knutson]

Sorry, thats a traditional DAQ error which I haven't used in several years so I can't look up the explanation.

Do you 'sordid' tale?