LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Community Browser
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

Hey there. I'm working on a transparency vi which overlays 2 images (U32RGB and U8 Grayscale with User Palette). After I found out about the Resample Functionality, I thought the transparency Issue or its parts would be easy. But this was not the case. I'm missing following functionality:

Merging 2 Images or ROIs with a transparency factor
extracting the color image from a grayscale single image with user palette (my solution attached)
multiplying a color image with a floating constant  (my solution for the U32RGB Array attached) (integer values are not suited for small numbers)
subtracting a color image FROM a constant without creating an image from the constant / image inversion (does not work with my U32RGB images)

I've got my solution but i'm convinced it is slow.

Download All

I only mean that this should apply to the sub vi's that come with LabVIEW. I was putting together a vi that is execution time sensitive. I had a choice between the IMAQ Histogram and IMAQ Histograph. I could get the result i needed from wither one but I was forced to try each,  run a few times, and clock each one. There are many such "which of these two similar options is fastest" choices we make for every program and knowing which upfront would be very helpful.

As the title says.

 

double click on a *.rsl file should open the Vi Analyzer results window

 

We have a CI server that runs VI Analyzer and posts the rsl files as artifacts, downloading the rsl file to my code base works great to find and fix errors. The only thing missing is the double click.

The current error-case only allows two states, when the error-cluster is wired: "No error" or "Error".

 

My suggestion is, to allow any number of cases which depends on manually defined error-codes (see attached picture). The error-case must be enhanced so that error codes can be treated separately in individial cases.

 

Previously to handle a specific error code, first the code must be read from the error cluster and than be wired to the case. This is to be omitted.

 

Optimized_Error_Case.png

I very much like the formula parse and evaluate vi's. For me writing a formula is easier and I am making less mistakes writing formulas than wiring numeric nodes. Specially when the formula is taken from literature.
Unfortunately, the parsed formula is much slower than using standard numeric nodes. Browsing through the formula nodes, I notice that the formulas are parsed down to the same standard numeric nodes (add subtract etc.). Still the formula parsing method is much slower because of many case statements that have to be executed before arriving at the  level of the numeric building blocks.
I think from the status where the formula parsing blocks are now, it would be feasible to have the formula parsing blocks generate vi's using only numeric nodes so the formula parsing nodes will have the same performance as the standard labview mathematics. The best solution would be to include it in the building/compiling of the code.

 

Arjan

 

 

The idea is to change Equal? function in a way, that it will be configurable, and will have one input as function "Equal To 0?". Sometimes you need to evaluate number of loops execution in While Loop (or not just it), and when you put standard Equal? function, some of wires will be not aligned in a straight line (either which is connected to Index output, or which is connected to Loop Condition), and you need to move up/down one of terminals.

So, you can see it from the attached picture.

Idea.PNG

I'm currently trying to simulate figure two in the paper 'An Electronically Controllable Capacitance Multiplier with Temperature Compensation'.  Any assistance would be much appreciated!

 

 

In Diagram Disable Structure, if there is an option provides "Selector Terminal" that could help to control programmatically. This could be optional selection in RCM (Right Context Menu).

 

Connecting Enable/Disable as Constant/Control to Case Structure would not do all purpose as the functionally of Diagram Disable Structure Enable/Disable individual does.

 

Diagram Disable Structure have unique behaviour if this Selector Terminal is given as optional that will add even more vale to the same.

 

As programmer myself felt that why do this be controllable, because while developing big codes we use to much of diagram disable structure , when we are suppose to change to Enable or Disable, I has to search for around my code. If this has controllable option that help to do my work even more efficient specially while testing code. 

yrfj.png

 

Can NI give LabVIEW developers an option to use a straight line for plot legend rather than zig-zag lines? See attached illustration. Will be great if the legend customization can also include separating the legend lines and expanding them so that plot labels can be relocated on-top of those legend color lines.

 

Anthony Lukindo

 

 

 

Hiiiiiiiiiii......

 

I am not sure whether anyone had posted this requirement before, but I would like to have a Zoom In- Zoom Out functionality in LabVIEW.

 

Some times when code becomes too crowded its difficult to analyse which wire is going where.

It would be nice if we could write more information to the channels saved in a UFF file. Some information that is read in from a TDMS file is lost when using the VIs to write out a UFF file (universal format, ascii or binary).

For instance, I process an image and I get overlay results (even without knowing exactly the overlay objects drawn) and I want to copy this image with its overlay in a bigger image at a specified offset...

IMAQ ImageToImage 2 seems not to do the job...

Wouldn't it be nice to just check/ uncheck existing sub-VIs of parent classes in the Inheritance Dialog Box, since all of the sub-VIs in child classes have to have the same name anyway. Instead of manually add them one by one.

With only a few VIs and a few child classes the saved work is huge.

 

PS: I did not find a similar idea here, so bare with me if it already was put up. The AES guy at the UGM did not know about anything easier then copy and paste at the level of WinExplorer and later add the files to the project.

It would be very useful if we could have same QuickDrop PlugIn with the same shortcut depending of the selection object that we have made in "Block Diagram" or in "Front Panel".

 

For example:

- Imagine "Ctrl+C" short cut, this would be useful for lots of QuickDrops that comes to my mind.

  • Copying to clipboard a bundle by name text.
  • Copying to clipboard a unbundle by name text
  • Copying to clipboard a selected case.
  • etc....

 

It would be useful to have a configurable tool for generating swept values for RFSA/RFSG mainly.

 

This is actually present in Signal Express. You can insert and even nest the "sweep"-step here, but as far as I can see SigEx doesn´t have support for RFSA/RFSG.

So the next thing coming to my mind was to export the configured sweep as LabVIEW code from SigEx. Unfortunately the resulting Express VI cannot be converted into a regular subVI.

 

It would be very useful for debugging and prototyping to get this feature!

 

kind regards

 

Marco Brauner AES NIG Munich

Why doesn't LabVIEW Provide any Simulation for real time hardwares.... What i mean to say that Just as if we build some hardware circuits using microcontroller ... We can simulate the values in almost actual environment using some simulation software such as proteas.... I came up with this when i tried generating a PWM Signals as i ordered the Digital I/O card from LAbVIEW which did took time for shipping... 

Add "Calculate Statistics" Enum to "Write to Spreadsheet file"

 

<Bye row,  Bye Col, Bye table,  Bye both Row and Col...>

 

The staticistics are nice to know... and certainly can be calculated from the 1D or 2D data input to "Write to spreadsheet.vi"

 

We just need an enum to add the evaluation of the datapoints.

At the moment there are two wait functions in LabVIEW that I know of:

 

-wait (ms)

-wait until next ms multiple

 

I propose a third option, 'wait until ms timer value' which waits until the system timer reaches the specified value.

 

What does this gain us? Suppose we want a loop to execute on the average every n milliseconds. We use the existing 'wait next ms multiple' in the loop. What if we want n to be non integer? It may not make sense to pass a fractional number to a wait function that doesn't offer that resolution, but it's a reasonable wish to have a loop execute on the average every n milliseconds for non integer n. How can we achieve this? Add n to a count each time we loop, then each loop wait the whole part of this accumulated value and take this off the count. The result would be a loop which takes sometimes a little under, sometimes a little over the specified number of millis due to rounding, but averages to the non integer value requested. The problem is the required wait function- wait(ms) will not do it- it doesn't account for the time the code in the loop takes to execute. Wait next ms multiple won't do it- it's no good when the wait is varying - what we need is to wait until a fixed timer count.

 

Hence the request.

It would be helpful if the IMAQ Particle Analysis VI took as inputs:

 

Max Number of Particles

Maximum Analysis Time

 

It could then use these parameters to decide when to quit processesing the image and report back that it did not complete the operation via a boolean output or enumeration that indicates why it did not complete the processing.  

 

In an automated vision system used count defects it is possible that the sample under test has an enormous amount of defects.  In that case the user might want to call the sample grossly defective and they do not care if the exact number of defects (particles) are reported.  Likewise, if the automated system has a fixed time frame over which it needs to process a sample this input would guard against that time frame being exceeded.

 

Context Help.PNG

Controls.png

How about a plugin for doing vi analysis to check whether our vi follows the style rules of Labview?

Something like StyleCop or FxCop for C#.