LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Post an idea

We are getting into trouble with all these run-time engine updates! Every time a new release or service pack come out we have to create a new installer with the new run-time engine and send it out onto all our customer's machines. It is not convenient to develop in 20 different versions of Labview and we like to keep our executables and updates recent.

Our instruments run on XPe with very little extra room for an additional RTE every 6 months. Asking the customer to uninstall old RTEs is painful as they are not supposed to go that deep inot our XPe build.

I would like to see a modularized run-time engine where we don't need to update the whole thing every release. I know with .NET updates are only necessary in 3-5 year increments. That would be much more acceptable IMHO

On a Mixed Signal Graph with two plot areas, dragging the splitter that is located between the two plot areas changes the absolute height of the top plot area while keeping the height of the bottom plot area constant. So if the splitter is dragged down to increase the top plot area height, the bottom plot area scrolls down off the graph and a vertical scrollbar appears. I wish to keep the total sum height of all the plots constant and instead have the relative ratio of the two plot areas change when the splitter is dragged, i.e. the scrollbar would not appear and the bottom of the lower plot area would remain fixed at the bottom of the graph. This behavior would be general for multiple plots.

The Lego NXT software release (not toolkit) is a wonderful interactive environment, that should be provided as an add-on application

on its own, call it "block application builder". I see many useful applications in a variety of different industries where businesses wish to extend to their customers interactive and intuitive interface that they can program in their desired configuration of the product's behavior according to their own use cases.

That means we need an environment where we can prepackage blocks that is functionally specific to their applications, with ability to sequence them, run them in parallel, add conditional runs, and iterative loops. The blocks themselves could be computational in nature, or additionally provide user interface popups for interrogating the user, and have access to the full range of Labview functionality. Each block properties settings can appear as front panel settings for user to customize the behavior of that block. This is exactly how the

Log mindstorm software was configured, except we ask that you extend the availability of that functionality for the general users to develop their own intuitive applications using the same environment framework design. This application can target building the customer created sequence of operations as a windows .exe or .dll. We also would like to customize the menus in the application. In other words, make the Lego mindstorm application a generic template for us to develop our own applications with similar intuitive framework.

View All (2)

I would like to see a case statement that would work like a switch statement in C. You could wire a cluster of information to the input that has all the data of interest in it, such as the values of A, B, C, and D. Each page of the case statement would have a complex logic statement that defined what it handled, such as "A<3 and B>4". If this was false, it would drop through to the next case. If none of the cases were true, it would drop down to the default case which would always be last.

Another possibility instead of a cluster would be using one input for each variable, just like the formula node uses. You could enter a name for each input that would be used in the case statements.

This would have saved me a bunch of time in a recent program, where there were three possible values for A and three for B, as well as C and D. The cases ended up being nested four deep, which is something of an editing nightmare. The ability to do multiple comparisons within a single case statement would have been wonderful.

It might be a little confusing to keep track of the order/priority of the cases. We might need some sort of tool for viewing the whole list of cases and editing each case, sort of like editing the list of values for an enum.

This idea was inspired by JeanPierre's request for an if else statement.

Bruce

Message Edited by Bruce Ammons on 07-30-2009 10:42 PM

View All (2)

If a Facade VI of an XControl registers for some dynamic events (whatever the source), a firing of one of these Events will NOT trigger actual activity (Facade VI activity) within the XControl.

If we register for a static Event (Mouse move on the FP for example) we DO get a trigger for the XControl (Facade VI becomes active).

The unusual situation rises that the Danymic events are registered but not executed UNTIL a static Event is called, after which all of the dynamic events are also dealt with.

Please make it possible for Dynamically registered Events within an XControl to "trigger" the XControl just as static events do.

Shane.

If you do a dynamic call from a built application and it fails because the VI in question depends on a VI that it is unable to locate when called in a built application environment - the only way to figure out what went wrong is to rewrite your app so that it opens the front panel of the VI, and then click on its broken run-button...There should be a way to get that error description without having to do anything with the application.

The real challegne however comes when you run into the same problem on a real-time target. There you can not open the front panel...and basically have to search in the dark to find a solution.

Feedback to the programmer's machine would be nice, but it should not only work when you have LabVIEW running. It should be possible to e.g. put a switch in an INI file...and then get a text log that describes, in full detail, what goes wrong with the dynamic calls.

I like using Linux whenever I can, particularly when running large software like LabVIEW, since it tends to crawl on my XP systems. I was happy to realize that LabVIEW works on Linux, but soon after I was disappointed by the lack of usefulness of it when interfacing with hardware. I need to use the RealTime module to interface with my RealTime Compact-RIO. I also need Linux support for the FPGA module, as I need to program the FPGA attached to my cRIO. I'm sure I am not the only person who would like the ability to do this.

Without support for any of the hardware or LabVIEW modules I need, the Linux version of LabVIEW is entirely useless to me, and XP as an OS simply cannot perform up to par for me.

View All (1)

Hello everybody,

(as suggested I will separate my idea Expand the functionality of Event structures into four seperate ideas to allow giving kudos separately.)

Make it possible to add conditions to events, e.g. only allow event foo, if condition bar is True. I'm not sure, how this should look like. Some static conditions could be "key pressed == a" coupled with "key down" event. Conditions could also be coupled to controls via registering the control reference like dynamic events. If my idea Expand Event structure functionality: Register new types of references is realized, a condition could also be something like "tcp/ip connection is offline". If a condition is not fullfilled, than either nothing happens or there is a leftside node, which indicates the status of the condition. This should be configurable.

Regards,

Marc

View All (1)

View All (8)

We use Queued Message Stage Machines a lot and often send messages through API calls. In a state machine I prefer using enums to determine the state and in the QMSM that would be useful too because sometimes a typo in a message in an API call stops it from working.

However, the Message Queue functions accept string only.

Even if we make changes to the message cluster or make the VI polymorphic but we would then need to do it every time we are setting up a new machine with LabVIEW. Would this be useful for anybody else?

I would like to watch the series of videos from 2012 about learning Advanced Architecture. I would like to follow industry standards to ensure that I am building an architecture that will be understood by developers.

I did a bit of research and somehow I managed to unlock the course as a student. I went back to finish the course today and it switched to "you are not entitled to training courses". I mean fair, but I feel pretty entitled to steer people away from LabVIEW if they come to me with interest in it...

I'm not understanding how this model can possibly make more money than having more LabVIEW developers. Easy access to training = more developers = more hardware purchases and certification puurchases right? Am I missing something or is this model as bad for share holders.

View All (1)

What do you need our team of experts to assist you with?

Request a quote Find the right product Place an order Get support on a product

How can we help?

Please enter your information below and we'll be intouch soon.

This field is required

Preferred communication method

Email Phone call

What do you need our team of experts to assist you with?

Request a quote Find the right product Place an order Get support on a product

LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Too Many Updates to Run-Time Engine!

Mixed Signal Graph multiple plot area splitter change relative plot areas not overall

"block application builder" toolkit

Need Labview plug n play drivers in OOP to realize the IVI dream

Equivalent of Switch statement in C

XControls should be triggerable via Dynamically-registered Events

Detailed logging to file of errors in dynamic calls

Annotation Font and Style property

Allow editing VI while running and in pause

Linux Support for RealTime RIO Devices

Replace the default text at events structures

Expand Event structure functionality: conditional events

Easier Access to terminal pane connectors

Resetting "First call?

Add mqtt client to LabVIEW

Specify "friends" of community-scoped VIs on a per-VI basis

Enqueue Enum Message

adding more intelligence to File handling functions

Learning industry standards should be free

string input for hash function