From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.

We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.

LabVIEW Idea Exchange

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

The recently introduced Raspberry Pi is a 32 bit ARM based microcontroller board that is very popular. It would be great if we could programme it in LabVIEW. This product could leverage off the already available LabVIEW Embedded for ARM and the LabVIEW Microcontroller SDK (or other methods of getting LabVIEW to run on it).

 

The Raspberry Pi is a $35 (with Ethernet) credit card sized computer that is open hardware. The ARM chip is an Atmel ARM11 running at 700 MHz resulting in 875 MIPS of performance. By way of comparison, the current LabVIEW Embedded for ARM Tier 1 (out-of-the-box experience) boards have only 60 MIPS of processing power. So, about 15 times the processing power!

 

Wouldn’t it be great to programme the Raspberry Pi in LabVIEW?

I have used labview for a long time and avid user.  One issue I have been hitting lately is the "LabVIEW everywhere" slogan never really panned out, it has become LabVIEW everywhere NI allows it to be.  I am getting jealous of the Arduino and Rasberry Pi and hundreds of PICS and ARMs not avaliable to me (Yes I have the pro liscence but not embedded).  I wish Labview pro opened up the toolchain and started porting to many other platforms by default.  I am seeing jobs that labview is loosing ot to where it should be much more competetive like the embedded market. 

 

Essentially I am looking to see the Labview development environment easily work with toolchains for the most popular processors and also open up a simple standard to add targets to projects. 

 

Wouldnt it be nice to program a $25 ardunio dirrectly from labview (NO THIS IS NOT WHAT THE TOOLKIT IS DOING).  Add a Ardunio target file (maps the io memory to variables and throw down a loop, boolean shift register, a wait and a digital line variable, download to the micro and the blink led example is done.  Really open up the doors for LabVIEW everywhere.

 

 

I distribuute a lot of code, and sometimes it's difficult to tell my users what they need to install in order to run that code.  It would be nice if I (or a user) could run a built in LabVIEW utility that tells me what a given VI needs to run.

 

For example, do I need DAQmx, Mathscript, Robotics?

 

The Arduino Due is a 32 bit ARM based microcontroller board that is destined to be very popular. It would be great if we could programme it in LabVIEW. This product could leverage off the already available LabVIEW Embedded for ARM and the LabVIEW Microcontroller SDK.

 

The Arduino Due is currently in developer trials and is due out later this year. It is expected to be about $50 and is open hardware. The ARM chip is an Atmel SAM3X8E ARM Cortex M3 running at 84 MHz resulting in 100 MIPS of performance. By way of comparison, the current LabVIEW Embedded for ARM Tier 1 (out-of-the-box experience) boards have only 60 MIPS of processing power.

 

The Arduino brand has an enormous following and Google has selected the Arduino Due for their recently introduced (28 June 2012) Accessory Development Kit for Android mobile phones and tablets (the ADK2012).

 

(By the way, the currently-available LabVIEW Arduino toolkit does not target the Arduino (and couldn’t since the Arduino Uno uses only an 8 bit microcontroller). Instead there is fixed C code running on the Arduino to transfer peripheral information to the serial port and back. That is, none of the LabVIEW target code executes on the Arduino. This idea is for LabVIEW code developed on a desktop to be transferred and execute on the target Arduino Due.)

 

Wouldn’t it be great to programme the Arduino Due in LabVIEW?

 

 

 

The BeagleBoard xM is a 32 bit ARM based microcontroller board that is very popular. It would be great if we could programme it in LabVIEW. This product could leverage off the already available LabVIEW Embedded for ARM and the LabVIEW Microcontroller SDK (or other methods of getting LabVIEW to run on it).

 

The BeagleBoard xM is $149 and is open hardware. The BeagleBoard xM uses an ARM Cortex A8 running at 1,000 MHz resulting in 2,000 MIPS of performance. By way of comparison, the current LabVIEW Embedded for ARM Tier 1 (out-of-the-box experience) boards have only 60 MIPS of processing power. So, about 33 times the processing power!

 

Wouldn’t it be great to programme the BeagleBoard xM in LabVIEW?

This is something a few power users have asked me about. There's no Instrument Driver or VIPM Idea Exchange, so I thought I would post it here.


What if VIPM could manage Instrument Drivers from IDNet?
There are a few key benefits this would offer us...

  • download IDNet drivers directly from VIPM 
  • track which version of a driver you are using for different projects and revert when necessary 
  • wrap up ID dependencies in a VIPC file for use at a customer site
Install Other Version.png
Get Info.png 

taking ideas like that seen here  , I got this idea: 

 

 

When working with "Path Constant", which works with a path too long, we observe look like this:

path2editado.PNG

Would be much nicer if we could double-click the “Path Constant” for us to see something like this:

path3 editado.PNG

The idea is this.

path idea labview editado.PNG

Currently LabVIEW only has support for Mandriva, RedHat and SUSE Linux.  What's even worse, only 32-bit versions of those are supported.  Today, 64-bit linux installations are on huge raise, and Ubuntu is getting more and more popular.  LabVIEW Linux support should be expanded to include Ubuntu, and 64-bit versions are needed.

 

cheers,

Pekko

 

According to the increasing number of questions about this communication protocol, it would be time to rewrite the MODBUS library. I also suggest to add it to the NI device drivers installer.

 

This could be the place to list the expected modifications. Some comments and bugs are already listed in above linked page.

If I "create constant" from a path input, and start typing into the path, the control grows to the left, away from the function that accepts it as an input.

 

But for VISA and IVI, the name controls grow to the right as you type into them, covering up the icon of the function that accepts the input, along with the wire connecting them.  Let's make VISA and IVI behave better.

 

23852i492819D58059CA42

Hi!

Since National Instruments offers support for programming ARM microcontrollers, I think it would be great to start supporting programming very popular recently BeagleBone development board made by Texas Instruments. You can find more information about this device there: http://beagleboard.org/bone . Please kudo it 🙂

There are a plethora of timestamp formats used by various operating systems and applications. The 1588 internet time protocol itself lists several. Windows is different from various flavors of Linux, and Excel is very different from about all of them. Then there are the details of daylight savings time, leap years, etc. LabVIEW contains all the tools to convert from one of these formats to another, but getting it right can be difficult. I propose a simple primitive to do this conversion. It would need to be polymorphic to handle the different data types that timestamps can take. This should only handle numeric data types, such as the numeric Excel timestamp (a double) or a Linux timestamp (an integer). Text-based timestamps are already handled fairly well. Inputs would be timestamp, input format type, output format type, and error. Outputs would be resultant format and error.

I think it is very difficult to make a UI that runs on Windows and interacts with targets. Here are two suggestions to improve this:

 

1. We currently can't have \c\ format style in a file path control on windows. It would be nice to allow user to specify the OS syntax to use instead of assuming it should always be the local sytax.

2. The icing on the cake would be to have the File Path Control support a property node for an IP Address so when the user clicks on the browse button, it automatically browses the target (this is already an idea mentioned in the link below) and uses the syntax of the target. This becomes especially useful as we start to have targets that may have an alternative way of browsing files besides FTP. It would be a pain to figure out which SW is installed on the target and use the correct method to enumerate files/folders.

 

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Path-control-of-VI-under-real-time-target-should-browse-target-s/idi-p/1776212

 

These two features could be implemented by having an enum property node for the File Path Control called Syntax which include options like: Local, Various OSes (Windows, Linux, Mac, etc), or IP Address. If IP Address is specified, another property Node called IP Address will be used to determine what target's OS to use (if it's not specified or invalid, we default to Local).

Problem

Many times, the bulk of LabVIEW development happens on computers that will never interface with hardware. A dozen engineers may be collaborating on code that will ultimately run on a dedicated machine somewhere, that is connected. Yet, as things currently are, I have to install more than I need on my development machine to get access to API VIs. If I am working on my laptop on an application with DAQ, RF, Spectrum analyzer, etc. components, I have to choose to either download and install all of that, or deal with missing VIs and broken arrows. This seems needless, since my particular machine will never actually interface with the hardware.

 

Idea

I would like to have the option to install only the LabVIEW VIs and ignore the driver itself. In many, if not most cases, the LabVIEW API could be independent of driver version. It could install very quickly, since it would just be a set of essentially no-op VIs. I don't care that the VIs would do nothing. They would just be placeholders for my development purposes. This would allow me to have full API access to develop my code without having to carry around large driver installations that I will never actually use.

 Connecting to remote panels using LabVIEW is difficult if private networks, local private and external public IPs (under NAT), and firewalls, etc. are involved. It requires significant knowledge as well as external networking configurations (port forwarding, etc.), and possibly admin privileges to modify those.

 

There are plenty of companies that have found a way around all this. The prime example is chrome remote desktop, which seamlessly works even if target computers are in hidden locations on private networks, as long as each machine can access the internet with an outgoing UDP connection. The way I understand it, each computer registers with the Google server, which in turn patches the two outgoing connections together in a way that both will communicate directly afterwards. All traffic tunnels inside the plain Google chat protocol (udp based). Similar mechanisms have been developed for security systems (example) and many more.

 

Since the bulk of the traffic is directly between the endpoints, the traffic load on the external connection management server is very minimal. It simply keeps an updated list of active nodes and handles the patching if requested.

 

I envision a very similar mechanism where LabVIEW users can associate all their applications and distributed computers with a given user ID (e.g. ni profile), and, at all times be able to get a list of all currently running remote systems published under that user ID. If we want to connect to one of them, the connection server would patch things together without the need of any networking configuration. Optionally, users could publish any given panel under a public key, that can be distributed to allow public connections by any other LabVIEW user.

 

This is a very general idea. Details of the best implementation would need to be worked out. Thanks for voting!

 

Wouldn't it be great if National Instruments could support AUTOSAR SWC-development in LabView. The AUTOSAR standard with its module-based approach fits perfectly for LabView. I am convinced that your company could do a great job in implementing an easy-to-use environment for this emerging standard. I have worked with the tools from Vector and in my opinion everything there is very messy and illogical.

 

Best regards

Mats Olsson

Currently the lvsound2 library -- the Sound Input and Sound Output VIs supported by lvsound2.llb and lvsound2.dll -- updates the audio device list from the operating system only when first being loaded into memory. If you change the device list (e.g.., pair/unpair a Bluetooth headset) the device IDs will not reflect the new configuration until all the lvsound2-dependent VIs have been unloaded from memory. After adding or removing a device, the VIs will generate error 4803 ("The sound driver or card does not support the desired operation.") for device IDs related to the new/removed device,  even if the ID is still actually valid and points to something else. This is extraordinarily inconvenient for test systems focused on audio device testing, but understandably a niche issue, which may be why it hasn't been caught before now.

 

In the interim, the workaround is to dynamically call any of the VIs you're interested in to force them to load/unload as necessary. There are two appropriate solutions I can think of:

 

1) Update the Sound X VIs to implement the dynamic call workaround (preferably directly around lvsound2.dll calls so we can still borrow other VIs in the LLB).

2) Update the DLL to support on-the-fly changes.

 

The latter solution is ideal, particularly for performance. This reads both as a suggestion and a bug report so that anyone else who has this problem can find a public forum documenting the issue.

Hi Guys!

My idea is quite simple. What I would like to do is to use DAQmx Read and Write to accept a DVR as input so that I can read/write data directly to memory. This would be really appriciated if it could be applied on a TDMS read/write also (i know that there is a feature like this in TDMS now but it is only applicable on external dvrs).

 

 DVR.png

 

Pros: Everything

Cons: None

 

🙂


Sincerely,

 

Andreas

 

 

 

 

The LM3S9D96 Development Kit is a 32 bit ARM based microcontroller board that is popular and has several plug in boards. It would be great if we could programme it in LabVIEW. This product could leverage off the already available LabVIEW Embedded for ARM and the LabVIEW Microcontroller SDK.

 

The LM3S9D96 Development Kit costs $425 and is open hardware. The LM3S9D96 is an ARM Cortex M3 running at 80 MHz resulting in 96 MIPS of performance. By way of comparison, the current LabVIEW Embedded for ARM Tier 1 (out-of-the-box experience) boards have only 60 MIPS of processing power.

 

The LM3S9B96 Development Kit brochure (http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/spmt158e/spmt158e.pdf) already states, “The LM3S9B96 development board is also a useful development vehicle for systems programmed using tools such as Microsoft’s .NET Micro Framework and Embedded LabView from National Instruments”. So, the brochure already states that the board can be programmed using LabVIEW. Unfortunately, this is not so - not without a few months work. No one has done the Tier 2 to Tier 1 port and it would make the most sense for National Instruments to do this once for the benefit of all. Relatively little work to enable this interesting development board. And the marketing is already done!

 

Wouldn’t it be great to programme the LM3S9D96 Development Kit in LabVIEW?