LabVIEW Home Edition???

[RTSLVU]

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:
Compare the requirements of an development system vurses the runtime

---

You need to be careful, for example the listed Pentium III does not support SSE2 and thus requires a special build flag to even run executables of newer LabVIEW versions. 

---

Yes, I have ran into that already here in our lab we have one old computer that is a PIII.

[CMal]

---

@altenbach wrote:

Instead of the application builder, it would be nice to include RT and FPGA for "home hardware" similar to the myRIO, for example. Embedded distributed computing is the future (and present!). Instead of buiding an executable you just deploy it to a RT target.

---

I would argue that Application Builder becomes more of a necessity once you're using RT.  Most of the time when I'm doing something wtih an RT target, I need to create a startup application so I don't have to redeploy from the dev environment every time it's powered on.  Application Builder is required for this.

[nathand]

---

@CMal wrote:

I would argue that Application Builder becomes more of a necessity once you're using RT.  Most of the time when I'm doing something wtih an RT target, I need to create a startup application so I don't have to redeploy from the dev environment every time it's powered on.  Application Builder is required for this.

---

A bit off-topic, but the documentation suggests this isn't true: Configuring Startup VIs on LabVIEW Real-Time Targets with a Source Distribution I've never actually needed to use a Startup VI, though, so I've never tried this.

I would find a Home Edition useful without the application builder. I'm unfortunately making only limited use of LabVIEW in my current role, so we're not upgrading to the latest version, but I'd like to keep my skills current and continue to contribute to the forum without needing to continually ask people save for an earlier version if they'd like me to look at their VIs.

[Kristoff2]

Digilent just posted some new pictures on their flickr account...

-Sam K

[altenbach]

Hmmm... what's that hardware??? 😮

Looks like this one 😄

[Kristoff2]

The chipKIT WF32, an arduino compatible board with a pretty beefy PIC32 microcontroller and Wifi Radio.  It will be part of one of the Digilent bundles using the free and open source LINX toolkit to 'talk to' the chipkit via USB or WIFI.

-Sam K

[altenbach]

Yes, found it. Initially I was searching for WE32 (the F is obstructed and I guessed wrong ;))

[Hooovahh]

---

@Kristoff2 wrote:

The chipKIT WF32, an arduino compatible board with a pretty beefy PIC32 microcontroller and Wifi Radio. 

---

Very neat.  Value-wise I haven't seen anything that comes close to the Teensy.  The 3.1 is $20, it doesn't have built in wifi or SD card, but those can be added for about $5 each.  Runs faster, has a real analog out, and CAN bus.  It isn't shield compatible, but is fricken tiny, the size of a large DIP IC.  And if you want a cheaper version there is the LC for $12 that runs a little slower with no CAN and a few other features removed.  I might develop on a larger micro for convience, but when I'm ready to fit it into a small project box I usually put a teensy in it.  

[Kristoff2]

The Teensy boards are supported in LINX and since they run the USB stack on the micro itself rather than using an FTDI they are typically faster with LINX (the FTDI chip is usually the bottle neck with other boards).

-Sam K

[JÞB]

---

@Kristoff2 wrote:

The Teensy boards are supported in LINX and since they run the USB stack on the micro itself rather than using an FTDI they are typically faster with LINX (the FTDI chip is usually the bottle neck with other boards).

-Sam K

---

Adjust the FTDI latencey timers to meet your packet size

Spoiler

Spoiler unintended- why did the smiley icon change color?