LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

timescale isnt shown on my graph

Solved!
Go to solution

Hi,

 

This may seem a very silly question but I've been stuck on this for the last 2 hours and I couldn't find an answer anywhere else on the forum, so here goes. The timestamp (dt) on my graph won't show. It only shows the integer numbers of samples and doesnt care about what my sampling frequency (dt) is. I've read somewhere that that could be because 'the time stamp is ignored' but that option is greyed out, so it's not applicable here.

I've added a picture of the code where the waveform is created (though it is pretty trivial). Any thoughts?

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 5
(2,286 Views)

Hi Adriaan,

 

dt isn't the "timestamp", it's the time interval between samples of your waveform. Timestamp is provided by "t0"...

 

Did you format the x axis to show "absolute timestamps"? Also there is a coercion dot at your graph terminal: where does it come from?

Best regards,
GerdW


using LV2016/2019/2021 on Win10/11+cRIO, TestStand2016/2019
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 5
(2,283 Views)

I have no idea where the coercion dot comes from (is there a way to check this?). Even if i put the x axis in absolute/relative time, the samples still seem to come at a rate of 1 sample/s. (the problem lies in my dt which for some reason isn't being used by my graph).

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 5
(2,274 Views)

Hi Adriaan,

 

attach the VI instead of a picture. (LV2011 preferred)

Best regards,
GerdW


using LV2016/2019/2021 on Win10/11+cRIO, TestStand2016/2019
0 Kudos
Message 4 of 5
(2,267 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author AdriaanS

Hi,

 

I just noticed that the coercion dot comes from my data stream. Attaching a normal array to it makes the dot dissapear and then the graph does take my dt into account. So the problem must lie with my bitstream.

 

EDIT : For some reason, wiring the normal array to the graph, removing it and then rewiring my bitstream to the graph solved my problem... I have no idea what happend but now the sampling frequency is taken into account.... (the coercion dot moved to my convolution block, now indicating a problem with my filter coefficients, but it does seem to work now).

0 Kudos
Message 5 of 5
(2,262 Views)