NI is not a C/C++ Editor-Debugger company. And, it will never be able to invest the man power needed to get there. NIs strengths are its Instrument UIs, its libraries, and it's visual application UI pieces. The LabWindows/CVI tool looks and feels like tools from the mid 90's (ie. like an old Borland C editor, but even less featured). It lacks the toolset found in VisualStudios, NetBeans, and Eclipse. And, it will always be behind.
The Verigy93k tester was like this several years ago. They wrote their own C/C++ editor, and it was at a mid 80's level. When a team was asked to rewrite the UI and bring it up to date, they made a novel choice (they recognized that they were not a UI platform / editor company), and they moved their product under Eclipse. Teradyne Flex did something similar a year or two later moving under Excel and Visual Studio. The thing is this, both companies realized that they could make more money focusing on their real strength. They added libraries and apis to work in the platforms framework, and changed/adapted the platform framework to work for them. ie. Teradynes Flex test tool does not say "Excel/Visual Studio", it says it is a Teradyne product based on MS Excel and VS. And, they have adapted the platform to their needs adding on the extra Windows/UIs/... to meet their needs. Same with the Verigy 93K.
In Teradynes case, they went back to the drawing board. So, we will ignore this (even with their success). In Verigys case, all their existing APIs worked in the new platform, and the user didn't need to change anything when they upgraded. But, suddenly the Editor and Debugger were up to date, with latest greatest features. It was a huge change overnight.
LabWindows really should make a shift to Eclipse. Keep your old legacy stuff at first, but working under Eclipse. Add in "Views" and "Tools" to supplement what Eclipse doesn't give you for free. And, remove unwanted or confusing plugins from the eclipse base. (This is what advantest did.) Leave in features that make Eclipse great, like error view, and the ability to have several "perspectives". And really focus the man power into making a product that will blow the others out of the water. NI has what it takes to make great Instrument editing/debugging windows in Eclipse. But, NI doesn't have the 1,000's of people and millions of man hours required to make an Editor/Debugger that will compare to the Eclipses/VisualStudios of the world. As a business they should focus on what will make them a differentiator, and reuse what is accepted and common.
Anyway. My 2 cents on how you could really improve LabWindows in a few short months. (Note: Verigy spent all of 9 months and 9 engineers on their C/C++ integration into eclipse... I know... I was there at the time.) If you took the LabWindows team, and a year or two... Imagine how much better of a job you could do.
The CVI runtime engine calls the Windows API function SetProcessDPIAware() that tells Windows that the application is DPI aware in Windows Vista and later. This seems to be forced upon all applications built with CVI, whether they are actually DPI aware or not. Most applications built in CVI using the default tools are not going to be DPI aware out of the box, and setting Windows to another DPI setting than what the programmer used to create the UI will cause many graphical glitches and possibly make the application unusable. The purpose of this request is to suggest to NI that the CVI Runtime Engine not call SetProcessDPIAware() so that the programmer can handle (or not handle) DPI scaling as they see fit. If the programmer does nothing, the application will then, by default, be scaled using Windows DPI Virtualization. This is not optimal, but it would leave the application usable and looking like how the programmer intended.
This is per this discussion here:
Easy integration of MS .NET libraries is a highlighted feature LabWindows/CVI. However, programmatically interacting with the GAC from LabWindows/CVI is currently challenging and more worthwhile to do in other environments. A set of functions to programmatically interact with the GAC from LabWindows/CVI would create a more seamless experience for developers.
This X just closes out of the tab that is on top.
Pretty much every other program with tabs has the X on the tab you’re closing out of. The current placement makes me hesitate every time, because it feels like you’re X-ing out of the entire code-viewing pane, not just the single file you want to close.
It’s also not consistent with the rest of the environment.
For example, in the pane on the bottom in the screenshot above, “Threads” and “Wa tch” look like two tabs, but clicking the X in that pane causes the entire pane to disappear rather than just closing the tab that is on top.
Right now it is possible to set the color, and since CVI 2013 also the line style, of all grid lines collectively.
I would like to distinguish between major grid lines and minor grid lines, e.g., draw major grid lines with dashed lines / light grey, and minor grid lines with dotted lines / dark grey.
In CVI 2013 the array display has changed (for the worse, in my opinion).
There are two minor inconveniences and one acute shortage I would like to see improved (hopefully prior to CVI2020 )
First, the right click context menu: If I want to see values of a numerical array, it offers a 'Graphical Array View' but no 'Array View', so one first has to chose 'View Variable Value' and then 'Array Display' - maybe one could save one step and already provide the 'Array Display' in the first case...?
Second, the new Array View table still is very slow, not extremely slow as prior to SP1 but still very slow...
Most importantly, at present it is impossible to debug large arrays, large meaning arrays with more than 10000 elements. The current implementation requires to select a slice of data - but this makes it impossible to check or compare say array indices 5, 10005, and 20005...
Of course I agree that there is no need to simultaneously see more than 10000 data values - but why not have a table with say 100 rows that can be turned over, e.g. displaying either elements 1-100, 101-200, ... this way one could access and inspect all array values...
If the thread that FileSelectPopup (and similar) is accessed is multithreaded, wacky things happen. The programmer can fix this by creating a new thread that is itself not multithreaded and pass information back to the current threrad. It would be helpful if the current functions were designed to default to create such a thread, return the value(s), and garbage collect removing the programmer from the loop.
In the case of MultiFileSelectPopup, it is not clear to me what would be the best practice given the unknown number of results. I guess one could assume a limit for the number of results that may change as the Windows API does.
Other possible solutions can include an added parameter (variable switch) or with a whole new function. I could see the default case as an effective solution for legacy code that is partially refactored for multithreaded performance.
At present, autoscaling works with respect to the full provided data set, i.e. if all data are shown on the graph.
If say the X axis is set to manual scaling such that only a subset of all data is plotted, autoscaling of the Y axis still considers all data even if they are not shown, see the discussion here.
Hence it is suggested to provide an additional auto scaling mode which considers only the data actually visible on the graph, say VAL_AUTOSCALE_VISIBLE_DATA, complementing the current VAL_AUTOSCALE which actually is a VAL_AUTOSCALE_ALL_DATA
I want to be able to do the following:
If you haven’t written any code in the callback already, you can just change the default events and re-generate (replace) the control callback.
However, if you have already written code for one event case, the only way I can find to add an event case is to do it manually. I go to Code>>Preferences>>Default Events or use the Operate tool to look for the constant name of the event that I am interested in, then I go back to my code and manually type out “case EVENT_CONSTANT_NAME: break;” with the name of the event and hope I remember it correctly and spell it right.
CVI is all about minimizing user errors and reducing development time by, you know, not making you type things out yourself, so I think this functionality would be a useful addition.
At present CVI is missing a serious report printing facility that permits to create flexible, professional and good looking reports.
A quick search in CVI forum shows that periodically somebody posts questions about reporting but available instruments at the moment are not satisfactory in my experience.
As far as I can tell, a good reporting instrument:
As a result, starting CVI one first has to locate all the files, where did the include file go...? If you happen to have some more tabs this is a waste of time.
Also, as Roberto mentioned, you can not easily use the short cut keys Ctrl-1 etc. because of the changing assignment.
So, in short, I am asking to improve this behavior and maintain the tab order of CVI workspace files, that is, re-arrange/re-open the tabs in the order they were when CVI was closed.
What is differnce between the forum and the knowledge base ?
As far as I see the forum is where users ask questions and answers are provided, often by NI representatives.
The Knowledge base appears also to be where questions are aksed have solutions provided.
This means that I could search the knowledge base when the same question/solution is in the forum and vise-versa. Can these be in some way combined with a better search function .
It would also be useful to remember search location based on user login - The amount of times I end up with a solution using LabView (I do not use and hopefully never will use Labview).
This issue is that old that we all forgot about it...
But this thread brought it back to my attention and I'd like to suggest two improvements:
Setting the width or the height of a control does not always succeed because there are limitations concerning the minimum and maximum size.
If a function fails it should return a warning. However, calling e.g. status = SetCtrlAttribute ( panel_handle, PANEL_RING, ATTR_WIDTH, 5 ) returns success (0) even though the width of the ring control will be much larger than 5 pixels. For checkboxes, the situation is even worse because checkboxes are drawn right aligned to a transparent rectangular frame. So calling status = SetCtrlAttribute ( panel_handle, PANEL_CHECKBOX, ATTR_WIDTH, 500 ) will result in a transparent drawing rectangle of width of 500 but with the checkbox size remaining at the default size. Since the checkbox is drawn right aligned to this transparent frame the checkbox eventually may disappear from the panel (setting the width to say 10000 will not draw anything).
Complement the documentation, the idea is given below:
Data Type: int
Description: The width of the control body in pixels.
Valid Range: 0 to 32767
Control Type Restrictions: Not valid for controls of type CTRL_VERTICAL_SPLITTER and CTRL_VERTICAL_SPLITTER_LS
For checkboxes, the minimum size is ... pixels, and the maximum size is ... pixels.
For ring controls, the minimum size is ... pixels.
LabWindows/CVI Compatibility: LabWindows/CVI 3.0 and later
Control Types: All
As discussed here, distributing the code of
int main ( int argc, char *argv  )
printf ( "%s", "Hello world" );
generated in CVI2013 results in a distribution kit of 74 MB minimum... Using the NI default settings results in 219 MB...
Yes, I do have TB drives, but I dislike bloated software.
In earlier versions of CVI source files needing compilation were marked in a different color, unfortunately this feature has been removed in CVI2013. The suggestion is to re-introduce this feature...
Changing an include file immediately shows affected source files
It's always clear how time-consuming it is pushing the RUN button, i.e. if there are files *and how many) to be compiled first
there has been the valuable suggestion of a "Picture and Text" button allowing more modern buttons.
For all those focusing on programming instead of UI design it would be also nice if CVI could provide more default buttons ready to use as some examples shown in the image below (taken from the NI community).
As they seem to be already available in LabVIEW it shouldn't be much effort for NI to adapt them to CVI... - hopefully
My CVI application started to generate linker errors immediately after I upgraded from CVI 2012 to CVI 2013. A number of other people have reported exactly the same problem, with the linker unable to resolve symbols found in IMAQdx or nivision.
This means that the final release of the new version of CVI cannot have been tested when using the image acquisition or image processing add-ons.
I suggest that, in future, new versions of all tools are subjected to automatic regression tests against the examples distributed by National Instruments before release. Because it obviously doesn't happen now.
because I had installed CVI2010 on a brand new Windows 7 machine, I was curios to find out about all the service processes running on the system.
It seems that there are quite a few NI services that start after log-on. Some of them seem superfluous, such as the Lookout Citadel service (no LabVIEW, no Lookout installed), but due to the lack of any information I did not bother trying to stop them
1) NI should critically review the services and only start the services that are absolutely needed.
2) Services that are optional might be selected by a checkbox during installation or from the Options / Environment setting
3) NI should provide some documentation / explanation of each service and why it is needed.
As of CVI2013 data tooltips and variable view do some kind of automatic rounding but based on 15 digits only... This prevents tracking numeric / rounding issues. Unfortunately, no possibility exists to show the full precision of doubles... Phrased more drastically one you cannot use CVI to debug numeric issues...
So I suggest to urgently add
Note: the LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange is not the appropriate forum to submit technical support questions.
The LabWindows/CVI R&D team is committed to reviewing every idea submitted via the LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange. However, we cannot guarantee the implementation of any LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange submission.