Posted this in Data Acquisition Ideas as well, but it seems like it would be implemented with something like MAX, so...
When dealing with various remotely deployed cRIO hardware configurations, it may be impossible to keep a sample configuration of every type of system we ever sell. Unfortunately, if upgrades or revisions are made to the base code in our system, remotely deploying to our customers becomes impossible unless we have their exact configuration on-hand for the programmers to compile. Remote connection to the hardware for this type of operation is also not typically possible.
To be able to simulate or emulate a full cRIO system (processor & hardware modules), then compile the RT code for deployment on that system as if it is physically connected to our development system would be ideal. This would allow images to be created, which can be sent to customers for local deployment at their facility. Dramatic decrease in "hardware library" requirements on the development end, reduction in "on-site upgrade" service trip costs to the customers. Plus, easier for OEMs like me to justify the move away from PLC types of hardware and towards cRIO, once you take away some of the potentially nightmarish continued support and update issues involved with basing systems on cRIO platforms.
Suggestion: Define and store XNET sessions within MAX rather than (or perhaps in addition to) a labview project . Data Neighbourhood seems like a logical place. This would expand the scope of a session to a host machine from a project. Making executables to reference a predefined session would be simple and flexible.
The ability to create/import CAN messages is already there. Other integrations of CAN/XNET into MAX would be welcome, E.g., launch the database editor from the Tools menu.
NI-DAQmx Tasks can frequently have dozens of channels, sometimes hundreds. Renaming each channel can prove tedious when the format needs to be more complex than rootname_#, indexed from zero.
This change will allow developers to batch rename channels in a more flexible format, saving task setup time.
This idea includes:
1. Using rootname as it is now, allowing for all channels to have a common base name
2. Creating wildcards for naming channels. Each channel would then have the base name, a changeable separator character if specified, and an incremented number or character(s) specified by the wildcard. Examples include:
a. Current_ = Current_001, Current_002, Current_003...
b. Temp [AA] = Temp AA, Temp AB, Temp AC, ..., Temp BA, etc.
c. _Reactor = 05_Reactor, 06_Reactor, 07_Reactor, etc.
A piece of feedback received from a regional seminar:
It would be great if MAX could tell you what different modules are used for (e.g. NI 9235 - strain gage module or NI 9213 - thermocouple module) or include information such as what is on the product page for the module. Of course, you could rename the modules as soon as they are detected to make it easier to identify but you would still need to go one by one matching up a number to the measurement type.
Hello, I would like to suggest implementing software tools in which to objectively calcuiate audio/speech quality based on the industry standards (i.e. Perceptual Evaluation of Audio Quality (PEAQ), Telecommunication Objective Speech Quality Assessment (TOSQA) and Perceptual Speech Quality Measure (PSQM))
I love being able to simulate DAQ hardware and write the program before ever connecting the hardware to actual instruments, but the default waveform that is generated from a simulated device is not always a great representation of the expected signal of the actual hardware. Right now I have to program in a way to select between signals from the simulated DAQ device using DAQmx Read or a Simulated Signal express VI. It would be great if the Simulated Signal express VI was built into MAX so that the signal from each simulated DAQ device could be modified from Max. This would simplify the LabVIEW code needed and allow me to easily test the code.
As I understand it now, with VLM, groups were introduced.
I could create a group of Developers that has two members and I could create a group of New Hires with 8 members. Then I could issue permissions to the ten licenses of LabVIEW that I purchased to each group.
When I add the LabVIEW licenses to the Developers Group I notice that only 2 of the 10 licenses are used for the members of the Developer group. Then I add the remaining licenses to the New Hires group.
The problem that I see with groups now is connected to what happens when more people are hired at the company.
If two more people are hired at the company, and all of the new hires are using LabVIEW licenses, then the Developers will see a message that all of the LabVIEW Licenses are checked out.
Could R&D make a way to lock the number of concurrent licenses in a group? For example, if we could lock the 2 concurrent licenses issued to the Developer group, then in the previous scenario when all ten of the new hires attempted to open and use LabVIEW, two of the licenses would be reserved for the Developers and the last two New Hire members to attempt to open LabVIEW would get a message that all licenses had been checked out.
I think this could be a very useful addition to the current functionality of VLM and that it could benefit many companies who utilize it! Feel free to post, comment, or kudo. Thanks!
This is a very small issue, albeit an annoying one:
When using <F2> to call a rename dialog in MAX, it would be very intuitive to have the focus on the name field, since this is ultimately the field of interest for the user.
Currently, the dialog has no focussed field and pressing <TAB> does not even move focus except to the <Abort> field.
So now, I do not only have to change from keyboard to mouse, but also, I have to mark the entire name in the field to change the name. As I tend to give meaningful names to my channels, this makes for a good many time-consuming "mouse/keyboard/move/click and back" journeys
If the <TAB> key would at least move focus, this would be equally helpful.
Expanding the Remote Systems category in MAX or launching the NI Network Browser only shows devices in the same subnet that the used host PC is in. However networked devices (LabVIEW Real-Time systems or Ethernet CompactDAQ chassis) are often located on different subnets.
In order to keep the discovery time low, only one subnet should be selectable at any time.
The currently selected subnet (default: local subnet as today) should be indicated: "Currently showing devices in the [local|[1...255]] subnet. Click here to change"
Some area or button allows users to pick a different subnet and once the user populates the field, MAX or the NI Network Browser refreshes.
I recently had a service request where a customer was unsure why 30 day evaluation licenses were not made available when using unmanaged concurrent name based licenses. I explained that this was expected behavior.
Then I generated a license file, used a test machine as a server, and my work PC as a client.
Witihin NI License Manager on the client machine, the software package I checked out showed as 1 of 2 licenses checked out.
However, on the admin side, there was no notification of the number of checked out licenses. The total was displayed as well as the Total Seats Granted. However, the total seats granted is unmanaged, so this number stays at 0 even once a license is checked out to a client machine. I believe that another column should be added on the server copy of Volume License Manager to display the number of licenses currently checked out as is displayed on the client (1 of 2 licenses checked out).
Server View While License is Checked Out and Server is Running
Client License Manager Screen Shot While unmanaged name based license of LabVIEW 2011 is Checked Out
Title pretty much says it all. I can create them programmatically,why not with a configuration?
Workaround: create the channel programmatically and save it to the configuration.Very inconvenient.
<1% Use case? Perhaps.
I can display it in MAX and it shows the internal channel. It's not like it's hidden from anyone. Being able to select internal channels from a dropdown, just like a Channel Control in LabVIEW, would be entirely logical and consistent. Default behaviour could be external channels, with filter checkboxes just like the aforementioned control.
I wrote this idea after having spent a lot of time trying to understand a strange connection problem between MAX and NI-cDAQ 9188 ethernet chassis.
As a matter of fact I discovered that MAX uses the proxy settings made inside Internet Explorer (in Tools >> Internet options >> Connections >> LAN settings). If you set a proxy inside IE, MAX uses this proxy trying to connect to a NI cDAQ ethernet chassis.
If you set the same proxy inside Firefox (for example), MAX doesn't use this proxy settings.
For this reason you must tell the customer how to configure the proxy inside IE in order to be sure that MAx is able to connect to the NI cDAQ ethernet chassis. And if the customer has already set the IE proxy as requested for network connection, it could happen that he must change this settings, and this could be a problem.
I suggest that MAX (and other NI software) should have its own proxy settings (has Firefox has) so that it would be possible connecting to cDAQ ethernet chassis even with "strange" settings of IE proxy.