Modular Data Acquisition
Distributed Measurement and Control
High-Performance Test
Automated Test System Development Software
Perspectives showcases how NI sees what’s next in the world of test and technology.
You can request repair, RMA, schedule calibration, or get technical support. A valid service agreement may be required.
Provides support for NI data acquisition and signal conditioning devices.
Provides support for Ethernet, GPIB, serial, USB, and other types of instruments.
Provides support for NI GPIB controllers and NI embedded controllers with GPIB ports.
From Saturday, Nov 23rd 7:00 PM CST - Sunday, Nov 24th 7:45 AM CST, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
After much discussion, we agreed to accept this feature request with the following clarification:
Today most of our screens support a 1920x1080 resolution.
And the actual space that I can basically use in the MHL is 530x315 pixels (roughly, surface of the MHL minus subdiagram comment).
Which means that my useful coding surface is only 30% of my screen resolution.
I guess the EHL and MHL can be designed wider so that we have more space for our custom code.
Could we have an option in there - Compact (default) or Full HD?
DSH Pragmatic Software Development Workshops (Fab, Steve, Brian and me)Release Automation Tools for LabVIEW (CI/CD integration with LabVIEW)HSE Discord Server (Discuss our free and commercial tools and services)DQMH® (Developer Experience that makes you smile )
I support this! I also believe the following option brings even more benefits: https://forums.ni.com/t5/DQMH-Consortium-Toolkits-Feature/SubVI-for-events-code-in-the-MHL/idi-p/432...
However, some of the UI code cannot be moved to a subVI, therefore the additional space is very much welcome.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
What do you need our team of experts to assist you with?
Thanks!
We'll be in touch soon!
After much discussion, we agreed to accept this feature request with the following clarification: