LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Community Browser
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

I would like to include arguments for any/all shortcuts from the installer. Currently you can build a labview installer to put shortcuts on desktop and to the "Program Files" menu. But there is no option to include arguments. See attached image of how it would look in labview.

 

InstallerShortcutArguments.png

 

This would allow for the installer application to include file path arguments into any executable. Example: You want to include a tftp server application for the installer and embed the tftp path in the shortcut.

 

It could also be usefull to run the same labview app with many startup arguments. Like if you have a debug mode and normal mode. If you want to include both options on the desktop you could use a -debug as the argument. And include it in the shortcut from the installer. Both shortcuts would point to <application> but one would also say "<application> -debug"

 

Thanks.

 

-Corey

Provide an option to display a QR (2-D) code in the product activation dialog.  The QR code should contain a web address that would return the activation codes for all selected products.  For those of us stuck out in a lab or factory with only our smart phones this would provide a slick, foolproof way to enter all of the data needed.  It would save us from either making a round trip back to civilization (with a pad full of info) or getting carpal-tunnel trying to type all that stuff in on a little soft keyboard (multiple times for multiple activations = hand cramp).  We would still have to type the resulting activation codes into the LabVIEW activation screen but that's a lot easier than all the rest.

 

Idea details:

1) Provide a http link as a QR code 

ExampleNIActivateQRcode.png

2) Have the target web page auto-generate the activation codes and display them (preferably in a mobile browser friendly format)

3) As an alternative, let the user upload a picture with the QR code to the NI activation web site for the same result (works for anyone with a camera not just smartphone users -- this would also let you show off IMAQ.)

4) Profit

 

(And, once you have the QR-code generation code available, add a VI for it to LabVIEW -- see http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Generate-Barcodes-in-LabVIEW/idi-p/1283912)

 

Make it easier to find the right product in the uninstaller

If you install a lot of National Instruments developer tools the uninstaller becomes very crowded. You can have 50-100 components, often with similar names and varying name structure. Finding the component you want to uninstall/modify/repair can be difficult. 

 

The fact that things a split into so many separate components is practical, but the components should be organized better:

They could be:

  • logically grouped
  • have descriptions
  • there could be a search/filter function available (that accepts wildcards)

Allow us to specify a new source location

If I want to repair or modify an installation it might turn out that the original source for the installation is gone, or I have a new (identical/compatible) source that I would like to use instead. It would be nice if the uninstaller handled this, instead of insisting on the original. 

 

I suggest that NI clearly mark those functions in IMAQ that require a run-time license.  Perhaps color their icons pink or some noticeable color.  There is a lot of misinformation in NI technical support regarding this issue.  I wasted a lot of time developing an IMAQ program and found out later that it required a run-time license that my client did not want to buy.  So, I had to rework the code to eliminate those functions that require a run-time license.

 

admin note: Invalid link has been removed.

 

When you open a VI which includes add-on libraries and/or toolkits, LabVIEW will detect them and suggest installing for users!

 

This will be helpful if the user does not know much about NI software.

 

Install Suggestion.png

 

 

Installer needs option to conditionally install files.
In some installs, like a new install, the installer should install a file but that same file should not be overwriten on an update. For example, a database file that is updated by the user will be overwriten by the installer.
The options required are:

  • Install file if not present.
  • Install file or not install if file is modified. 

InstallShield should be consulted for the various options required.

I search the idea forum and I see many Labview Upgrade suggestions as "DECLINED".  


I know there are others out there like me, I HATE upgrading Labview.  All the time required to update your custom configuration takes weeks.  Heck, Labview upgrade isn't even smart enough to know all the software you're entitled to install...instead you have to force Labview to download and install your paid software individually.

 

Here's the deal, most of us don't have the time to upgrade because of all the maintenance we do to support our software.  For instance, I have a paid Maintenance Agreement (as I do every year), I have been working in LV2015 and now it's time for me to upgrade my computer and I'm installing LV2018.

 

My wish, Have National instruments create a tool that would allow you to export all your custom settings, device drivers, and software requirements, etc..., so you could import these settings into a new version of LV.  Making the upgrade process easier with a single tool.


Since it's so difficult to upgrade, I often wait 3 years or more before I try to upgrade.  If it was more seamless to upgrade, I'd probably upgrade every release!  

 

Anyway, we are all so busy we don't have the time to search these forums, so this request will be DECLINED too.

 

Perhaps NI should accumulate all of these requests to Upgrade and total them as one.  Each individual request dies in a year because so many people are sticking with what works...often older versions of LV.

 

Sure, NI has a few upgrade tools, but, nothing that leaves you upgraded to the latest version of Labview without missing a step.

 

When you run the LabVIEW Platform DVD, the default setting is that LabVIEW gets installed and nothing else. You can then go pick and choose what modules and toolkits to install. I like this default because I usually only want to install LabVIEW and a few other modules and toolkits. It is faster for me to select the few modules that I want to install rather than unchecking all of the modules I don't want to install.

 

When you run the Device Drivers DVD, it tries to guess what drivers you want installed based on the software you already have installed. However, it usually wants to install more drivers than I want it to install. It is a hassle to go through the driver list and unclick the drivers I don't want to install because most of them have dependencies that you have to unclick first. 

 

Idea: Their should be a button on the Device Drivers installation screen to unselect all of the drivers (see image below). I don't think the Device Drivers DVD default should be the same as the Platform DVD; a lot of new users won't know what drivers they need and installing all of the recommended drivers is a safe bet. However, many users do know what drivers they want and it saves time and hard drive space to only install the necessary drivers. Adding an "uncheck all" button would make this process faster and less frustrating.

 

device drivers.png

Add an "Uncheck All" button!

Whenever I install a new version of LabVIEW, I have to wade through the LabVIEW options to change all of the UI settings to what I like. To make the upgrade process easier, I would like to see a dialog that:

 

  • appears on the first launch of the new LabVIEW version
  • can be easily skipped by users who would rather configure things manually
  • allows users to choose common settings (aimed at users without another version of LabVIEW on the machine)

    1.png

  • provides a user friendly way to import settings from an older LabVIEW version (aimed at users who are upgrading LabVIEW)

    2.png

This would make the process of upgrading much easier, especially for users who have very particular preferences. Some options that could be addressed in the wizard are:

 

  • control style (icon or not)
  • visible palletes
  • showing text for VIs on pallete
  • broken wire Xs
  • etc...

 

Does this idea need any more explanation? If someone swipes the box out of a mail slot at work and installs it at home, that becomes the "at home" installation. 

 

I realize Ideas with pictures do better, so here's a Golden Retriever puppy...

 

 

Message Edited by Broken Arrow on 06-11-2010 07:40 AM

If I'm the first to post this Idea then I'll be shocked.

The Idea is simple. We all love programming in LabVIEW, and I'm sure that we've all at one time or another had a colleague, friend or family member ask if we know how to do something on the PC. The immediate thought is I don't know where to get the software to do that, but I could write a simple LabVIEW app  in a few hours that does the job.

E.G hunt through someone's PC and move all of the jpg files over a certain size to a specific location so they can easily find their holiday snaps.

 

You can't create this simple function for them, because if you do, and build an exe, they still need the Runtime engine.

 

Surely for REALLY simple stuff (File IO, basic comms stuff in the Base LabVIEW edition ...) - not DAQ or anything like that it is possible to create an EXE that INCLUDES the runtime components that it needs and is stand alone.

 

This would open up LabVIEW for the use of making quick gadget like apps for the office as well as test and measurement.

 

I can't se how this could be a bad thing.

There is a logical glitch in the App.Version property; If you read App.Name you get the name of the built application...but if you read App.Version it's not the version of the application - it's the version of the RTE.

 

I use the application version in splash screens etc. - however today I have to manually write this multiple places because I cannot read the version number I used when building the application.

 

 

 

Could it be possible for LabVIEW (even if only for versions 202{1,2,3} onwards etc) to make an attempt to open newer files and just break them when new features are used?

 

The comments in this Idea (LabVIEW Compatibility Modes) suggest this and related ideas, but it isn't the main part of that idea, so I'm posting it separately here.

 

An ideal solution for me would be for VIs to automatically save back in the 'oldest' version that they would support (and perhaps not be 'up-compiled' on load), but this idea has been discussed a few times and doesn't appear to be something NI will support.

 

An alternative (perhaps only possible in currently unreleased versions?) might be to have LabVIEW 202x try and open a VI saved in 202<x+n>, and then give the symbol for missing VIs (ideally with the name, if possible) for anything that isn't supported.

 

As an example, trying to open a VI using Insert into Map (if this were available for existing LabVIEW versions) in LabVIEW 2018 could produce something like

cbutcher_0-1596430804139.png

with the Context Help giving me a clue as to what was lost - I could then Google "Insert into Map LabVIEW" and try guess how I might replace it (here, probably with Variant Attributes).

 

I'm posting this idea in relation to some comments I've recently heard regarding sharing and packaging code with LabVIEW, and how even when other (text) languages add new features and so code using them will fail to compile, their users/developers can still open the code, try fix bits, or generally workaround issues (and evaluate the benefits of upgrading, if the changes are large).

New versions of LabVIEW continue to have significant new features, so upgrading seems like it will continue to be at least my preference, but not everyone has the same requirements/situation/SSP/blah blah blah.

For LabVIEW users,

How many of them need "Delete Option" on Right Click Context Menu?

Delete option in Context Menu.png

I feel providing an delete option in right clicking context menu for any Indicator or Control deleting will make developers easy and fast assessable and avoid too-much use of keyboard.

We use our left hand for control and Shift more offen but for pressing delete button which is at right top corner in keyboard, all of a sudden we will remove our right hand from mouse and press Del which is uncomfortable.

 

So, Developers share your point of view for the same and request to add Delete Option in upcoming version.

Later we will ask even Cut Copy Past...:smileyhappy: He! He! He!

Currently, the version of the packed project library (PPL, extension .lvlibp) is defined by the build script which creates the lvlibp.

It would be nice to have an option there to "hook" the version of the lvlibp to the version of the lvlib, which is used for the PPL.

 

Build Settings Version.PNG

 

The advantage is to match the developement version of the lvlib to the deployed version, the PPL.

This idea is about a new LabVIEW feature, the Packed Project Library.

 

To statically use a packed library as a dependency, you need to add the library to the LabVIEW project.  After that's done, all the callers link to the packed library.  If you're strictly a library user, then whenever you need a library update you simply ask the developer for one.

 

But what happens if you're a packed library user and developer of the same library.  You can't use a packed library as a static dependency until you build it and replace the lvlib with the lvlibp...but you can't develop the packed library after it's been built and replaced in the project.

 

If you're a user and developer, it makes sense (to me) to maintain two separate projects.  One manages the packed library resource, one manages the application.

 

What if there were a way to revert the packed library to the LabVIEW library from the same project?  You could use the spiral development model and simply switch between the two types of libraries during development.  You could also (and this IMHO is the most important part) incrementally deploy and test the project.  If you're strictly a packed library developer, hopefully you're incrementally testing anyway.

 

My final pain point with the packed library is with respect to upgrading the application.  Similar to above, if you're strictly a user, you pray the developer is still in business and ask nicely for an upgrade.  If you're a user and developer, and you didn't maintain two projects, you might think to replace each static packed library subVI in the application with the original source and then rebuild the lvlibp.  Or you might think to create a new project that includes the lvlib and rebuild the lvlibp yourself.  I haven't tried it, but I hope that you can replace the original lvlibp with the lvlibp from a new project (not the one that created the original lvlibp).

 

This leads me to a best-practice for lvlibp: always use them as dynamic dependencies.  That way, you can maintain and develop the packed library in the same project that uses the packed library.  You'll simply reference the resources differently.

 

Even if you don't kudo this idea, I'm very interested to hear your feedback and experiences with the lvlibp.

 

Thanks!

 

Steve

I downloaded LabVIEW from ni.com and installed it.  Here's the process:

 

  1) Download a small downloader using my web browser.
  2) Run the downloader, which then downloads a self-extracter
  3) Run the self-extracter, which extracts the installer
  4) Run the installer

 

I'm thinking that this process can be improved a little.

Currently if you commit to installing the full NI Developer's suite and something goes wrong with the installation you can forget about using the Windows Restore feature because the installation process creates a new Restore point about every 1-3 minutes.  That is unnecessary and problematic for a number of very obvious reasons.

 

Untitled picture2.png

If LV can create .exe file independent to LV runtime engine, that's will make her more pretty than other programing tools(e.g VC++) 

 Getting a value change event on a shared variables seems to me like something that ought to be expected "out of the box" in LabVIEW.  Polling shared variables for changes is taxing on resources, and such an architecture is generally frowned upon by NI and the LabVIEW community for things like front panel interactions and the like.  Why, then, should we expect to pay extra to deploy applications which such an architecture for interacting with shared variables?

 

I completely understand the extra license for the DSC run-time, as there are numerous other terrific tools included.  It just seems to me that the SV value change events are one thing that should be freely available for deployment to everyone already paying for the application builder.

 

Thanks!