Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Search instead for
Did you mean:
Do you have an idea for LabVIEW NXG?
Use the in-product feedback feature to tell us what we’re doing well and what we can improve. NI R&D monitors feedback submissions and evaluates them for upcoming LabVIEW NXG releases. Tell us what you think!
<bakground>So i just had a silly thing happen to me, i compiled a program and deployed it to the target computer, just like i did yesterday. Then it started complaining about a missing LV 2017 Runtime ... How? Why?
I reinstalled, repaired and it didn't help, both program and RT, several times and it didn't help.
I tested another program which started just fine, so what's missing? Is it some sub-package that my custom RT-installer didn't include?
I called NI and the support technician couldn't see anything wrong either, so with him on the phone i went to the development computer to look at some installer settings he had dug up. That's when i noticed i was in LV2017 64 bit! The messages said nothing about that! </background>
Improve error messaging when missing RunTime. Include the bitness that's missing, now it only said "Missing LabVIEW RunTime 2017", if it had said "Missing LabVIEW RunTime 2017 (64 bit)" i would have reacted and understood directly, now it cost way too much time to admit. :/
Also, isn't it time to scrap the 32 bit version and go only 64?
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.
what do you think about a "feature" where developers can enforce version control on applications deployed into end-user systems? it may sound something like some feature of a certain OS, but it may be beneficial in a way or two...
the most obvious being for version enforcement, some members may not like this, but often time newer versions of application are developed to address certain issues of the previous version, and it would be pointless if the end user kept sticking to the old version for certain feature they may have grown to like
it can also be extended to subscription based or trial version deployments, a more friendly way for developers to present their systems for customers for in-situ system trial
one way to deploy this feature, is to minimally trace the execution instances of the RTE in deployed systems, across newer and older version, log them for follow-up actions, that can range from friendly popup reminders for update to application execution prevention.
This is not directly a LabVIEW idea, but it is still an idea that impacts many LabVIEW programmers.
To keep my distribution small, I distribute my installers without run-time engine and instruct the users to download and install the relevant run-time engine. I provide a link to the run-time download page.
Note that these users are NOT NI customers and not interested in any NI products. They are my customers (well, my programs are free) and are only interested getting my programs to work on their PC. Theydon'tevencarewhatwasusedtodeveloptheprogram.There is no extra hardware involved. If they already use NI hardware, chances are they already have a profile.
My users don't need a NI profile and don't need the follow-up phone call or e-mail from NI, etc.
Typical phone exchange yesterday:
me: "just click my installer and install the program"
him: "OK, done."
me: "now run it."
him: "OK, ...... error about 2013 run-time engine".
me: "OK, install the run-time engine using the link I sent you in the same e-mail".
him: "clicking the link to go to the run time engine page....
(..30 second discussion to decide between downloader and direct download...)"
him: "click..(wait for it!)... .it wants me to register..."
me: "OK, let's forget about that. come down to the lab and I will do it for you."
End result: more delays (it was late Friday and I was ready to leave), more work for me, more hassle.
While gazillions () of registered users sounds good on paper for NI, these are false numbers because many profiles are one-time use and quickly forgotten.
I think downloading a run-time engine should NOT require a NI profile. Maybe it should still offer to log in or create a profile, but there should also be a bail-out option similar to " I don't want to register at this time, just download the run-time!".
Note that even better long term solutions have been proposed, but this idea could be implemented quickly and does not even need to involve any LabVIEW developers.
For all of us not running an english OS but want to install plain english versions of NI products:
Please give us an option or a documented method to install LabVIEW and MAX and driver, etc. in plain english.
While it is possible to install LabVIEW in ENG, the MAX and the driver installer lookup the OS language and install the localized versions (just tried with a new PC, W10 and LV2018 full dev suite, even set my language setting to ENG, however I have to install the localized W10) That is not helpfull if you want to look up the big commuinty help or knowledge base entries and can result in 'funny' error messages.
For the driver DVD I think I found a hack in the setup.ini
NI send us the NI Developer Suite each year on DVDs all packed in a nice little NI branded dvd carry case. We are on the SSP suscription and we receive 3/years, which means I have a whole stack of them.
I suggest that NI start shipping USB keys instead. USB has several advantages:
USBs are smaller
USBs are more usable on devices without DVD player
Installing with one large USB means no more DVD swapping. I can go to lunch while NI installs/updates without having to change the DVD every couple of minutes.
USBs are reusable: when you get a new version on LabVIEW on a new USB, you can use the old one for regular usage. This also means less waste, since the USB keys are still in use after a new version ships, but the DVDs are useless.
It has come up in discusssions that NI does not really cater to hobbyists. A cheap and functional version of LabVIEW is limited to the student edition, which is restricted to a small subset of potential users.
"The LabVIEW Student Edition is available to students, faculty, and staff for personal educational use only. It is not intended for research or institutional use."
As a suggested first step, I suggest to remove the academia restriction and mold it into a new product:
--- LabVIEW personal edition ---
Licensed as follows:
"The LabVIEW Personal Edition is for personal use only. It is not intended for commercial, research or institutional use."
It would be available to anyone for noncommercial home use.
LabVIEW currently has the home use exemption that allows installing a copy at home. Unfortunately, if you lose your job, you not only lose your health insurance, but you also lose access to LabVIEW, thus hampering any self paced LabVIEW tinkering that possibly would improve future job prospects. I am sure many retired LabVIEW engineers would love some recreational LabVIEW use. They could be a great asset, because they will have more time helping out in the community and forums. They could even give guest presentations at user group meetings, for example.
The LabVIEW personal edition should include all modules of interest to the hobbyist, including application builder, embedded, FPGA, and robotics. We should be able to distribute built applications as freeware. Support would be limited to community support.
Installing LabVIEW on every single private home computer in the world would cost NI exactly nothing (except for some sales of the current student edition which is about the price of a textbook, some internet bandwidth, and loss of the zero to two (?) multi-millionaires who actually bought the NI developer suite for themselves. ). 99.9% of users would never touch it, but that 0.1% could come up with great new application areas and would help spread the word on how great LabVIEW really is. Soon 0.2% would use it.
It should follow the "customer class limited" Freemium model, (as defined by Chris Anderson), i.e. limited to personal home use in this case.
The running applications should be clearly identified to prevent commercial use. The splash screen and "about" screen should prominently display the words LabVIEW and National Instruments and could even be used for NI advertising and product placements, for example.
It would appear that NI Package Manager requires elevated privileges via User Account Control to even run.
Whilst clearly for some actions this will be required for some install/uninstall actions and e.g. changing registry entries, it isn't clear why this is needed simply to open Package Manager to view what is installed and for other actions which may only make JKI VI Package Manager type changes to VIs within vi.lib etc.
If the medium/long term plan is for NI Package Manager to replace JKI VI Package Manager then it needs to support the ability for developers to easily add/remove VI packages without requiring IT administrator assistance each time.
It would be much better if the application was structured such that elevation is only required when this is absolutely necessary for the actions being undertaken at that moment and/or the user is able to explicitly run the application with elevated privileges where these will be required.
I did try to post this in Additional NI Software Idea Exchange and that wasn't possible but please move this should there be somewhere more appropriate.
Currently in LabVIEW if you build an installer you end up with a hierarchy of files that look like this:
If you want to distribute this installer via the web, you need to use a third party program to zip it up, or create a self-extracting zip file. Since LabVIEW can already create zip files with no problem, I propose the ability for LabVIEW to create a single file installer that can easily be distributed, like this:
This can be as easy as a checkbox in the current installer Advanced page:
When creating an installer for my built LabVIEW application, I really dislike having to choose between including the RTE installer (and having a 100+ MB installer for my application) or not including it (and requiring my users to download and install the RTE as a separate step). Typically, I'll build two installers at the same time (with roughly duplicate build settings): a full installer w/ RTE and a light installer w/out the RTE.
What would be much nicer would be if my app's installer were able to download and install the RTE, if necesary. Actually, this is common practice, these days, for users to download a small installer that then downloads larger installer files behind the scenes.
When creating an installer for a built LabVIEW application, it is very difficult (see here) to include an additional 3rd party installer (such as a device driver or application that your built application depends upon). What I'd like to see is a solution that treats 3rd party installers as first class citizens. I'm imagining a new "Additional 3rd Party Installers" page of the Installer build specification properties dialog.
This page might look something like the one in the screenshot below, allowing users to add a folder that contains the 3rd party installer files and define a command that is run inside that folder during the install process.
When LabVIEW builds the installer, it would suck the additional installer folders into the main installer and, after installing your app files and the additional NI installers, it would sequencially extract your additional 3rd party installers into a temp folder and then execute the command line to run. This is a pretty simple scheme that would really simplify the process for end users.
I'm sure I didn't address every issue of this use case, so please, everyone, feel free to add your own ideas. I'd love to hear your comments.
NI LabVIEW allows VIs with invalid characters such as "?" in the filename inside an LLB file as shown below:
However when it comes to building a Source Distribution / TestStand Deployment that uses this file it returns an error as shown below:
This inconsistency within LabVIEW is quite frustrating where one part allows invalid characters in the filename and another part will return an error. Since the invalid characters are allowed in VI filenames within LLB files I would suggest that the LabVIEW build tools also handle them graciously.
During the build process it could quite easily rename the file "pi40iv Can Connect Channel?.vi" to "pi40iv Can Connect Channel_.vi" and link the VIs that use it to the newly renamed file. The build tools already contain the ability to rename files by adding prefixes so something like this would not be that difficult.
While people may argue to just rename the filename within the LLB and be done with it, the fact that the LLB is a perfectly valid file in the Development Environment but causes problems when trying to do a build is a problem that should be rectified.
The LLB in question is one that is not developed by us but is part of a Pickering Driver Installation obtained from the following location:
A LabVIEW application installer generated from App Builder creates multiple folders and files in the folders. It is desirable to have a single file installer so that customers see only 1 file to install.
NI updater kindly informed me that LabVIEW 2014 SP1 was released (even though I uninstalled it shortly after I tried it last year) and out of curiosity, I took a look at the known issues list.
I learned a few interesting things I did not know about, and also that some problems had been reported as long ago as version 7.1.1. This type of stuff looks like bugs that won't be fixed, ever.
For instance, CAR #48016 states that there is a type casting bug in the Formula Node. It was reported in version 8 and the suggested workaround it to use a MathScript Node instead of a Formula Node (where is the "Replace Formula Node by a MathScript Node" contextual menu item?).
Problem: the MathScript RT Module is required. Even in my Professional Development System, this is not included by default. Does this really count as a workaround?
I read: we don't have the resources to fix that bug, or we don't want to break code that expected that bug.
In any case, this bug with most likely never be fixed.
The bottom line is, we can waste a lot of time as users, rediscovering bugs that have been known for a while and will probably never be fixed. As a user, I would really appreciate a courteous warning from NI that there are known traps and have a complete description handily available with the help file related to the affected function.
My suggestion: add a list of known issues (with link to their description) for all objects, properties, functions. VIs, etc, in the corresponding entry in the Help File.
If you install anything (anything!) from NI on a computer that runs windows 8 or newer, you will get bugged by a dialog to disable fast startup. The option is enabled by default, no matter what you install. It will popup with every single install, even minor patches, and even if this option has been intentionally unchecked in the original installation to be patched. If you don't want to disable fast startup, it is a never-ending whack-a-mole of these dialogs. (... but the need to disable fast startup for some scenarios is a more general problem that NI needs to address. It could be a new idea, but I think NI is aware of this problem. It might even be something that Microsoft could address such that devices don't get lost in the scenarios where fast startup causes problems)
This idea is centered around executables that we built and distribute via installers..
While this option (=disabling fast startup) can be useful when certain DAQ hardware is used, it makes absolutely no sense for other LabVIEW programs. Most of my programs don't use any DAQ hardware and it is not reasonable to globally cripple every single computer that has them installed. People tend to click [next] without reading, assuming that the defaults are typically reasonable.
Currently, this install query can be silenced by editing the setup.ini and changing the entry "WinFastStartup=1" to "WinFastStartup=0". I have built dozens of applications over the last few days and it is becoming seriously annoying to constantly remember to do that.
I suggest that the installer builder should get another checkbox that allows us to set that option permanently. Here is how it could look like.
Checking that box will give the current experience where the installer asks to disable fast startup. (it could even be checked by default to mimic the current default behavior)
Leaving the box unchecked will skip that dialog and will not disable fast startup.
IDEA SUMMARY: Allow us to configure the fast startup dialog from the installer builder tool.
I am struggling (yet again) with LabVIEW installation problems that appear to involve LabVIEW 2017 (and possibly LabVIEW 2016 f5 patches). After having systems with multiple (sometimes only 2) LabVIEW Versions installed "go south" (typically by having MAX stop working and Block Diagrams with DAQmx code fail to load), I've tried to "Remove All" NI software, only to discover that "bits and pieces" still remain, both on Disk and (especially) scattered throughout the Registry.
I've been working with NI Support for 2-3 weeks trying to "recover" from a LabVIEW corruption probably caused by installing the 2016 f5 patch. We finally decided to do the "Uninstall/Reinstall" route. Although I got 2012 SP1 installed, 2014 SP1 failed (could not install NI Network Discovery 14.0, "Verify you have sufficient privileges to install Services").
My concern is that, short of reformatting my hard drive and reinstalling Windows (which I was forced to do on two of my PCs), there appears to be no way to fully uninstall all NI Software. I would like to propose that NI develop an "Eraser" utility (like Eraser for Microsoft Office) that searches out all files that NI puts on the C: drive (not in User Space) during installation and all Registry entries that it scatters throughout the Registry, allowing the PC to be "rolled back" to a "pre-NI" state. Such a tool might want to be restricted to Full or Professional licenses, or maybe provided on an "As Needed" basis by the NI Support Team, but I really don't want to have to rebuild yet a third PC ...
Installers should show the public version of dependencies instead of internal versions.
This is a specific example, but I presume this behavior is more widespread: An Add-On that has a dependency on LabVIEW NXG doesn’t list the (public) version of LabVIEW NXG upon which it depends.
The OpenG Library v220.127.116.11 depends on LabVIEW NXG v1.0. But the installer indicates the version of LabVIEW NXG to be installed is v 18.104.22.168152-0+f0. To someone not familiar with the internal version numbering for LabVIEW NXG, it’s not obvious that this refers to LabVIEW NXG 1.0. This may lead someone to install an undesired version of NXG.
(I had NXG 2.0 already installed, and I assumed, incorrectly, that the version of NXG that the OpenG dependency referred to would also be NXG 2.0.)
By changing some NIPM settings (e.g., enable the "Show full version numbers and infrastructure packages" option), one can logically (but not definitively) deduce the public version that the internal version is referring to: