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!
This tool has a lot of potential for end-user use if it is incorporated into the app builder API and suite. Batch installers can be used for much more than just installing selected sets of NI software (Which this tool is obviously designed specifically to do). It could be used for creating installers of multiple, cross-project user installers comprising a complete system. To do this though, the current batch installer builder needs to be made more generic to be of use.
Add configuration options to control or disable license dialogs when non-NI provided installers are added
Add configuration options to control or disable the user/company license dialogs when non-NI provided installers are added
Add configuration options to control or disable the check for NI updates dialogs when non-NI provided installers are added
Add batch installer version properties to allow end users to create system versions
Add support for 3rd party installer inclusion (Dup from another idea, but I had to repeat it here)
Including this in the app builder would be even better since that should allow project based configuration and control of the batch configurations and potentially even programmatic control.
The goal of this idea is to make it easy for the LabVIEW ecosystem to create reusable libraries for LabVIEW that would be type independent. Let's think for a second dictionaries, also called as key-value stores. Dictionaries are data structures that allow storing and retrieving values with a specific key. To create a generic reusable strongly typed dictionary is currently impossible with the LabVIEW type system. One can create a dictionary that is type specific but then it's not reusable. Or one can create a reusable dictionary but then it's not strongly typed. Type Parameters and Parametrized Generic Types as explained in this idea would allow creating strongly typed dictionaries that are widely reusable across applications. Specifically type parameters and parametrized generic types would allow LabVIEW ecosystem to develop highly reusable strongly typed components to solve various common programming problems. This would allow National Instruments to put more focus on the core of the language as the LabVIEW ecosystem could solve much wider range of problems that preivously have required National Instruments to contribute.
Add a new control type Type Parameter to LabVIEW that augments the current Control, Type Def and Strict Type Def control types. The Type Parameter type would act like a regular Type Def control with one special and important distinction. You could wire anything to an input terminal expecting a specific Type Parameter type and the downstream type would adapt at compile time to the type wired to the type parameter input.
In a single VI type parameter could be used in multiple places but all instances of the type parameter would adapt to the same type.
When a VI that uses Type Parameters in the front panel is used on a block diagram, the template VI is replaced by the compiler by a type specific instance that has adapted the type parameters to the type wired to the Type Parameter input. Notice below how in our VI the control and the indicator were of type Type Parameter with a default type of DBL and the instance got adapted to type U32 that was wired to the input.
The same type parameter could be used on multiple inputs of a VI.
And all of the type parameters would adapt to the same type when the VI is being used.
Note that in the above example we chose the element of the array to be a specific type specified by a type parameter. However the arrays themselves could as well have been specified by a type parameter.
So far we have focused on VI boundary where type parameters adapt the whole VI to specific type or types if multiple different type parameters are being used in the connector pane of the VI. Type parameters can also be used in composite types (e.g. arrays, clusters, classes) and the downstream composite types would adapt to what is wired to the type parameter input.
Note that x and y as instances of the same type parameter have to be of the same or compatible type.
Type parameters can also be used in class private data to create parameterized custom types. This is where type parameters become extremely powerful. Let's assume that we have a class 3D Vector.lvclass that has three instances of a "Data Element.ctl" Type Parameters. The default type of the Data Element is set to be DBL. The cluster private data has three instances of the Data Element, one for each of X, Y and Z.
Now we could create a Create 3D Vector method VI for this class that allows us to construct type parametrized instance of the class type.
Now calling this Create 3D Vector.vi with string as the inputs for type parametrized inputs X, Y and Z will create an instance of class 3D Vector with compile time type 3D Vector[String].
And this is where we now start seeing the superpowers of type parameters and parametrized types as well as generic type parameterized VIs that go along with them. Now we have a capability of creating custom VIs and custom types that both can adapt to different parameter types at usage time.
Let's get back to the question of dictionaries. We could easily construct a dictionary that allows the key type to be parametrized with one parameter and the value type to be parametrized with another parameter. For example we could use the dictionary with I32s as keys and Strings as values. Or we could use it with Strings as keys and File Paths as values. Constructor for such custom type would be trivial to create.
Once we have constructed the dictionary we would naturally like to use it. We could now use method VIs of the Dictionary class to add and fetch elements from the dictionary. As an example Get Element By Key would look something like this in it's simplest form.
Note that Dictionary In is type parametrized with two different type parameters Key Type and Value Type. In the class library there is a Type Parameter control Key Type.ctl and Value Type.ctl. Now type parameter Key Type.ctl is used both inside the private data of the class and on the fron panel as the Key input, the type of these two must be the same. The same is true for the Value Type element of private data and the Value indicator that both derive from Value Type.ctl type parameter. The has function is any function that can convert any LabVIEW types to some strings that we can use as keys for the variant attribute node. We are using variant attributes as the store implementation is this basic example.
Calling the Dictionary with integer as the type parameter and string as the value would look something like this.
As you can see the 0 and empty string will define propagate as type parameter types for Key Type and Value Type in the dictionary wire. Now Add Element.vi would have to adapt to these elections for Key Type and Value Type the moment the Dictionary wire is connected. The Key input immediately change to type INT32 and the Value input to type String. Similar would be true if the wires would be connected in reverse order. Connecting University of Texas string to the Value input of Add Element and connecting number 1 of type INT32 to the Key input of the Add Element would immediately adapt the Dictionary in and Dictionary out inputs to be of type Dictionary[Key Type = INT32, Value Type = String]. A type error would occur if Dictionary in would be of different type.
Type Parametrized Generic Types are an extremely powerful concept to incldue in a language and this idea describes a feasible way to implement them in a visual dataflow model of LabVIEW. This is and has been for maybe ten years my absolute #1 feature I have wanted to see in LabVIEW. I think the time is right for me to officially make this request. Ideally Type Parameters can be bounded but that's a topic for a whole other idea post.
If you have mulitple versions of LabVIEW installed, some of them show up in the "Open With" menu, but regardless of which item you select, the VI will always open in whichever version of LabVIEW was opened most recently.
Example: if I opened a legacy VI in LabVIEW 2009, closed that version of LabVIEW completely, and opened another VI using the "Open with" menu and selected LabVIEW 12..., LabVIEW 2009 is relaunched and is unable to open the VI because it should have launched in LabVIEW 2012.
The current workaround is to add all installed versions as options in the "Send to" menu, but this is not nearly as intuitive as using "Open with" would be.
I have been recently asked by NI to answer a poll about what feature I would like to see as far as data management and access and at that time, I didn't really think about mentioning something which is dearly missing in LabVIEW: cloud storage access.
The reason for this request is that increasingly, files used by collaborations cannot always be copied locally (for instance due to their size or because of frequent updates), or managing local copies and updating the central cloud repository is getting prohibitively time consuming and cumbersome.
There exist a few attempts in this direction (e.g. GDrive for LabVIEW, a third party skeleton of a toolkit to access Google Drive, or LabVIEW Interface for Amazon S3), but there are some glaring absent ones such as Dropbox, OneDrive, Box or iCloud to name the most popular ones.
As I mentioned before, GDrive is a starting point but is missing some basic features such as folder list, comments, etc.
I cannot comment on Amazon S3, as I don't use it.
Obviously, there is no way to predict which cloud storage solution will disappear in a few years from now or which one will pop-up tomorrow and become popular, but most of the work has been done by those vendors, who provide .NET API for their cloud solutions (maybe not Apple) or at the very least a RESTful API. These APIs could of course be made community projects (like GDrive is to some extent), but their importance would seem to justify a minimal investment from NI.
When calling .NET libraries from LabVIEW, block diagrams explode horizontally - the aspect ratio of the diagram can easily push 5:1 or worse (it's 10:1 in the example below). Some Method Chaining syntactical sugar would yield a more space-efficient-and-readable 4:3 to 16:9 or so.
Property Chaining is already well-established in LabVIEW - let's get us some Method Chaining!
I think it would be nice if LabVIEW was smart enough to know that when I drop a For Loop around scalar inputs it doesn't auto-index output tunnels - but rather uses Shift Registers - for matching inputs and outputs.
The common use case for this is with the Error input/output - it annoys me how it becomes an Array output.
As it is already wired, inline and not broken, dropping a For Loop around it should not break my code!
Reference or Class inputs are other use case too - I want to pass the same thing around not create an Array.
Shift registers are better than non-auto-indexed tunnels (other option) as they protect the inputs on zero iterations.
This would remove one step required for most use cases, speeding up my development experience.
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.
It would be nice to improve documentation created by Tools->Import->Web Service... wizard.
Especially, I suggest to automatically create Description in created .lvlib Documentation so that it would be immediately clear which WSDL URL is handled by that library. Currently, WSDL URL is only placed as a String constant in Open Web Service.vi which is not really convenient. Thanks for understanding and support.
I'm surprised a search did not turn up anything about this. NI should create a LabVIEW Amazon Web Services/Azure/Docker Image(s). The sample case I am thinking of is having a Jenkins CI server running on AWS EC2 with a full LabVIEW environment installed. This would allow off-loading the long FPGA or full RF suite builds during CI.
Back in the NI-CAN days, there was a handy development tool which was the usage of two virtual CAN ports, ports CAN256, and CAN257. If you wrote a frame on one, it would be read on the other, and vise versa. Other CAN hardware like Vector, and Kvasar support virtual CAN hardware which does something similar, where initial development can be tested before having access to the hardware.
This idea is to add virtual hardware support for XNET which supports this same feature. it has been talked about in a thread here several years ago, but nothing ever came of it. Adding support for virutal hardware for CAN, LIN, Flex-Ray and any other XNET hardware would be a great development tool, and enable the testing of the expected handshaking of software, with simulated communications.
Add a module to LabVIEW to use it on Android OS or Apple iOS.
People have already been getting smartphones for awhile. And now in 2011, there are so many manufacturers that make tablets with Android OS or even Windows. Apple iOS is considered to be the cool thing but Android OS is more open and used by more manufacturers (since only Apple for it's iOS). Since the Andorid Tablet is so new, yes there are more Apple tablets out there than Android tablets but if it's like the smartphone market, Android OS will overtake the iOS market. It's just a matter of time.
I don't know whether one is easier to code than another, but if you had the time I think a module for both the Android OS and the Apple iOS would be extremely powerful. Wouldn't it be great if we could run an instrument from our phones or tablets?!?!
But I would just be careful to make sure the module was robust and not too many key features were missing from the full LabVIEW version. In the past, we tried the PDA Module and Touch Panel Module for an instrument and it didn't work out. The module was very buggy and missing a lot of features from LabVIEW that we though were important key ones. We ended up abandoning the PDA module idea and went with an advantech touch panel computer with Windows XP and just kept writing with regular LabVIEW.
Currently in LabVIEW you can have a top-level palette (Programming, Measurement I/O, etc) automatically populate based on .mnu files existing in the folder structure at <LabVIEW>\menus\Categories\. However you cannot do this with the sub-palettes such as Arrays, File I/O etc.
I propose to allow auto-populating palettes for all LabVIEW palettes so developers can place their own palette within the appropriate LabVIEW palette for their functions. One example is OpenG and MGI each have a palette of Array functions. They are currently placed in a top-level OpenG\Array or MGI\Array location. If we could sync these folders, we could place each of the array palettes under the Programming\Array palettes:
Simply by dropping their corresponding mnu files here:
Thoughts? Discussion on LAVA that spawned this idea is here.
I would like a control/indicator which supports HTML formatting for display and documentation. There have been a couple of previous similar requests, here and here, but nothing specific to HTML (although jlocanis has been consistent in his comments on these previous requests asking for HTML formatting).
I would envision a control where you enter HTML and can change the display from the HTML to the rendered text easily, similar to the multiple modes available on current text controls.
Why HTML and not just more formatting options?
Why reinvent the wheel. HTML has been around for decades and works well.
You can mix fonts, localizations, superscript/subscript, symbols, etc. within HTML, allowing much more flexibility when documenting front panels.
HTML is platform agnostic
As has been said in other requests, extending HTML support to captions, labels, etc. would also be nice, but secondary.
Formula node is a great tool for evaluating mathematical formulas and expressions. However right now, you can one time input text into the formula node (during application development) and after compilation, the node does only this one added text and any change would mean a recompilation of the code. It would be absolutely fantastic to dynamically load the node text for example from some file…the node would then have not only a variable input, but also one text input, and the text would bet the formula node text.
It would then be a upgraded sort of a „eval formula node.vi“, which would accept also syntax for while loops, for loops and all the other stuff and not only a regular expression.
Subversion is one of the most popular SCC systems in use yet currently LabVIEW can only integrate with the help of rather flakey 3rd party plugins. It would be so much easier if LabVIEW included native SubVersion support, allowing full integration with the LabVIEW Project etc.
Currently I use LabView through a Windows VirtualBox on a Linux Mint machine. I was told by a customer support employee that I should bring this idea to this forum. I chose this method because of the limited support for Linux even with the supported distro discs. I encourage NI to expand their Linux-compatible software to have the full capabilities that the Windows and Mac versions do for the distros that are currently out, and to expand the number of distros supported. Linux Mint is one of the most widely used flavors, and yet there is no support from NI.