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!
When a 1 Dimensional array of any type is showing only a single element, LabVIEW forces a horizontal scrollbar. I couldn't find any documentation or reasoning behind it. It's really annoying and ruins UI design that Vertical is the normal scrolling direction for just about everything else ever and LV messes that up for some seemingly arbitrary reason.
One of the fiddly things I seem to do more than I'd like is adjust the bottom of block diagram comments to the right height. At a minimum there, but also for similar text boxes on the front panel or subdiagram labels, etc. I'd like to have a snap feature that sizes to a multiple of the text height. Examples:
LabVIEW scripting makes it possible to automate repetitive tasks in LabVIEW, but it is often difficult to find the properties and invoke nodes to accomplish the task. It would be great to have a recording feature that watches what you do in LabVIEW, and then generates the corresponding code for it. I'm sure the engineers at NI could design it much better than any more specific ideas I could throw out, so I will leave the rest up to them.
Currently, having one misconnected wire breaks the entire wire tree and pressing ctrl+b wipes out everything. Poof!
In the vast majority of (my) scenarios, a broken wire is due to a small problem isolated to one branch so it does not make sense to drag the entire wire from the source to all valid destinations down with it and break everything in the process.
Here is a simplified example to illustrate the problem (see picture).
In (A) we have mostly good code. If we add a wire as shown, that wire (and VI!) must break of course because such a wire would not make any sense.
However, it does not make sense to also break the good, existing branches of the wire (the cluster in this case), but that is exactly what we get today as shown in (B). If we press ctrl+b at this point, all broken wires will disappear and we would have to start wiring from scratch (or undo, of course ). Even the context help and tip strip is misleading, because it claims that the "source is a cluster ... the sink is long ...", while that is only true for 25% of the sinks in this case!
What we should get instead is shown in part (C). Only the tiny bad wire branch should break, leaving all the good connection untouched. Pressing ctrl+b at this point should only remove the short bad wire.
The entire wire should only be broken in cases where nothing is OK along its entire length, e.g. if there is no source or if it connects to two different data sources, for example.
Summary: Good parts of a wire should remain intact if only some of the branches are bad. Wires that go to a destination compatible with the wire source should not break.
(Similarly, for dangling wires, the red X should be on the broken branch, not on the good source wire as it is today)
Implementation of this idea would significantly help in isolating the location of the problem. Currently, one small mistake will potentially cover the entire diagram with broken wires going in all directions and finding the actual problem is much more difficult than it should be.
The recently introduced Raspberry Pi is a 32 bit ARM based microcontroller board that is very popular. It would be great if we could programme it in LabVIEW. This product could leverage off the already available LabVIEW Embedded for ARM and the LabVIEW Microcontroller SDK (or other methods of getting LabVIEW to run on it).
The Raspberry Pi is a $35 (with Ethernet) credit card sized computer that is open hardware. The ARM chip is an Atmel ARM11 running at 700 MHz resulting in 875 MIPS of performance. By way of comparison, the current LabVIEW Embedded for ARM Tier 1 (out-of-the-box experience) boards have only 60 MIPS of processing power. So, about 15 times the processing power!
Wouldn’t it be great to programme the Raspberry Pi in LabVIEW?
Provide a way to either temporarily (via key press) or permanently (via a LabVIEW option) disable the automatic creation / insertion of shift registers when adding a loop around some existing code. Much like the auto insert feedback node in cycles option.
This feature generally gets it right when dealing with references or error clusters, but other times it'll connect irrelevant data together, requiring extra effort to undo and rewire. The auto-wiring also creates weird bends when connecting the shift registers. When an unwanted shift register is then changed back to a tunnel, the bent wires remain in place.
This idea came to me from Darren's Nugget 2-23-2018 on Data Agnostic Probes I thought it might be useful to write a Probe.vim or specifically, a data type malleable probe to gain the ability to have some access to the data itself in a general smart probe and maintain the ability to display the data in a type specific manner.
One example would be a "Data History Probe" that displays the history values of any data type. I'm sure there are other good uses.
I envision a structure much like a case structure, in which you select your event for evaluating the code inside the structure and the values become constants at the node. The interior would allow code that may normally not be able to run on the host for example, on fpga it might allow the use of doubles and strings and resized arrays, because it isn't actually going to be executed on the host just evaluated and stored as a constant. This would allow for more configuration for fpga and even have some benefits at the traditional desktop environment. For example you could set the structure to evaluate on app build and produce a string constant that is the build date so the build date could be shown on UI to help distinguish builds.
I've got some calls to low level VIs that rely on windows system dlls within a larger top level VI. To make that application work on Windows and Linux, I've put conditional disable structures around the dll calls. When I open the top level VI in Linux, I have to click through a bunch of "Find missing file" dialogs for the Windows system dlls. If I cancel through all the dialogs, the VI still compiles and runs correctly in Linux, so the Conditional Disable structures are doing most of what they should, but the dialogs are annoying and can cause problems with automated builds and other hands-off activities. Since the code is inside a conditional disable structure, it seems to me that LabVIEW has all the information in needs to know it shouldn't load that stuff, so it would be great to get rid of these nuisance dialogs.