From 04:00 PM CDT – 08:00 PM CDT (09:00 PM UTC – 01:00 AM UTC) Tuesday, April 16, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.

We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.

LabVIEW Idea Exchange

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

I occasionally hide controls on my FP and control their visibility programmatically during the execution of my program. The problem is that if I edit my UI and the control is hidden, it's very easy not to be aware that it's there and to accidentally overlap it, hide it or even move it off the screen.

 

To solve this, I usually try to save the VIs with all the controls visible, but that's not always feasible.


A better solution - LabVIEW should always show hidden controls in edit mode. It should just have some way of differentiating them from visible controls. This mockup shows them as ghosts, but it can also be any other solution:

 

20779iD19E3A04FFDC0A31

 

In run mode, of course, the control would not be shown. This is similar to the black border you get when objects overlap a tab control.

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?

The problem that height of local variable is 17 pix, and terminal - 16 pix, but distance between terminals in unbundle function is 15 pix.

As result - aligning to vertical compress caused steps in wires:

 

Screenshot.png

 

Right nowterminals/local variables should be slighly overlapped for "step edge free" wiring.

Please synchronize size of these icons with distance between terminals (to 16 pixels - seems to be ideal size)

 

Not sure if it was already in Idea Exchange or not.

 

Andrey.

 

I'd like there to be an option to show some kind of indicator on string controls that you aren't seeing the entire string. This should also apply to string constants on the block diagram.

 

Hidden String.png

I searched for a similar idea, but couldn't find one. Let me know if there is already a similar idea.

Browsing through menus to replace a numeric conversion node is tedious.  How about allowing the selector tool to select from a pull-down menu, just like it does from an unbundle by name node?

 

Existing unbundle node behavior is shown at left.  Desired numeric conversion node behavior is to the right.

 

Quick_changing_of_numeric_comments.png

Currently, it's a crapshoot when you drag an ant trail selection box around items on your FP or BD. It's truly an art to become good at selecting objects in LabVIEW - we all learn "hot spots" to place our selection rectangles, and we all heavily rely on the "Shift+Click" method of adding or removing objects from our selection. Below is an example of what actually might be selected when dragging a selection box:

 

SelectionBehaviorCrapshoot.png

 

All horizontal wires were selected down to "ABCDEF", even though just a very small portion of the visible wire was inside the selection box. It's not intuitive to try to not select wire that is hidden behind the Unbundle.

 

I propose a method that mimics selection in some graphics editing and CAD programs: the idea of "Enclosed" and "Inclusive" selections. An Enclosed selection is made by dragging the mouse from L to R. This operation selects only the objects THAT ARE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED by the selection box, ignoring objects that are partially outside the selection (the red arrow is not part of the BD, it merely represents the motion of the cursor):

 

SelectionBehaviorEnclosed.png

 

Alternatively, if you drag your mouse from RIGHT to LEFT for a selection box, you select every single object that is fully or even partially contained within the selection box:

 

SelectionBehaviorInclusive.png

 

Voila! Selection is now a TAUGHT SCIENCE instead of a LEARNED ART!

When you develop with multiple LabVIEW versions, it is sometimes difficult to identify which version you're using or launching based on the icon of the LabVIEW EXE:

 

taskbar.png

 

Here's my Windows 7 taskbar with, among other things, LabVIEW 8.0, 8.5, 8.6, and 2009 icons.  Which one is which?  There are ways to tell, but it sure would be easiest if the version number were overlayed on the icon.  Note the Visual Studio 9.0 icon in the taskbar...I think we should do something very similar with the application icons of future LabVIEW releases.

 

NOTE: The icon should also reflect differences between the 32-bit version of LabVIEW and the 64-bit version of LabVIEW

I think structures should have a better label system. Currently I use free labels of the same color as the loop which looks great and makes the code easy to read and debug. But if I resize my loop I have to manually resize the label as well. I think this should be built into a right-click option.

 

(structure) rick-click » visible items » Structure label

 

Integrated Structure Labels.PNG

Currently, the block diagram has an endlessly useful feature. I use it every day - the Distribute Tool.

 

FrontPanelSpacingTool.png 

 

 

The following feature would be AWESOME for expediting BD readability:

 

BlockDiagramSpacingTool.png

If you are not using the Data Event Terminals in an Event Structure, you might customarily hide them - roll them up so that only one terminal is showing. I would like to hide that remaining terminal. The idea is to not grey-out the Remove Element option when you are down to one terminal. That way, you can remove it. A stub remains to right-click on in order to bring the terminal(s) back if required.

 

24498iD9D667DE43F77BE8  

I don't like the way that long file paths are shown in path controls and indicators:  If the path is longer than the textbox (and it usually is!), the user only sees the first several levels that fit.  This can be pretty confusing.

 

One way to solve this issue is to truncate the path in the middle in such a way that the filename or last folder (which is usually what's most important) is always shown.  I've seen this in other UIs and it should be a natural thing for users to understand.

 

Here's an illustration:

truncate_path_ctrl.png 

 

I think this should be a built in feature of the path controls and indicators, accessible through right-click menus and/or the properties menu of the control at edit time.

As soon as we have more complicated data structures (e.g. clusters of arrays), a large portion of the FP real estate is wasted taken up by borders, frames and trims, etc.

 

We need a palette full of "Amish" 😉 controls, indicators, and containers that eliminate all that extra baggage. We have a few controls already in the classic palette, but this needs to be expanded to include all types of controls, including graphs, containers, etc.

 

A flat control consists of a plain square and some text (numerical value, string, ring, boolean text, etc). A flat container is a simple borderless container.  A flat graph is a simple line drawing that would look great on a b&w printer. A flat picture ring looks like the image alone.

 

They have a single area color and a single pixel outline, if both have the same color, the outline does not show. They can also be made transparent, of course. If we look at them in the control editor, there are only very few parts.

 

Now, why would that be useful?

 

Let's have a look a the data structure in the image. There is way too much fluff, distracting from the actual data. If we had flat objects, the same could look as the "table" below. Note that this is now the actual array of clusters, no formatting involved! It is fully operational, e.g. I can pick another enum value, uncheck the boolean, or enter data as in the cluster above.

 

Many years ago in LabVIEW 4, I actually made a borderless cluster container in the control editor and it looked fine, but it was difficult to use because it was nearly impossible the grab the right thing with the mouse at edit time.

 

The main problem of cours is that the object edges completely overlap, making targeted seletion with the mouse impossible. (For example the upper right corner pixel is the corner of an array, a cluster, another array, and an element at the same time.)

 

So what we need is a layer selection tool that allows us to pick what we want (similar to tools in graphics editing software). It could look similar to the context help shown in the picture with selection boxes for each line. Picking an object would show the relevant handles so we can intereact with the desired object. Another possibility would be to hover over the corner and hit a certain key to rotate trough all near elements until the right element is selected, showing it's resize handles. I am sure there are other solutions.

 

As a welcome side effect, redrawing such a FP is relatively cheap.

 

Message Edited by altenbach on 06-03-2009 09:20 AM
Message Edited by altenbach on 06-03-2009 09:20 AM

There's a common convention in LabVIEW where if a control is not a required input, you place the default value in parentheses:

 

WhatToDoTonight.png

 

 For the most part this make sense and is useful when calling VIs, but there is one place where it's really annoying:

 

 

No_Error.png

 

 

We know there's no error by default. I suggest that NI simply remove this. This can be done today by going to <vi.lib>\errclust.llb and modifying the control, but that's annoying to do with every installation.

 

I would even go so far as to say that NI should write a VI which will go through vi.lib and remove the text from all the existing VIs. I doubt this would have any backward compatibility issues, because I think the only place where those would be relevant is if someone is calling a VI in vi.lib dynamically AND setting the error in value, and frankly, those people deserve to be punished.

 

 

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.

 

 From the  FAQ:


"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.

 

 

Make possible that Boolean function accept error cluster as input as this example:

 

StopOnError.png     StopOnErrorCast.png

 

 

  It would be very usefull to know which VIs are still running.

   aaaa.png

Resizing the front panel so it is correct when running the VI is still very tedious and can easily mess up during editing. The problem is even more severe for Xcontrols, because their runtime size is often very small so there is not even enough room to e.g. display all the tools in the tool bar during editing. Once the runtime size is correctly set, all it needs is a double-click on a terminal that has its FP item hidden outside the visible area and everything on the FP shifts and messes up.

 

We need three things:

  1. An "edit time" FP size that is "comfortably big" so we can see the entire toolbar and possibly also helper controls and even maybe some comment text intended for the programmer that are outside the operator area and only used for debugging and such.
  2. A "run time" FP size that matches exactly what the operator sees during running.
  3. A special decoration or other visual cue during editing that indicates the FP area that will be visible at runtime.

 We already have the crosshair in the upper left corner when showing the grid, so that could be defined as the upper left corner at runtime by default. All we need is define the upper left and lower right corner and the runtime FP area is uniquely defined. As a visual cue, everything outside the runtime area could be a shade darker or tinted differently than normal to indicate that fact. Running the VI would snap the FP boundaries to the bright area.

 

Then we also need handles to move any of the boundaries at single pixel increments. A control that scales with the front panel would simply scale to the bright area instead. Of course a legacy mode for older VIs that did not have this feature during their creation needs also to be supported.

 

The example image shows a reddish transparent area (just to throw out another idea, maybe a slightly darker grey would be better). This is one of my own subVIs that demonstrates the problem at hand. At runtime, only the progress bar should be visible, while at edit time, I want to see all controls, because I might need them e.g. to wire the connectors. It is not easy to switch between the two sizes.

 

(Of course we can currently program around all that by setting windows parameters via property nodes, but it is ugly, inefficient, and tedious.)

 

 

 

I don't know how many times I've added a case statement post-programming, but I do know that there isn't an easy way to make a tunnel the case selector.  Usually I delete the tunnel and then drag the case selector down and then rewire, there should be an easier way.  For loops and while loops have an easy way to index/unindex or replace with shift register, why can't a case statement be the same?

Case2.PNG 

Case3.PNG 

GUIProgrammerDream.png

 

...the ability to bulk-create References, Local Variables, Property Nodes...

When creating a subVI from a selection, LabVIEW should do two things:

  1. Use the user's default connector pane pattern instead of selecting one matching the number of inputs and outputs. This will make easier wiring and allow users to add more IO later.
  2. If the user is using a "standard" pattern (e.g. 4-2-2-4), LabVIEW should try placing the error clusters at the bottom corners and objects or references at the top corners.

It should also try to make the FP of the subVI cleaner, but that's another matter.