LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Community Browser
About LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Have a LabVIEW Idea?

  1. Browse by label or search in the LabVIEW Idea Exchange to see if your idea has previously been submitted. If your idea exists be sure to vote for the idea by giving it kudos to indicate your approval!
  2. If your idea has not been submitted click Post New Idea to submit a product idea to the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. Be sure to submit a separate post for each idea.
  3. Watch as the community gives your idea kudos and adds their input.
  4. As NI R&D considers the idea, they will change the idea status.
  5. Give kudos to other ideas that you would like to see in a future version of LabVIEW!
Top Kudoed Authors
cancel
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!

Post an idea

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. They don't even care what was used to develop the program. 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 (Smiley Very Happy) 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. Smiley Very Happy

Hi!

Maybe this has been already requested elsewhere and I'm missing it....

but it would be useful to have a Wait (ms) with connectors for error in and out.

This can help keeping the BD clean...

Marco

18613iCF039EA34765F743

Typical question in development process: "How quickly does my code execute? What runs faster... Code A or Code B?" So, if you're like me, you throw in a quick sequence that looks like this:

 

TimingDuringDevelopment.png

 

AHHH! What a mess! It's so hard to fit it in, with FP real estate so packed these days!

 

We need this:

ProposedTimingDuringDevelopment.png

 Just like my other idea, and for simplicity's sake NI, I would be PERFECTLY happy even if you had to set up the probes during edit mode, and were not able to "probe" while running.

 

 As a bonus, this idea may be extrapolated into n timing probes, where you can find delta t between any two of the probes.

Currently if you right click on a subVI from the block diagram and choose properties, it brings up the Object Properties dialog.  The only options you can change there are label options, which can easily be changed in the "Visible Items" submenu.  I can't think of one time when this has ever been what I wanted out of this action.  Instead, I think this action should open up the VI Properties Window for the VI.  

 

properties1.png

The size of the Close Reference VI makes it impossible to draw a proper block diagram.

d.png

 

It is too big!  It does not match with the Property Node vi.

 

Therefore I would propose: --> Make the Close Reference VI smaller!

 

See the picture below for an example of (what I consider to be) a frustrating "feature".

Why delete the elements? Keep the elements and the element style types as is, just convert my cluster to the new style type.

Arrays also do this, but since we tend to spend more time designing clusters, it's far more frustrating than arrays.

 

 

 

ClusterReplace.png

I would like the ability to probe the loop iteration terminal ("i" in For and While Loops) without the need to wire it to something (indicator, edge of structure,...).

Currently in LabVIEW if you build an installer you end up with a hierarchy of files that look like this:

 

singlefile1.png

 

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:

 

singlefile2.png

 

This can be as easy as a checkbox in the current installer Advanced page:

 

singlefile3.png

It would be nice, if the different kind of LabVIEW windows would have slighty different icons within the windows taskbar. It would be easier to quickly identify BD / FP / project / Ctrl / etc. windows in the taskbar.

 

This suggestion has also been made at

http://www.labviewforum.de/unterschiedliche-Symbole-fuer-Frontpanel-und-Blockdiagramm-in-der-Tasklei...

Here you can find two suggestions for FP & BD-icons.

I have used labview for a long time and avid user.  One issue I have been hitting lately is the "LabVIEW everywhere" slogan never really panned out, it has become LabVIEW everywhere NI allows it to be.  I am getting jealous of the Arduino and Rasberry Pi and hundreds of PICS and ARMs not avaliable to me (Yes I have the pro liscence but not embedded).  I wish Labview pro opened up the toolchain and started porting to many other platforms by default.  I am seeing jobs that labview is loosing ot to where it should be much more competetive like the embedded market. 

 

Essentially I am looking to see the Labview development environment easily work with toolchains for the most popular processors and also open up a simple standard to add targets to projects. 

 

Wouldnt it be nice to program a $25 ardunio dirrectly from labview (NO THIS IS NOT WHAT THE TOOLKIT IS DOING).  Add a Ardunio target file (maps the io memory to variables and throw down a loop, boolean shift register, a wait and a digital line variable, download to the micro and the blink led example is done.  Really open up the doors for LabVIEW everywhere.

 

 

The default LabVIEW environment option should not show terminals as an icon. 

 

IconTerminals.png

It would be nice if the Strip Path function had a recursive option rather than having to string Strip Paths together or use an external loop.

 

 eg change from this:

strip_path.png

 

 

to this:

 

recursive_strip.png

 

 

regards

Ray

I can't count the number of times I've seen this dialog :

 

remove.png

 

Of course I want to continue, that's why I right-clicked the structure and chose Remove [Structure]!  This dialog must be a holdover from pre-Undo days.  Do we pop-up a dialog when you select your whole diagram and press <Delete>?  What about when you press Ctrl-B?  These actions have the potential to remove just as much diagram content as Remove [Structure].

 

Please get rid of this dialog, and just let us Undo the operation if we need to, just like we do all the other potentially destructive diagram edit operations.

What if I had this:

 

idea1_1.PNG

Then I wanted to insert something with similar terminals:

 

idea1_2.PNG

 

I'd end up with this:

 

idea1_3.PNG

 

But the Error terminals aren't wired! So maybe I should be able to select both wires:

 

idea1_4.png

 

Then Right Click » Insert Write Node:

 

idea1_6.PNG

 

Then I'd have this:

 

idea1_5.PNG

 

How easy would that be!?

 

 

 

 

 

Add new features, flexibility, and new controls to the Front Panel.  The only new controls I've seen were made by LabVIEW Customers, and although they were great, they were not resizeable without being distorted (bitmap).  I think it's time for NI to give more options and features for the Front Panel Controls.  I attached some suggestions.  They are there for example, so don't focus on the controls I've made, but the idea of improvements I am suggesting.  NI has done a great job on the Diagrams.  I should hope it's time NI improves the Front Panel.

 

Suggestions

(Unless it's already changed in newer LV's, i'm on 2011 right now)

 

When opening the connector pattern, the current isn't marked in any way. If i'm after some extra connectors or a symmetrical one (why do people choose 3-1-1-1?) it'd be nice to quickly see where to start looking. A simple bold outline would suffice, maybe in blue?

 

ConnectorPane.png

 

/Y

For reasons outlined in detail in this idea, the the expression node should be redesigned. These vertical lines are too thick and the end arrows are pointless and too busy.

 

After all, the expression node is basically a [single line|single variable] formula node and for this reason it should look more similar to a formula node.

 

Here is my suggestion for the redesigned expression node (on the right). The current design is shown on the left for comparison.

 

 

 

Note that the grey left and right borders are exactly matched to the border design of the formula node, making things consistent and intuitive. (Top and bottom should remain single pixel to save diagram space). 

 

I propose that Case Selectors should accept any type of reference, and the two cases generated are "Valid Ref" and "Invalid Ref". (This would be very similar to the current behavior of the Case Selector accepting errors with the two cases of "Error" and "No Error".)

 

The current behavior using "Not a Number/Path/Refnum" is very unintuitive. It requires the programmer to use Not Logic (i.e., do something if the reference is "not not valid").

 

ReferencesIntoCaseSelectors.png

 

 

We've all seen it: The annoying 1-pixel bend when wiring between VIs with mismatched connector panes. Many ideas have been proposed to address this on a small scale... But I think it can easily be improved on a much larger scale.

 

IDEA:

Modify the way the 5335 connector pane is rendered so that the top and bottom terminals line up with those of the standard 4224 connector pane.

connectorpanes.png

 

In case the image doesn't say it all, all I'm proposing is that the top-left terminal of the 5335 connector is made 1-pixel larger by stealing 1-pixel from the terminal below. Likewise for the top-right, bottom-left and bottom-right.

 

The obvious benefit is that it becomes much neater to wire errors and references between mismatched VIs. Goodbye OCD! Smiley Very Happy