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 string control, indicator or constant is switched from any mode other than Normal Text, display a small glyph (similar to the radix indicator on numeric controls) to allow you to see that the display is something other than Normal Text.
One of the things that sometimes bugs me when using LabVIEW is that if you have a front panel or block diagram in a small window, many of the menu options and toolbar options are inaccessible without having to resize the window first. You have to have a minimum window size to be able to access all of the toolbar functions.
Still don't get it?
This is how big I want my SubVI window to be:
Problems with the above:
A lot of the toolbar buttons and menu options are completely inaccessible
I'm sure it was for good reason (probably some other icons that appear there), but there's also a load of empty space to the left of the run button which would allow me to fit more of the toolbar on screen
To be able to access the entire toolbar, the windows has to be at least one of the following wide:
Why is this a problem?
Normally my front panel windows are nicely sized according to the controls and indicators on the front panel (e.g. controls top left, indicators top right, error clusters bottom), for most SubVIs this usually means that the window is thinner than the minimum width to show all of the toolbar options.
If you have a fixed size UI panel (e.g. for dialogues) - if you want to align / space objects on the panel you have to make it larger, do the scaling and then resize back to the original size which isn't ideal (possibility for not resizing to the original size correctly)
Similar to the above but if you have a UI where you have fit/scale to pane you might want the initial size of the UI to be smaller than the minimum width
Just before submitting this idea I realised you can shrink the 'search' bar from the toolbar to make it slightly better
Use the OpenG (?) VI for 'fit to largest decoration - this is OK for some UIs but not really suitable for the SubVI case above
Please make it so that the menu and toolbar are accessible regardless of window size. One solution would be to have a button that allows you to 'scroll' the toolbar or have a pop-up dialogue that shows the missing toolbar buttons as per the image below.
MS Paint skills (icon lifted from Chrome's bookmarks bar):
As an aside, MS Word manages it fairly well (even though it isn't that readable), and it has a LOT of toolbar buttons:
Please consider my idea (or Kudos it) for future versions of LabVIEW - it will improve usability of the IDE.
I'm not sure if this is a bug report or a feature request, but I think it should be fixed/implemented, all the same
If you right-click on a Boolean funtion (And, Or, Exclusive Or, Not, etc.) and replace with a Compoint Arithmetic (CA) function, the CA function is always set to the "Or" configuration. I would expect it to be smart and put the CA node into a configuration (including negation/inversion dots) that is equivalent to the Boolean function that it replaces.
Many times a while loop needs a delay for one reason or another, even if its just to add a small delay so the program doesn't peg the processor. Having this would clean up BDs, and it would also act as a reminder to make sure your code doesn't peg the processor. (with nothing wired to it, it would default to zero)
Sometimes when dealing with the Bundle/Unbundle by Name nodes, I start with more elements than I actually end up using. Then, my block diagram looks something like the following:
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I really hate removing each unused item from the Bundle/Unbundle by Name node over and over. Right click on unused element, click "Remove Element", Right click on next unused element, click "Remove Element", etc... Ugh!
So I'm suggesting a "Remove Unused Elements" when you right click on a Bundle/Unbundle by Name nodes. With this option, right clicking on one of these nodes would look like this (emphasis added ):
The result of this operation would look something like this:
Now I can spend my time coding instead of getting rid of individual elements! Thoughts?
The title says it all - I'd like to have the option to inherit my configuration settings from the previous LabVIEW installation (or from a specified path). Currently I have to do this manually by copying the ini file from the previous version, but I'm never sure whether there will be compatibility issues with the new version of LabVIEW or if there are obsolete settings. The installer should check for compatibility/obsolescence issues as it creates the new ini file.
Alternatively / additionally, I'd like to be able to specify where LabVIEW loads the LabVIEW.ini file from (which could be located on a network or USB disk).
"Which I think should NOT be the default behavior: It "fixes" potentially incorrect code by throwing even more potentially incorrect code at it. I can't remember a single instance where I wanted that behavior."
While I wish this option would disappear completely, I think at least it should be off by default.
There are plenty of examples (e.g. here or here) where an auto feedback node insertion covered up a serious dataflow issue by making the VI no longer broken. This is a disservice to the new programmer who might not even understand what a feedback node really does.
A feedback node needs to be intentionally placed in all cases.
If there is a "Move Up" and "Move Down" option is available for "Unbundle by Name" and "Bundle by Name", then it would be very helpful. Then, instead of deleting the removing the items and then inserting the same item in some other row, I will just move it up or down....
Within LabVIEW Build Specs you can specify a version for an executable that is built. You can presently see this from within the Windows add/remove program and there are some funky ways of getting this version with .net or WinAPI calls but you should be able to do this from LabVIEW similar to the app version as shown below.
This should also be within LabVIEW so that it can work from LabVIEW Real-Time as well.
It would be a small yet very welcome improvement if the 'size to text' option could be added to the enum and ring options when in arrays rather than having to manually adjust them.
Here we have a combo box vs enum in an array. Both contain identical lists which consist of the following:
Now if you right click the combo box you get the option to size to text: Right click the enum and you don't:
Also, when you 'size to text' on the combo box list, it sizes to the item you selected rather than sizing to the longest string as shown here:
Yes you could argue that it did exactly what you asked but my preference, and I'm sure others will agree, that it would be best to size to the longest string. Maybe have two options in the list. 'size to current element' and 'size to longest element'
It will be very convenient to have the ability to change the amount increment in a for loop. Currently, the i in for loop start at 0 and increment by 1 for each iteration. It will be great if we can change the start point of i and the amount increment, similiar to what we can do in c.
LV2010 introduced a new possibility of accessing class private data via property nodes. However, I suggest to reduce the size of the property node when the Name Format is set to Short Names (default). The suffix .lvclass is not necessary.
CTRL+Click on an input is a great little tool to switch the input.
However, it only works when both inputs are wired. Often (, I or QD connected a wire wrong,) I feel like switching the input, before wire-ing the 2nd. Only to find it doesn't work...
Having to connect the 2nd wire just seems to disrupt the flow, being focused on the first input. Being forced to make things worse (connect two wrong wires) before being able to make it right just feels itchy to me.
It's a minor thing, but I never understood why it would be limited to 2 wires.
Have you ever wanted to place a probe on a loop iteration counter? I can't tell you how many VIs I have with a wire from the iteration counter to the loop boundary just so I can put a probe there (Maybe a pop up iter. count would suffice). Or probe an output terminal on a VI that is not wired. I know you can open the VI and put a probe on the wire but..
There are probably more cases.
Minor issue, but since we have a chance to ask..has been bugging me for about 20 years now.