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!
Currently, when you use context help and hover over a VI it shows terminals and a little snippet of what it does. I use this a lot. When using quick drop though, the context help doesnt dynamically change to each item selected or hovered over with the mouse. Its like this currently
I would like to see it so that when I hover over an item in the quick drop, the help page updates so I can read it without having to drop it onto my back panel, read, then delete and try again. Like this
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.
Add a new button to the search results dialog called "Set Aside" so I can have multiple search results open at the same time. Put it near the bottom just below the search results. When you click it, it changes the title of the window to "Search Results - Set Aside 1". If you click "Set Aside" again when #1 is open, it will open "Search Results - Set Aside 2" ... and so on. This way you can have several different search results open simultaneously. I love the check mark feature in the search results, but it resets every time the search windows is closed or overwritten by a new search. Thus I lose my place if I want to make sure to check every instance of something but need to search again while looking at one item.
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.
A LabVIEW application installer generated from App Builder creates multiple folders and files in the folders. It is desirable to have a single file installer so that customers see only 1 file to install.
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.
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.
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'
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?
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)
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....
The In Place Array Index/Replace Elements function not only can save memory by avoiding copying arrays, it can also create "neater" and more transparent Block Diagrams. For example, here are two ways to triple the third element in an Array of 3 elements:
I needed to do the same thing, but for a 2D array (three channels of A/D data, I wanted to triple the third channel). The Help for the In Place Array Index/Replace Subset function suggests this is possible, using language like "element or element(s) of an array", noting the similarity between this In Place Structure and the two Array Functions that form the Input and Output nodes, and in earlier versions of LabVIEW (specifically LabVIEW 2012), explicit reference to rows, columns, and pages as replacement items. Here's what happens:
The Index Array left node forces you to specify both row and column, meaning you cannot operate on a single row (or single column), "breaking" the functionality with the separate Index Array/Replace Subset functions. This also, I believe, will force an Array Copy operation, something I'm (also) trying to avoid.
At its most benign, there is a Documentation "Bug" that should warn users that this In Place function is only designed for single array elements (which, in my opinion, severely limits its usefulness). I would like to suggest that this function be "fixed" to (a) for multi-dimension Arrays, allow, as with Index Array and Replace Subset, flexible choice of one or more Indices to be specified, with the unspecified Indices implying "All of the Elements", i.e. an entire Row, Column, Page, etc, and (b) maintain the "In Place" functionality by having this function generate the necessary code (behind the scenes) to access the specified elements and do whatever operation is required inside the Structure.
I appreciate that requirement (b) might be difficult. For instance, operating on a row in a 2D array should be easy, as the (row) elements should be continguous, making getting and putting them simple. However, if a column is specified, getting successive elements and putting them back becomes more complex. To the User, it all "looks simple" -- you get a 1D wire out, operate on it (say, multiply it by 3), and stick it back "in place", but the LabVIEW compiler has to "get" elements from non-continuous locations and put them back where it got them, but that's what Compilers are for!
"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.