Error -10401 occurred at AI Group Config

[Ben]

---

@vadim.santos wrote:

Speaking of channels...

---

See if setting the second device to a device ID of "2" helps with those virtual channels.

Ben

[vadim.santos]

Tried it right now, still gives me the 10007 error.

[Kevin_Price]

I'm pretty sure the red "X" on those virtual channels says that they aren't validly defined.  While there's still no guarantee, I'd definitely bet on the naming convention "T_2_10" being "T" for temperature or thermocouple, "2" for device #2, and "10" for channel #10.

See if you can look into one of those virtual channels, edit it to make sure it's assigned to the corresponding device and channel, and see if MAX then considers it to be valid.

If this doesn't seem to help, we might be a step closer to Jeff's reset suggestion (but not necessarily all the way there.  I don't presently have any other ideas, but others may.)

-Kevin P

[Kevin_Price]

New posts arrived while I typed.

1. The fact that the virtual channels are invalid in MAX is *definitely* a problem.  That needs to be fixed first.

2. The double comma syntax in the code's list of channels for device #2 seems somewhat *likely* to be a problem.  (Although it's possible that "AI Group Config" handles it cleanly by treating it as a NULL channel and ignoring it.  It's a little bit similar to times when I write consecutive commas into a CSV text file -- I know Excel can handle it, treating it as a NULL entry and making an empty cell.)

-Kevin P

[Ben]

---

@Kevin_Price wrote:

I'm pretty sure the red "X" on those virtual channels says that they aren't validly defined.  While there's still no guarantee, I'd definitely bet on the naming convention "T_2_10" being "T" for temperature or thermocouple, "2" for device #2, and "10" for channel #10.

See if you can look into one of those virtual channels, edit it to make sure it's assigned to the corresponding device and channel, and see if MAX then considers it to be valid.

If this doesn't seem to help, we might be a step closer to Jeff's reset suggestion (but not necessarily all the way there.  I don't presently have any other ideas, but others may.)

-Kevin P

---

Yes, starting Fiddling" with those virtual channels to see what is wrong with them. That weird syntax may actually be using a range of inputs and not just two. Some devices (or was it all?) in traditional DA required channels be scanned in ascending order.

If you do decide to reset the MAX config, please save it off as a unique name or we could be singing a sad tune for a while trying to put it back to together again.

Ben

[vadim.santos]

Guys, finally!!!

The problem was with the virtual channels all the time, each channel was targeted to each device but for some reason was invalid. To fix it I had to choose the channel again and it validated. Now that all the channels are working the program works like a charm.

Thank you to all of you who took the time to help me with this mystery. (special thanks to Kevin, I'll buy you a beer someday )

Once again, thanks!!!

[Kevin_Price]

---

@Ben wrote:

Yes, starting Fiddling" with those virtual channels to see what is wrong with them. That weird syntax may actually be using a range of inputs and not just two. Some devices (or was it all?) in traditional DA required channels be scanned in ascending order.

---

For those who haven't (or can't) see the code, the scan order appears to want to scan channels 10 through 15 first followed by channels 2 through 9.  So far I've been working on the presumption that the hardcoded (and non-ascending) scan order *used* to work before the motherboard change.  But the error text *does* suggest that scan order could be a possible culprit.

Below is a screencap (not a code snippet) with "ghosted" calls to traditional NI-DAQ functions which I don't have installed anywhere.  The first vi in the config chain is "AI Group Config" and I expanded the channel lists to make them more visible.

-Kevin P

[Edit:  solved while I was still typing.  Oh well, I'll leave the screencap anyway.]

[Ben]

---

@vadim.santos wrote:

Guys, finally!!!

The problem was with the virtual channels all the time, each channel was targeted to each device but for some reason was invalid. To fix it I had to choose the channel again and it validated.

...

(special thanks to Kevin, I'll buy you a beer someday )

Once again, thanks!!!

---

See my bad joke above here.

Then it is proper practice to mark his most useful post as the solution and any other post that was helpful gets a star.

Take care,

Ben

[JÞB]

---

@vadim.santos wrote:

Guys, finally!!!

The problem was with the virtual channels all the time, each channel was targeted to each device but for some reason was invalid. To fix it I had to choose the channel again and it validated. Now that all the channels are working the program works like a charm.

Thank you to all of you who took the time to help me with this mystery. (special thanks to Kevin, I'll buy you a beer someday )

Once again, thanks!!!

---

Yup, the channel was expected on the old PCI bus.  Makes perfect sense in hindsight. 

Nice collaborative effot!

@Ben

Spoiler

GROAN!