03-02-2012 11:31 AM
03-02-2012 12:02 PM
Ok, I am back on a computer with LabVIEW. The thing about LabVIEW is that a picture tells a thousand words.
This is what I was getting at. Also attached in LV8.2.
03-05-2012 05:15 AM
Yes, that's exactly what I would want it to do. Basically, split the arrays into several subarrays that have all the information in them.
Well, either that or immediately process the information by then also going through the supposed subarrays and finding out which of those numbers (which correspond to indices of another array) is the largest in value.
03-05-2012 05:26 AM
Would working with a whole bunch of arrays in clusters make it harder to process the data later than just having an array ?
How would you go about making this into a 2D array instead of clusters
It just seems to me that working with arrays is easier ...
03-05-2012 06:10 AM
I think I managed to make it work. Mind taking a look ?
03-05-2012 07:46 AM
What you have is a 2D array which might be fine. It will only cause a problem if you can ignore the number 0. As long as you don't have any sequences that start with 0 you should be fine. You can make another subVI that takes a row in and returns an array containing everything up to the first 0.
As for arrays of clusters of arrays, there is no problem with performance. It is only slightly inconvenient that you have to index followed by unbundle.
03-05-2012 07:52 AM
How would I go about choosing which of the bundled array to use though ?
For a 2D array I know I can do two for loops and just let the for loop automatically index the arrays. For a bundle of arrays, I would need to know how many there are or not ?
03-05-2012 08:36 AM
03-05-2012 11:28 AM
Hi, thanks to both Steve and TD for helping me out. It's been very useful and enriching 🙂
Is it possible to pick two solutions as I've mixed both of your inputs into a mish mash ?
03-05-2012 01:21 PM