How to get Digital output port status?

[Golden_H]

      How can I get the status of a specific DO port? I am using PCI-6514. I want to give one or some lines new state without change other lines's state. If I can get current DO port's status(number or boolean array...), then I can only need to change one or some element of array, and write this new array to DO port.

    I have used some DO card from other supplier. There is a VI(or DLL) behaves as i have described. But I can't find it in DAQmx and property node.

     Is it exist?

[TCPlomp]

Hi Golden_H

I think there is no such property in daqmx. But what you could do is make a task per line, in that way you could address them all seperately.

Ton

[chrisger]

hi there

you can READ values from OUTPUT tasks. see attachment.

[Golden_H]

    Thanks at first!

    Now I know I have asked a so foolish problem.

    I have tried this in PXI-6220 & 6070E.This method can work well. These cards's DIO ports can be set to DI or DO. So when I use creat channel.vi( select Digital Output),I can choose all digital channels.

 But When I use 6514,its DIO port can't be set(port0~3 is for DI, port 4-7 is for DO,only). When I create a DO task, I can only choose port 4-7. Now I have no 6514 card in my hand, so I can't try it. If it can work well with 6514 too, that will be  great!

[chrisger]

oh, you can try!

go to MAX and create a simulated DAQmx device! in almost most cases the simulated devices behave like a real one.

btw.: i wrote the vi i attached with a simulated 6514 and read the value of a DO port!:-)

[LVB]

---

go to MAX and create a simulated DAQmx device! in almost most cases the simulated devices behave like a real one.

btw.: i wrote the vi i attached with a simulated 6514 and read the value of a DO port!:-)

---

I tried this using a simulated device (PCI 6514) in NI-DAQmx v8.6.1f0 and it DID NOT read with your attached VI.

I tried this using a physical device (PCI 6514) in NI-DAQmx v8.6.1f0 and it DID read with your attached VI.

Is this a bug in DAQmx or should this be expected behavior?