Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

VISA TCP versus "Raw" TCP?

Go to solution

I have to write an application that controls non-NI motion controllers & remote I/O units.  Does anybody have opinions about VISA TCP tools versus the Data Communications/Protocols TCP tools?  It's a high reliability application where I'll need robust operation, reconnects, maybe keep-alive, etc.  Thanks, paul

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 5

The only time I use VISA TCP/IP is if the instrument supports the VXI-11or LXI-11 protocols.  Many test instruments do, especially ones with multiple connection options (i.e. if they support TCP/IP but also GPIB), but probably not motion controllers.


Otherwise you'll probably want to use the raw TCP/IP tools for more control over when you actually open and close connections, etc.

Message 2 of 5

Thanks Kyle - that's what I thought about the "instrument" interface stuff, but I wonder about the "sockets".  I don't see anything in the VISA palette...

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 5
Accepted by topic author PaulOfElora

@PaulOfElora wrote:

but I wonder about the "sockets".  I don't see anything in the VISA palette...

The Socket is part of the VISA Resource name.  For example:TCPIP0:: is the resource name for my Thermotron temperature controller, using IP address and port 8888.


I will state that I only used the VISA interface for this instrument since there was a good chance I would have to use GPIB or RS-232 to communicate with the same controller (program dependent).  VISA abstracts those interfaces from me, so my driver can handle any of those interfaces.  In your case, I would also just use the TCP/IP API.  It just seems simpler for me to understand.

There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
Message 4 of 5

Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up for me, guys

0 Kudos
Message 5 of 5