Multifunction DAQ

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

NI-9188 modules not detected after reboot

Hi everyone hopefully someone can help.


I believe my issue has been raised before but so far no solution has been found without program work around which I cannot do as we do not have an LV development platform
I have a new NI-9188 cDAQ chassis and six new modules.
The host PC is also new.
Using NiMAX I have discovered the chassis and added the modules. The chassis is reserved correctly and I can access each module and run test panels without issue.
My application sees them and runs tasks without issue.
I can shutdown and restart NiMAX and the chassis and modules appear and respond correctly.

Now comes the issue, if I shutdown the PC and restart the PC and NiMAX only the cDAQ chassis is detected. The modules show as inactive with a red cross next to them. The only way so correct the issue is to run a self-test on the chassis which re scans the NI-9188 bus and identifies the modules ready for use.

Untitled.jpg
Without manually going into MAX and re scanning the project cannot access the modules.

I am using Win 7 Pro 64 bit
NiMAX 5.4 but have also tried NiMAX 16.4 with exactly same issues.
Ni-9188 firmware was 1.1.0f0 but has been upgraded to latest 1.7.0f0. both revisions showed same issue.
Network detection is by DCHP at host PC and cDAQ.

I've tried static IP's, different PC's, 1 Meter CAT5 network patch cables directly from the PC to the chassis. Nothing helps.

What is really winding me up is that I have 2 identical systems in production on the shop floor working perfectly. I'm sure if I mess with them they will also suffer the same demise
and I will lose my job.

Can anyone regenerate the issues above and provide guidance? You would be my best friend..!

Regards,

GaryC

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 3
(2,647 Views)

I have also been experiencing what seems like the same issue. I did a lot of searching and found several suggestions:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Multifunction-DAQ/cDAQ-automatic-module-detection/td-p/3152461

http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/83C09D58EDF8F35586257F0D0078AAD2

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Multifunction-DAQ/Max-is-Overwriting-cDaq-Module-Names-on-first-quot-Reserv...

 

I am using LabVIEW 2016 on my laptop dev computer to build the application into an EXE.  I have MAX installed on the target host PC.  After a full reboot of the system (cDAQ chassis and host PC), I have to go into MAX and interestingly, even if I just click on each module in my chassis it changes from having a red X and showing as not present in my task's device info, etc. it goes to showing up correctly and the task sees the physical channel / device info correctly. I don't even have to run a self test... just click... but running a self test also seems to fix the problem.

 

My application is set to startup automatically, and the goal is to boot straight into a 'worky' state without user intervention.  I've tried adding code to reserve the chassis in a loop, no Bueno.  I've tried first calling an unreserved, then a reserve, nope. I've tried doing a self test vi on the chassis device, nada.  This is very poor behavior and seems fundamental.  There are plenty of people complaining about it but I don't really see any good solutions from NI.  What's the latest? (BTW, I don't want to update my firmware or version of DAQmx unless this issue is KNOWN to be solved, not going to waste my time guess n checking on a hope and a prayer that somebody accidentally fixed something in a newer version).  Thanks for any help.

 

P.S. I'd like to echo the concern expressed that it is really silly for the DAQmx Self-Test Device.vi to return before the self test has been actually successfully completed.  I can't imagine this to be true... but if it is... why?

0 Kudos
Message 2 of 3
(2,617 Views)

Thanks dan,

From reading through the forums it appears that the only solution is to Pragmatically do a self test before using the chassis.

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Multifunction-DAQ/NI-cDAQ-9184-software-problem/td-p/3099835

(same issue as the 9188)

For programmers not an ideal solution.

Foe myself without code access an impossible solution.

 

Many thanks

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 3
(2,592 Views)