crossrulz

Darren, you missed the Wait (ms), Tick Count (ms), and Wait Until Next ms Multiple (all from the timing palette). Personally, I think putting OpenG into libraries is a good idea.

cross posted on the dark side: http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Algorithim-on-AC-waveform/m-p/2537348#M769268

If you want 0 to 1, just use LabVIEW's built-in random number. Since the OpenG function is looking for a range, it makes sense that the inputs should be required. Plus that is actually a polymorphic VI. So it needs the inputs so LabVIEW knows which instance to call.

I had nothing but problems with 2009. Rarely ever ran into issues with 8.6.1 (which I have by far used the most). I skipped 2010, so I can't comment on that. But NI does keep making the point about how much time they have been spending on either fixing stability issues or adding code to help track down the issue in the last few years. They are making progress.

Do you have the file open in another program to look at it when you run your VI? Do you close your file when you are done (you really need to)? Those are the two most common reasons I have seen for that error.

Give this guy a try. It uses autoindexing and the Search 1D Array in order to find the necessary values. Compare Arrays.vi

At least they were consistent. We might not all agree with NI's decision. And that was brought up in the Beta. I think it came down to the fact that there was a few functions that needed more terminals than the 4-2-2-4 would allow. Therefore all went to 5-3-3-5.

Got that covered in a QD as well. https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-20833

You are far from alone. I too have written my own QD shortcuts to help alleviate some of the pain. Still need to figure out how to auto align by terminals consistently the way I want.

I asked Steven Mercer during his presentation what the difference between a FGV and AE were. He stated that a FGV was a LV2 global with just a Get and a Set case. Still trying to figure out how much of that statement I agree with. But this is something I really wish we all can agree on because I don't like how we mix FGV, AE, and LV2Global all the time. There really should be a distinction.

You do have the option to take the 4-hour practical instead of the multiple guess to recert. So if you are confident in your practical test taking, you might want to consider that.

Hopefully my shield and chalice will protect me from the flaming arrows coming my way. I am known quite well around my former work place as one who will totally delete "working" code, totally rewrite it, and have it debugged and everything (more flexible, a lot easier to read, actually does work) in a tiny fraction of the time it took the original developer to write the atrocity they wrote. I'm all for purification. I just want full control over the purification.

Can you be a little more specific of what would be done to LabVIEW? It better not be deleting my code. But it is sounding like a really old LabVIEW feature where inputs to subVIs went through a range check and coerced if necessary.

I got my news yesterday! See you there.

To programmatically get a subset of a waveform, use Array Subset. You will need to get the Y out of the waveform and figure out the start sample index (sample time/dt) and number of samples to grab ( (end time-start time)/dt + 1).

I was just able to log on.

Nope. It seems to be down today. I can get pretty much anywhere else on the NI site though, including the communities. They are probably making a Lithium update.

I second the recommendation of a state machine. I actually would use a normal state machine for what you quickly described.

Assuming 2013 or 2014 even ship

People can see the code. Though, that's not really much of a downside. The other small issue is that people can go in and change the setting and then edit the VIs. Again, I don't see that as a major down side assuming you trust those who are using the libraries.

Fab, my testing concurrs with yours (LabVIEW 2011 SP1)

I know you meant for this to be rhetorical, but about all you really can do is send in the crash reports and do what you have done. Finding the exact cause of the bugs is sometimes really hard to do. But R&D is doing a lot of work. Maybe your bug was fixed in the 2013 beta. Maybe they are still trying to figure out where the exact problem is. I understand your frustrations, but after attending the CLA summit this year I realized just how much work the R&D folks are doing between bug fixes and making the language better.

You will need the App Builder, which comes with the Professional version. In order to run your EXE, you will have to install the LabVIEW Run-Time Engine (RTE). Also be sure to read all of the EULA for LabVIEW. There's language in there that you have to put NI's copyright for LabVIEW in an About Box and/or elsewhere in your application. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details at the moment.

They are in the February/March time frame. So I would it should be out within a month or so. There shouldn't be anything new in it. Just major bug fixes.

The problem is that you are dynamically calling your VIs. So once the dynamic VI is complete, it is pulled out of memory. So your clones are being disposed of when they complete.