Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


X___ last won the day on October 5

X___ had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2019
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

3,042 profile views

X___'s Achievements


Rookie (2/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges



  1. It does hang in LabVIEW 2019 SP1 f4 64 bit Windows 10. I am betting this one will never be fixed. This being said, how did you create that graph? If I pick a new one and try to manually enter the same upper and lower bound, it will usually just swap their order and not let me change the second one. If I try programmatically to set the max and min range of the scale, I get the following displayed values: 0.000125173 0.000113794 Playing with increment or precision doesn't help...
  2. I don't think I'll be around for LabVIEW 21xx.
  3. I am trying to understand what you are staying but I am obtuse. In the snippet above, if I connect a constant path whose length is longer than 260 characters (path length not file name, the file name of course needs to be <260 characters), I get an error 6 as @thols mentioned below (but that is not what I am doing, I am using the native file dialog, which results in the file name to be silently truncated). If I try to save a file with the same extra-long path in Word, it works just fine, as it does in Notepad++, for example. I do have LongPathsEnabled set to 1 on my Windows 10 Pro system: I have read some mentions of this failing in Notepad++ for instance, but this turned out to be related to people having the wrong registry settings. Anyway, I guess I have my question answered: LabVIEW 2021 manages some wire kinks better than before, but as far as file paths, it is still stuck in the past.
  4. The KB says: Disclaimer: LabVIEW does not support long path names on Windows. Although Windows includes support to enable LongPaths in the Registry Editor, each individual application must have this support included in the code. I am reading this as "LabVIEW does not have this support included in the code". Maybe I am reading this wrong. I don't think so, see below. As for being silent, try the following snippet: When prompted for a path, just navigate down a deep folder hierarchy and enter a name long enough such that the sum "folder path" + "file name" is larger than 259 characters (1). There is NO error. The file is saved with a truncated file name (so that the path remains smaller than 260 characters) (2). Note 1: if you type a FILE NAME longer than 259 characters in the file dialog box, Windows will beep and prevent you from typing a longer name, so you would know that something is wrong. Note 2: you can edit the file name in Windows Explorer (as long as the NAME remains below 260 characters), such that the file PATH length is LONGER than 260 characters, so yes, Windows does support path name than are longer than 260 characters.
  5. Just curious whether anyone can check whether the 255 character file path limitation is still a thing in LV 2021: https://knowledge.ni.com/KnowledgeArticleDetails?id=kA00Z0000015AHaSAM&l=en-US I just got bitten by it again in LV 2019 and it is a silent killer, as it will truncate the input file path to 255 characters without the slightest warning...
  6. Most relaxing Q&A session of all... 15 minutes of background music. That was necessary to let the breadth and depth of the new features which were crammed within the first 30 min sink in. I was actually quite impressed that NI finally was on the right track as to what an autowire tool is supposed to do. Not that I am planning to turn it on, but pleasantly surprised nonetheless. The important link is this: https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/documentation/bugs/21/labview-2021-known-issues.html 1135156 is nasty... 1555422 is sort of amusing for that new functionality. But I guess that is what happens when the feature is not advertised in the public beta site (https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-2021-Public-Beta/LabVIEW-2021-Beta-Now-Available/td-p/4144143) I believe the "Final Time issued" section is new?
  7. Let's clarify: if you develop in LV 2020 and use the released standalone with LV/Vision 2020 RTE, I am assuming there is indeed no problem (I haven't tried) If you develop in LV 2019 and use the released standalone with LV/Vision 2019 RTE, things work fine (I have tried, box checked or unchecked). It is only when you release in LV 2019 with checkbox checked AND use the released standalone with LV/Vision 2020 RTE that things go South (my experience of that is indirect: a user reported a problem that sounds related, but I can't verify that it was that specific problem, as it was subsequently solved by using LV 2019 RTE - I think. However there have been two other reports above that seem to confirm this pattern. It would be nice to have NI look into it in order to move from the anecdote level to the bug tracking one).
  8. I am not sure I understand the reasoning. The DMC image display control is just a cosmetic modification of the original control. It doesn't change anything to the underlying coding. It seems to become a consensus that checking that box sounded like a good idea, but turned out to be a very bad one in some cases. I have stopped checking it when releasing a standalone app, as I don't have the bandwidth for testing all corner cases. Again, as long as nobody reports the issue with NI, nothing is going to be done about it. I won't because of the above sentence, but someone making his or her living from products developed with these tools might want to send a wake up message to NI. You can't engineer ambitiously if you dread every single checkbox in the application builder.
  9. Sorry, I didn't realize that I was trying to "steal" diagrams. Thanks for clarifying.
  10. Now that makes perfect sense.
  11. So NI knows that their password protection is a joke, but they are still using it. No comment.
  12. Well, I presented a clear business case against locked diagrams: they prevent the Analyzer (a NI product) from working correctly. Following your logic, I wonder why nobody has thought of preventing people from using pointers in C because they could crash their software? Providing detailed documentation is not a NI priority, we know that. Fine. Their market share is plummeting in the software development arena, especially in academia. Are the two correlated? Maybe. I am certainly not at war with NI, and my leaving NI forums a few years ago is due to the fact that I felt that my inputs had zero value for me (no practical influence on NI's development). I am stating my opinion, and you are free to dislike it. As for my own code, I have released some of the source code of my "lighter" programs. Releasing and documenting 1,000s of VIs that nobody will ever look at is not something that I can afford as a single developer. But truly, I wished this was all made easy and natural by NI, and there was a striving community of LV developers in academia that could vet and pinpoint bugs in some of my code. I am lamenting the fact that 25+ years of investment in this development environment are going down the drain and will leave no legacy because what was a truly brilliant concept got killed by corporate miscalculation ($2.5K annual single license originally - or maybe more -, no mechanism for forward compatibility from version to version). Time for a python fork with graphical IDE?
  13. My ignorance amazes me, sometimes most of the time...
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.