X___

Feed an array comprised of non trivial equal numbers (e.g. a 1,000 values of 1.2345) to the Std Deviation and Variance.vi of the Mathematics>>Probability & Statistics palette and look at the standard deviation output using a display format such as that shown below: You will be surprised to see that the standard deviation is non zero and within the range of the precision for the type (~1E-15). While this might not be an issue in most use cases, it is still not an optimal result, and suggests that the calculation done in the called DLL is not optimal (it probably uses the standard formula, but because of round-off errors, the outcome is non-zero). I am posting this in the "bug" category, although it is not strictly speaking one, just to warn unsuspecting users (like me), that dealing with floating point numbers comes with its load of gotchas. Here is a snippet to experiment with the phenomenon: Again the display format of the standard deviation indicator needs to be chosen wisely to reveal the round off error.

I did that too but it broke a VI connection in one of the analysis VIs...

NI Package Manager is advertising a LabVIEW 2021 SP1 f6 version that I would like to learn about before installing it, but I am unable to find anything online. Does anyone have a better search engine (or insider trick on how to get the Package Manager to be helpful)?

Try decimate array?

This actually doesn't work as a general solution (one exception is enough to invalidate the rule, and I just experienced it). However, as stated before, I believe that as long as they don't break the code, LabVIEW's compiler hallucinations can be ignored.

LabVIEW's motto: Move slowly and break things!

Another example of tricks with units. The above formula works fine. If I want to check the value of the Boltzmann constant by adding an indicator where indicated: Things look fine but they are not: tested in LV 2021 SP1 64 bit

I date back from the pica.army.mil email list but never used Usenet. I am so not anonymous that I had a bunch of members of that mailing list drop by in one of my old labs say hi and gift me with a NI screw driver (this was back in the day where NI was gifting their users with goodies and trying to cultivate their relations with universities, just to give an idea of how far back I am talking about). I was already pestering about LabVIEW shortcomings (to my defense, that was pre-undo). Nothing changes...

Noted.

I am not sure I get it. What is that "post-processing VI" you are talking about?

Can this been downgraded to 2021 or earlier?

It starts looking like somewhere else on the internet (https://developer.ibm.com/languages/cobol/😞

So it is the new way to not release any info whatsoever ("NI did not create this content for this release") on new releases? I did not see any beta forum either during that all time. This is important to me, as I need to find funding for migrating my code base to a new environment, and any official evidence that NI/Emerson has dropped the ball to a new low (if I can forge this hybrid expression for the occasion) is useful.

Check this thread though: I wasn't able to take advantage of any multicore speed up and as for many NI toolkits, documentation is aspirational.

I think it is actually more trivial: the behavior I was observing is indeed related to an ancillary window opening, but that was triggered by a user-selected menu item. If I programmatically open the window, the "Mouse Leave" event doesn't appear to be fired (as expected). In fact, going to the menu bar triggers a "Mouse Leave" event. Why not. However, for some reason, the "Mouse Enter" event is not fired if the selected menu item is actually inside the window (which is almost always the case). This is what got me confused (or rather my code). So I guess my question is thus: why is the Mouse Enter event not fired when the user releases the mouse button after having selected a menu item?