JDave

QUOTE (zorro @ Jul 31 2008, 11:07 AM) There are various ways to achieve this, but it would really help if you could describe your desired result a little more. Are you changing the voltage on an analog line in hardware? Are you changing the value in software only? How much resolution do you need (ms, tens of ms)? Do you need to do other things while the timer is going? If you don't need to do anything else (as unlikely as that is) you could just set the voltage, use a ms timer, then set the voltage again. You would need to place this in a flat sequence structure.

Utah State University, or at least my attempt at it...

Fellow wireworkers, I really wanted to polish these up a bit more, but I also wanted to get them out a bit before NI Week. I won't be doing near as much LV development (hardly any ) for the next few years, so I figured I would put these out to the community and see if there is any worth in them. First off, a disclaimer -- the images are from the Nuvola theme and if you use them in your work you should look at the licensing (BSD, I believe). I am also including modified versions of the Tunnel Wiring Wizard (TWW) and Michael's routine for coloring block diagram structures. Thanks to them for their original work. There may be more that I am forgetting... Second, installation -- You should be able to copy the project and resource directories from the ZIP file directly over to a LV 8.2+ directory. The contents inside those folders will show up where they need to go. NOTE that this will replace the lv_icon file if you are already overriding the built-in icon editor. ALSO NOTE that if you don't have OpenG installed then you will need to open the code and link the OpenG files to the OpenG Support directory included as a separate ZIP. If you have OpenG installed then simply continue on with your awesomeness. DESCRIPTION: Included is an alternate Icon Editor and a Development Environment Toolbar. The purpose of the Icon should be fairly obvious, and the purpose of the Toolbar is to allow a nice way to group tools like the TWW for easy access as well as keyboard shortcuts. These are accessed from the menu bar Tools>>JDev Tools. There is a help screen for the Icon Editor, but briefly its design is to parse the VI filename and auto-create a VI based on that. It allows for various themes to be created, and incorporates images easily into your VIs. There is an interface doing this en masse to a directory, as well as an individual interface if you modify a single VI's icon. I use tags to store the icon description, which allows for later modification. I could write a whole lot more, but go take a look... The Toolbar has a couple other tools included that I wrote, to place captions on structures, and a couple dealing with the connector pane. The idea was to make it easy to write new tools and have them automatically show up in the toolbar. Right-clicking would bring up a 'parameters' view if applicable. Shift/Ctrl/Alt clicking would modify the behavior of the tool if applicable. Not a lot of documentation or help on this one, but it is fairly self-explanatory. Download File:post-1519-1217518927.zip Download File:post-1519-1217519496.zip Let me know what you think. I know there isn't much time before NI Week, but I will be there and definitely at the BBQ. David (JDave)

QUOTE (GreatVIEW @ Jul 28 2008, 02:35 PM) I think Norm's point was that you have to account for all the possible ways a user could change the value. These include drag'n'drop, cut and paste, etc. If you restrict certain avenues (like no mouse) then you don't have to worry about that in your code. It really depends on how full and robust you want it to be. If you want to handle only the nominal keyboard entry of a value, then you might ignore the rest. You have chosen something difficult to put into the UI. Until the user commits the value, it really isn't a number -- it is just some numeric characters. That is, the block diagram end of things doesn't see a new number until it is committed. Making a string act just like a numeric would be painful as well. Scanning all the characters entered and only allowing numerics... Is coercing the value to something within range an option? You can easily implement that without any code. There might be other solutions that are much more reasonable to implement.

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Jul 24 2008, 12:32 PM) That would be awkward...

QUOTE (mballa @ Jul 23 2008, 09:50 PM) I am very much looking forward to my first NI Week. I am planning on sweating in the Austin heat, meeting people from the LAVA forums, and definitely going to the LAVA BBQ!!

QUOTE (Christina Rogers @ Jul 21 2008, 11:27 AM) Now that we have a size, we really need to get an 'official' LAVA badge. I mean, I can't wear my LAVA shirt every day... QUOTE (JDave @ Jul 23 2008, 02:25 PM) Now that we have a size, we really need to get an 'official' LAVA badge. I mean, I can't wear my LAVA shirt every day... Though that can't be the right size... 1.5 cm square ? Do they show up on something like business cards that we give to others?

QUOTE (Val Brown @ Jul 12 2008, 02:40 PM) That would be an interesting design review. "No, no, no. This code makes too much sense! I understand everything you are doing and your architecture is well laid out !! What am I paying you for? Now get back there and obfuscate."

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Jun 24 2008, 02:35 PM) Five different names, but four different colors. The first two have the same color definition... For some reason I had thought chartreuse was more of a purple. Hmmm Really don't know why.

QUOTE (Eugen Graf @ Jun 24 2008, 02:14 PM) Yeah, I started making into an XControl, but never finished it off. I suppose I could post it to the CR in Progress. One of the difficult things was that you can only get the events while the VI is running. And then I dreamed about incorporating the http://forums.lavag.org/-t10063.html&view=findpost&p=41598' target="_blank">new fancy MC Listbox that PJM_LabVIEW found. Yeah... that never happened.

QUOTE (tcplomp @ Jun 24 2008, 11:42 AM) You're right. What a loss. It only seems to fire when the escape button is pressed.

QUOTE (tcplomp @ Jun 24 2008, 11:31 AM) Thanks!! It looks like I never put in the token for private properties in 8.5. That will help a lot to solve the issue with clicking on the current ring value. No event is generated from this event (until now :thumbup: )

I have played with this a bit, and agree that it is fraught with difficulties. But if the use case is limited, it should work great. QUOTE (tcplomp @ Jun 24 2008, 09:47 AM) Where are these events, Ton? They sound awesome, but I have never seen them.

QUOTE (Eugen Graf @ Jun 12 2008, 04:06 PM) Justin was saying to use a separate loop for each needed process. Sounds like you have a process needed for each of your communications lines. And why not use queues or user events to communicate between the loops, as mentioned already? Your question is fairly generic, and I think that generically you got an answer...

QUOTE (BrokenArrow @ Jun 11 2008, 08:56 AM) Now that's hot!!

QUOTE (JiMM @ Jun 4 2008, 02:47 PM) Math efficiency is going to be a large part of keeping the speed down. A slow mathematical algorithm will be slow no matter have programmatically efficient you make it. QUOTE (JiMM @ Jun 3 2008, 04:55 PM) My wife would not thank you I don't know if my wife would appreciate me starting up. It does look fun though.

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Jun 4 2008, 01:40 PM) Or you implement the next step after Express VIs, the VI Assistant. You drop something from the palette, and this little dog or paper clip appears on the screen. "It looks like you want to add numbers together! Were you also aware that you can subtract, multiply, divide, and even negate numbers? Click here for example VIs." Of course, if you are connected to the internet you can expect a phone call shortly thereafter. "We noticed that you were building a VI to add numbers. Were you aware...?"

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 30 2008, 01:34 PM) Not a problem. As for your PS, it seems that the Mexican Wave would constitute a massive perturbation created by the low level masses attending sporting events. Thus, it would be a massive sin according to alfa. QUOTE (alfa @ May 30 2008, 08:06 AM) In my view the biggest sin is perturbation of the wave function(|ψ> = c1 |Φ1> + c2|Φ2> + c3|Φ3> + c4|Φ4> + c5|Φ5> + c6|Φ6> + c7|Φ7> ) of a high level person; they are 'vibrating' at the highest level and this kind of waves are very rare 'in the city' for example. The perturbation is coming from low level people, the huge majority.

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ May 28 2008, 08:27 AM) If Michael did use scripting to move wires around and line them up, that would be very cool. Definitely looks more like some awesome Etch-A-Sketch action. We are going to have to start a gallery just for Block Diagram Etch-A-Sketch drawings.

QUOTE (Malik @ May 27 2008, 09:59 AM) That is the expected behavior of arrays. To see which element needs to be toggled, you need to convert the mouse coordinates to array indices. This bit of code can help with that. Do you want to toggle on Mouse Move or on a Mouse Click? QUOTE (Malik @ May 27 2008, 09:59 AM) A second question: Is there an easy way to have a control, in which the user can draw a line - and me getting the data into an array or something. Not really. You will have to capture the mouse motion yourself and translate that to the data you are interested in.

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 26 2008, 06:21 AM) I think you misunderstood me a little. I think most religions accept that there are things we do not know, and things we don't or can't comprehend, which are 'mysteries'. I was referring to when religion does explain something, or there are scriptures that state something, and it is convoluted or contradictory. To state that we can't comprehend it seems to be an easy way to explain away seeming contradictions or confusing language. Perhaps we can't understand the concept completely, but to immediately retreat to a position of "We CAN'T understand it" seems hasty and overly simplistic. P.S. Science is one of those areas where you are discouraged from breaking the law, but if you actually succeed in doing it you may end up with a Nobel Prize.

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 12:02 AM) You're right. I was only thinking how they are both abused to exercise control over people, and they both have potential for good and bad. After that the comparison breaks down rather rapidly and it is comparing apples to oranges. Certainly the checks and balances and feedback from the people that some governments have are pretty nonexistent in a church. I was saying you could ask similar questions about each, but not that you could compare the answers. QUOTE (shoneill @ May 23 2008, 12:02 AM) The difference with Science is that it's not "True". It's accepted theory. . . .There is no "Faith" or "Belief" in science. Opinion yes, but not more. If the same would apply to theological discussions, I believe I'd be pretty much out of arguments. I was thinking about this after posting my last response. It's really the source of the truth that is the difference. Science and religion both seek to explain life and the universe, to explain the truth. Science accepts that our current understanding of this truth is limited, and will change over time as people search out a better understanding of how things really are. Every discovery and proof is subject to later modification or total dismissal. Religion states that some truth was given, not discovered. It is TRUE. It can't be modified or dismissed, it just is. [begin rant] And how does one know that it is true? Because it is in that book. But how do you know what is in that book is true? Because it is in that book. How can you validate those 'truths' in your book? Because God gave us that book. Given that many churches and the people therein would basically use this argument is a very serious cause for concern. No wonder things like Pastafarians were developed. "How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true?" "Because I said so". Good enough, and just as convincing. Another thing that bothers me is when one asks "What about this particular part of your book? It is really confusing, contradictory, and doesn't seem feasible." Often the answer is -- "O the wondrous mysteries of God. We mortals cannot comprehend this. It is beyond our ability to understand or even imagine." The question then begs itself -- "Why do believe it is true, then?" Because it is in that book. I mean, forget your argument about trying to symplify things so our brains can understand them. If the topic gets too difficult to explain, then maybe our brains can't comprehend it. Faith is the only answer. [end rant] Sorry about the rant. I did it so you didn't have to. I do believe there is truth given to us, but I am just as frustrated with the tactics used by many to express this idea. Churches do often play the 'Truth' trump card, which is rife for abuse.

Aristos, I wanted to add my thanks. I have learned a lot and will continue to learn more from your thoughtful posts.

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 01:10 AM) Likewise. I appreciate your insights. QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 01:10 AM) However..... I disagree on part of the sentiment of your text above. I refer to Northern Ireland . . . If I understand you correctly, you are stating that doctrinal differences didn't have much of an impact whereas the abuse of church power caused serious problems. Beliefs of the church and beliefs of the people in the church have a very fuzzy match. The "unique beliefs" I referred to were strictly beliefs of the church. Beliefs of the people are much more fluid. And as you stated, many people don't even understand the differences from one to the next. QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 01:10 AM) There are good people and bad people within and without churches. There are some amazing people (like our TALMs) who are self-motivated to do wonderful things. Most people need some sort of encouragement. Charities are an excellent source. Churches are also a great source (but just one of many) for this inspiration to do good things. QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 01:10 AM) Of course religion is not inherently bad. It seems to derive from a more or less universal need to fit our understanding of the universe and nature into something simpler. It takes many different forms in different parts of the world, but it often deals with understanding complex things on a simpler, every-day level. There is really nothing wrong with this per se. I dislike it because it veils the true complexity (and seeming randomness) of the real world. This is purely a personal dislike. I can understand that. But doesn't science do much the same thing? QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 01:10 AM) Churches, however, are a different story. . . . Anything we implement will be flawed because we too are flawed. Religion, church, LabVIEW, politics included. Definitely not LabVIEW. Good thing you crossed that out. I absolutely agree. Churches are led by people and people mess up. Often they do so on purpose. I think the comparison we have done with politics is very apt. Church and politics are routinely abused to exercise control over people and have certainly caused immense pain and suffering to millions of people. Churches have caused more destruction and oppression than any chess club or theater group ever have. So certainly people should be much more wary of churches, just as they should be of governments. But that does not mean that churches or governments are bad. They are just abused because they are led by humans. Churches are no worse than any particular man-made group, but they do have great potential for abuse. Does that potential outweigh their potential for good? Does government's potential for abuse outweigh it's potential for good? QUOTE (shoneill @ May 22 2008, 01:10 AM) Pseudo-philosoplical rant ahead: . . . In a way our basis of "truth" are based on our interpretations, which again are tainted by our less than complete ability to even observe the reality. I knew we had some common ground. QUOTE (JDave @ Apr 17 2008, 11:14 AM) We all view the world a bit differently, which makes us all a bit wrong. We all change our paradigm and world view as we progress through life, hopefully fixing our incorrect perceptions. So while [others] may be wrong, remember that we are too.

QUOTE (shoneill @ May 21 2008, 12:57 AM) So do I... QUOTE (shoneill @ May 21 2008, 12:57 AM) Not a stretch at all. People often blinker themselves, sometimes unconsciously, in order to increase their "comfort" factor. To clarify a bit, certainly many groups believe falsehoods and sometimes even consciously. People in these groups will be willing to accept these falsehoods to stay comfortable in that group, where they may otherwise reject them. Moreover, there are probably people in ALL groups who believe falsehoods that they also falsely attribute to the group. My point was that there is no intrinsic need to believe in falsehoods just to be a distinguishable group. Not to say that this doesn't happen, but the author states this as a necessity - QUOTE You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true. If you want to set yourself apart from other people, you have to do things that are arbitrary, and believe things that are false. His argument, albeit too broad, does still have impact on religions. Different religions believe different things, if viewed in their entirety. That is, religions are distinguished by the unique beliefs they possess. Therefore a person from Religion A would not accept the unique beliefs of religions B, C, etc. Therefore those unique beliefs are viewed as false, so the parents in those religions are teaching false ideas to their kids. Of course the person from Religion A believes all their churches beliefs, so they are all seen as true. So that person would reject the authors argument with respect to themselves, but must accept that it is true for others. So I do agree with some of the underlying problems that he is describing, but he summarizes it very poorly. QUOTE ( @ May 21 2008, 12:57 AM) Uh Oh, now we have politics involved.......... Just look at how Obama and Clinton are trying to ddistance themselves from each other, yet they are both "Demorats". My point exactly. The grouping is only a very vague one. With fuzzy borders. Otherwise the parallels are really striking between church and political party. The dynamics of what happens in a group and between groups is a different topic. I was saying that religion and church are not inherently bad. All they do is group people of similar beliefs. Specific churches may foment or cause bad things, and certainly people in different churches will do very bad things. But specific churches also do much good, and people in many churches do very good things because they belong to their church. One may argue that the human race has move beyond the need for church and religion, and there are better alternatives to achieve similar beneficial results. And maybe that was what you were saying...