ShaunR

There are alternative methods such as sending the data via queues and using a database amongst others. It really depends on how fast (what is the acquisition rate?) and how fresh he data needs to be (would the user really see if data was delayed 100ms as long as it was continuous). Besides. There are not enough pixels on a screen to represent 20,000 data points, so you don't need all of them to display to the user. Of the two choices you have given, I would probably go for the global with a single write and limited readers (data-pool). That is the old method before things like queues/events and doesn't limit you to running the acquisition in the UI thread. But queues are the most commonly used since they also break the coupling between the UI and the acquisition and are very efficient. There are some examples shipped with LabVIEW that demonstrate this technique for waveforms.

Receive in a separate loop. The Event structure is your "command" loop and the receive loop is the "response". And for extra brownie points; do all of the commands with 1 write vI.

Don't normally go in for this sort of thing....but Front slogan: Class - Simplified Rear slogan: Simply Class Or maybe thr other way round..

Use an event structure and just send the heartbeat in the timeout case (wire a value to the timeout). Your commands will map to an event case, so just send them in the appropriate case. That will achieve what you want with very little effort and you can always pull it out into a more elaborate approach later, (you will still probably use the event case for the UI regardless). A state-machine seems a bot overcomplicated for your current spec.

Confirmed (2010 x64 Win64). No problems on 2009 x64/x32 on win64. Fantastic sleuthing to have tracked that one down.

Was the assembly tested on a windows box with a Chinese or Japanese localisation? My first thoughts with Asian-only issues are the problems (and Labviews issues) with Unicode string handling. The problem you have (as Rolf is saying) is you have a black-box that is't happy and no way to tell why it isn't happy (Labview can only tell you it isn't happy). Presumably the author of the assembly has a test harness of some description. Can you send that out to China and see what error log it produces (if any).

Firefox can also be used. FF4 is shipped with web sockets disabled but it can be enabled from the config page Enable Web Sockets For internet explorer you need an additional (experimental?) plugin which isn't really any better than NI's approach and a real pain since it is still the dominant business browser. IE web sockets plugin

Yes. Absolutely. All the VIs you have downloaded are based around uploading the firmware to the PIC. If you have this already then once you have programmed the PIC with the USB commands that you want it to respond to you can use the LabVIEW serial comms VIS (VISA) to communicate as if it was a normal serial port (see the simple serial example shipped with LabVIEW). See here about using PICS with virtual serial ports.

I'll reiterate. DLLS are for the windows platform. So no. It won't work. there are 2 aspects to using pics. 1. Uploading the firmware (bootloader and your program either using a PIC programmer or specific software). 2. Communicating with the firmware once you achieve No1 (usually as a serial port) To achieve No1. You have to use the toolchains supplied from the manufacturer (I use HiTech as it happens) or some open source equivalent. The VIs you are downloading are merely wrappers around the manufacturers API for communicating with their PICs that are "blank" so have no USB support as you would consider it. (LabVIEW is not a PIC programmer). Lots of people have windows and microchip supply the DLL for windows and some people have written the wrappers to use this DLL for uploading the bootloaders and firmware rather than using one of the myriad of other tools people have written.. For the MAC they (Microchip) would need to supply a "framework" or dylib which would enable you to do the same on a MAC with LabVIEW. Maybe this page on PICs with the MAC and Linux will help.

Good video. This is basically how all my software works.

I've never experienced this problem so this is a wild guess. But spurious issues in "ini" files can be a symptom of excessive path lengths. Try deleting the line for "RecentFiles.pathList", "NewDlgRecentMainTemplates.pathList" and the quikdrop ones.

DLLs are for the windows platform. If you are using the MCHPFSUSB, I've never seen Microchip support for the MAC, but you never know.

Ok. Just for you I mean a Multicolumn List Box (which is a table to a simpleton like me ) rather than a Table Control. So yes you are right a "Table Control" does work. Not all table-type controls do though.

Wow. For once LabVIEW didn't crash when saving to a previous version. I flirted with it a while back (its on here somewhere). The issue is Admin rights. I never got around to revisiting it.

Perhaps we should design a BS Bingo game for LabVIEW

I don't know if it is there or not. I don't visit the NI sites much any more since it kept asking me to verify my details-so I don't bother now. But we have over a year to argue about it before it is likely to be considered Well. We are about to argue about semantics. I didn't say what it should do, just that I find it irritating that it doesn't and pointing out that if the OP uses it, it probably won't do what they (and I) expect for those controls.

Note that this invoke node will not clear tables or combo-boxes which I've always found infuriating

Well said. I personally think people get hung up on the terminology. I view the NI certifications as expanding levels of remit that closely follow a typical career path as you take greater responsibility over more of the project life-cycle. You start off with a general knowledge about LV (CLAD-demonstrate you know what it is) then progress to detailed implementation (CLD-demonstrate you can write software) and for the CLA it expands into requirements decomposition. (that's where I see the grey area between technical and project management begins) If you demonstrate competency in all these areas then you could also call yourself a software systems engineer, senior software engineer, chief developer, software technical authority et al. "Architect" has always seemed a bit, pretentious to me. At this level, titles don't really mean much (I notice you don't call yourself an architect ). I'm pretty sure that next time round, Daklu will probably get one of the highest scores ever in the tests now that it is clear what is expected. For most of us, examinations are rare occurrences and we may perform better under pressure in a management meeting (that we deal with often) rather than in a timed test..

Well. I'm coming in a bit late but I'm a bit surprised that there's no discussion of tagged-token/static dataflow or even actors and graphs. Yet this whole thread is about dataflow ? I don't know specifically because I have never given it much thought and only have a cursory understanding since it's not my remit. But if I were to catagorise labvierw I would say it is either a tagged-token dataflow model or a variant thereof (hybrid?). Asking whether it is "pure" or not is a bit like asking if the observer design pattern is a "pure" design pattern.

Not a consolation I know, but you're not the first. And definitely won't be the last. Of all the NI exams. The CLA is the one where exam technique weighs heavily in the results. You can nail the requirements and documentation by spending 1/2 an hour writing a well rehearsed scripting VI and cutting and pasting the requirements into a text file As Crelf said. "Give the examiner what they want" (or in this case, the Requirements Gateway).

Hmmm. Not sure I necessarily agree with this. M$ has been touting CE as "hard real-time performance" since version 3.0 and the term "real-time" on it's own tends to mean many different things to different people. But here's a report into it's real-time capabilities and a rather excellent web-cast on its real-time features so you can decide by your criteria. When it boils down to it. There really aren't that many "real-time" applications that are required of an OS in Labview development. The trend is to offload real-time onto dedicated hardware and NI have many fantastic PCI or PCIE solutions for this. Thats why we have seen the proliferation of FPGA. This means tat Embedded Windows is an excellent platform for real-time (or near real-time) applications. I've actually been using Windows XP Embedded Standard for a couple of years now (not exactly the same as CE). Far cheaper than NI platform products and you can use NIs cards as well as other manufacturers and is therefore far more versatile. Once you get the right initial "image" - Labview runs on it too. We have gone down the route of having small embedded machines for specific task (e.g one for image acquisition, one for motion control, one for acquisition etc) and as replacements (or alternatives) for cRIO. So far, we have not found one instance where it hasn't been as capable. But many instances here it is far more versatile and at a fraction of the cost. Looking forward to evaluating Embedded 7. But XP has worked so well (with Labview) that it'll probably only happen when we really have to.,

http://youtu.be/Vh78T--ZUxY

Yup. well worth a rofl point. I have seen quite a few of those VIs.

Sweet. I'm pleased it is worthy of consideration.

You made that up What you meant was LTWAC (Lazy To Write A Class)