ShaunR

If it is full blown implementation then it is a lot of work. I think, however, most people only need/use the basics. I just hope its not ADO or .NET.

I assume its an offshoot from their embedded tool kits (you can't run LV on for example an ARM processor). where you write stuff in LV and it generates the C code which you then have to compile using a C compiler. The other way round would be awesome.

Can't wait for the JKI Virus Scanner

For the sensor, I'd probably go for something like this. USB to rs232 lead to get it into the PC and there are pre-shipped examples for serial comms in LV. Only £20 too Ultrasonic devices work much better than light devices outdoors and are not as susceptible to things like dust and dirt.

Do we get cake?

Where can I buy one of those buttons? And does it come with LV drivers?

So what are you trying to say Cat eh?

$5,771.42 For that price I'd expect it to take out scud missiles from 10 km

Labview is designed for interfacing to sensors. What is your budget? How much time do you have? Can you build simple or complex electronic kits? Can you program micro controllers? Can you use a multi-meter? Don't be frightened by the questions. I'm just trying to get an idea of your skills.

I believe 6.0.2 is the one shipped with LV2010. Its for versions 8.6 and above.

I have 3 machines at home. 2 are x64 1 is x32. One of the x64s has both x32 and x64 labview. I don't have any problems switching between OSs or labview. But there are some things to bear in mind. 32 bit dlls will work on a 64 bit machine, but you can't use LVx64 (must use LVx32t) x64 dlls won't work at all on a 32bit OS. (you will get load errors if you try to use LVx32 to load them). Likewise 64bit applications written in LV will not work on a x32 machine. LV must recompile between x32 and x64 every-time you load (the whole hierarchy) which might be a bit of a nightmare for your source control if switching to and fro. Editing with LVx64 on a x64 OS is like lightning. LVx32 runs like a slug. Anything pure labview (like scripting) is totlay interchangeable. Install BOTH

Indeed. It was a quick demonstration of a theory rather than a solution. If you change it like so...... Then you get unique intersection values for example. Sweet. that'd be even faster

I thought I'd seen this problem bedore Here is another method that's similar to your first one rather than the second. This VI (wrote it a while ago now) returns the array differences but the theory is the same. Slightly different in that it actually does a search and eliminates data, therefore reducing the data set as it goes. Its very quick especially if the duplicates are sparse and isn't explicitly linked to the data-set size, rather the number of duplicates.

Array indexing inside a for loop is a killer. Actually concatenating isn't too bad due to optimisations (LV is very efficient with For-loops). I vaguely remember a challenge from Jim Kring to find a better method than concatenating for selecting arbitrary values from an array. I don't think there were any takers. So assuming that we have to concatenate in some form or another the best we can hope for is pre-processing. Along this line what about finding turning points? Maybe faster, maybe not but it would uses in-build functions (generally faster than native LV) and eliminate the array indexing.

Actually I would say the opposite..... Its too simple But probably sufficient for most users. Why they went for an intermediate "wrapper" dll is beyond me. I guess NI has more C programmers than LV programmers nowadays (or maybe just lazy to implement the switching in LV). But the wrapper is only half a page (excluding comments, spacing) basically just opening, preparing and executing the SQL. The fact that it supports RT targets isn't that complicated (conditional disable structure). But it overlooks a lot of DB functionality (parametrised queries for example). I would ignore the RT targets at your peril. This is the only viable database solution available for RT and (IMHO) why most LV users are interested. And, as I intimated earlier, all you need is a conditional disable and a DLL compiled for the targets (that's where most LV users will come up against a brick wall if they want to "roll-their-own") . There are many FREE db solutions for windows and linux (don't forget MAC too) You might also consider providing a "drop-in" replacement for the NI Database Toolkit to allow users to easliy switch/update to SQLite. Nothing sells a product quicker than an easy upgrade path If your engineers are suggesting an implementation in .NET. Slap them for me please

Hope you're pronouncing that correctly

Nope. Its an OOP thing

Sound isn't maybe as good. But that's what I've got a 200W stereo for Mic isn't bad, fine for yahoo, skype, voice chat etc but not studio qualty. Don't forget they are heavily compressed and filtered to reduce bandwidth so even with a studio mic your gonna sound crap.

I use my phones bluetooth headset . Had it about 3 years and its the only mobile headset that stays in my ear Good range. Good quality. Good volume. Can't fault it for general purpose. Works with everything. Movon MF120 http://www.prepaymania.co.uk/mobilephone/generic-movon-mf120-bluetooth-headset.html Mine ISN'T pink by the way...lol.

Naaah. You probably have a real life

Then take a look at this

I'll get all the sleep I need when I'm dead. (might be sooner rather than later though.)

In the VI settings..... If you need to close the first vi then you will need a different method. You can either just hide the first VI's panel or you can launch the second VI dynamically