ShaunR

Don't forget all the documentation

Add this line to the labview.ini file in your labview folder: disableMenuEffects=True Or if an entry already exists; change it to True. Then restart labview

Glad to hear it. Congrats. Always easier when someone is sitting in front of you (that knows the exam answers ) I noticed wired up the duty cycle to the simulator

Well. I would tentatively suggest the others are reinterpretation (dbl to uint64 is reinterpreting the bits to form an equivalent value). Why does it need a buffer? Don't know Implementation specifics that I'm glad I don't have to worry about. But I would guess a temporary buffer may be required as an intermediate step in the conversion process since the new type cannot be represented by a union (c terminology) of the memory locations unlike a transformation.. And before you ask I still have no idea no idea what 4.x data is either other than a vague recollection that it was something to do with a change in internal representation between LV versions some time ago.. where's Rolf when ya need him

I would classify this as a transformation.

Probably posting on here Glad there was something useful.

Well, you were the OP. Just remember. "There's no I in team". But there is a "ME" and no U

Name: Windows API Submitter: ShaunR Submitted: 09 Sep 2010 File Updated: 03 Jan 2011 Category: General LabVIEW Version: 2009 License Type: Other (included with download) Windows API Utilities. An eclectic set of wrapper VIs around some windows API functions. I wrote these many years ago (1998? wow!) but have used them to some extent in virtually all my windows programs. I've included all the original functions (accidentally re-compiled under LV 9.0) and just wrapped them up in a project and added the LAVA required stuff so your getting them "warts 'n all". Many functions have been superseded by LabView functions and I expect many people already have their own. But there are still some gems I couldn't do without and maybe someone will find them useful. Installation: Unzip to a directory of your choice. Required Packages: Labview 9.0 or greater Windows XP or greater (may work on earlier versions) Known Issues. None. Versioning: Current version 1.0. Contact: PM ShaunR on lavag.org (http://www.lavag.org) Click here to download this file

I wonder why NI pulled the LabView Player? That would have solved Cats code review problems at least.

Fantastic. Very talented guy. But a very expensive way to record a song

Once again in the minority. Its good to be back Afraid? Hardly (that's almost funny ). Can't argue with that I think you mean most people that program in Linux or Unix. When I write text programs in windows and I need a quick "tool" I write something in LabView On the rare occasions I am required to do something in Linux, I probaly still wouldn't use those utilities for task automation unless there was no other way. On windows the analogy would be using the cmd.exe do tasks which I think (personally) is a bit icky, But I recognise it is a standard method on Linux/Unix.. Now pearl I would use to write a script to automate a task after all it is a "scripting" language (if only i could understand my own code 3 weeks later ). I find the project manager is sufficient. Although perhaps you could elaborate? Hmmm. One of the areas I definitely wouldn't use scripting is data population. I would prefer a run-time solution so that I only have to replace the document not re-hash/re-compile my code every time there is a spec change.. We have a similar implementation where the design engineers create a spec, which I deploy as part of the distribution and is parsed by the software. The document comes under document control and i've offloaded the responsibility of keeping it up to date onto a technician. As for system documentation. Shouldn't this be generated from the requirements spec? Maybe so. But my time and budget aren't. There has to be a very strong reason for doing something that is not easily equatable to tangible benefit (damned accountants ). Should I spend 2 days writing a script that can only be used to make my life as a programmer easier? Or should I spend that time to write a piece of code, that I can deposit on the clients site,and means I save travelling expenses, board/logging and corporate face?. If it was deployable I could do both Tool developers don't have this dilemma since they can monetise scripting directly. Perhaps we should start another thread since we are now way off topic. Or maybe we're getting to the point where there we just admit there are 2 camps (ok one of them isn't really a camp, more of a sole resident )

What crossrulz. means (I think) is that events are more efficient for user selection than a state machine. Assuming that the goal is to make a selection based on user input. Although it is not a state machine in the classical sense, since the the next state is not dictated by the previous one. Note that I have changed the mechanical action of the booleans too.

I'm sure (as we've seen) people that create product will use scripting (the same way that a programmer will use more memory if more is available). But as it cannot be deployed it remains a feature that I (not being a tool developer) could have, quite happily, lived without . Tool developers, however, love it to death because it is the only way they can exist. It has opened up a 3rd party business where previously there was none and, previously, non-NI add-ons and tools were petty much free (this being a cultural change rather than a technological one) .I just find it really hard to get excited about scripting:P I can't comment on your LV 2010 (or indeed web-services) only to say that in LV2009 an executable, DLL, and .NETs build number is included and indexable and maybe the lack of one on a web service is an oversight that should have been reported. But you didn't need scripting to do that,. The useful feature (and I do think this is really useful AND in benefits all of us) is the additionof the pre and post vi's without wihich, even scripting couldn't help and you would have had to use your previous method (which was probably a vi you run after the build, manually)

I think that depends on your point of view. I have used "lazy" instruments before.But generally my design philosophy involves hardware several layers below the user interface, modularised and loosely coupled. This enables me (amongst other things) to bolt on different user interfaces to the same back-end Peculiarities of a device are handled by the modules and/or driver. I re-use many of the modules and wouldn't want to keep putting instrument specific code in to the user interface.

Why do you need to do that? Are you porting to LV?

Aussies: Believe you should look out for your mates. Brits: Believe that you should look out for those people who belong to your club. Americans: Believe that people should look out for and take care of themselves. Canadians: Believe that that is the government's job. Aussies: Dislike being mistaken for Pommies (Brits) when abroad. Canadians: Are rather indignant about being mistaken for Americans when abroad. Americans: Encourage being mistaken for Canadians when abroad. Brits: Can't possibly be mistaken for anyone else when abroad. Canadians: Endure bitterly cold winters and are proud of it. Brits: Endure oppressively wet and dreary winters and are proud of it. Americans: Don't have to do either, and couldn't care less. Aussies: Don't understand what inclement weather means. Americans: Drink weak, pissy-tasting beer. Canadians: Drink strong, pissy-tasting beer. Brits: Drink warm, beery-tasting piss. Aussies: Drink anything with alcohol in it. Americans: Seem to think that poverty and failure are morally suspect. Canadians: Seem to believe that wealth and success are morally suspect. Brits: Seem to believe that wealth, poverty, success, and failure are inherited. Aussies: Seem to think that none of this matters after several beers. Brits: Have produced many great comedians, celebrated by Canadians, ignored by Americans, and therefore not rich. Aussies: Have produced comedians like Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious. Canadians: Have produced many great comedians such as John Candy, Martin Short, Jim Carrey, Dan Akroyd, and all the rest at SCTV. Americans: Think that these people are American! Americans: Spend most of their lives glued to the idiot box. Canadians: Don't, but only because they can't get more American channels. Brits: Pay a tax just so they can watch 4 channels. Aussies: Export all their crappy programs, which no one there watches, to Britain, where everybody loves them. Americans: Will jabber on incessantly about football, baseball and basketball. Brits: Will jabber on incessantly about cricket, soccer and rugby. Canadians: Will jabber on incessantly about hockey, hockey, hockey, and how they beat the Americans twice, playing baseball. Aussies: Will jabber on incessantly about how they beat the Poms in every sport they played them in. Aussies: Are extremely patriotic about their beer. Americans: Are flag-waving, anthem-singing, and obsessively patriotic to the point of blindness. Canadians: Can't agree on the words to their anthem, in either language, when they can be bothered to sing them. Brits: Do not sing at all but prefer a large brass band to perform the anthem. Brits: Are justifiably proud of the accomplishments of their past citizens. Americans: Are justifiably proud of the accomplishments of their present citizens. Canadians: Prattle on about how some of those great Americans were once Canadian. Aussies: Waffle on about how some of their past citizens were once Outlaw Pommies, but none of that matters after several beers.

What did it do for scripting? Scripting is only useful for tool developers. Those of us that create product have zero use for scripting. Except perhaps the occasional need to automate a few tedious tasks if we find ourselves in a lax minute or 2.. OK just re-read you post...lol. Missed the "we" bit . Yes "you" (as in tool developers) did get it published by NI, but my original point still stands.

In fact. thinking about it..... You don't even need the replace element.

And your reply is that they shouldn't be using un-trained operators But I see what your after. I think you will just have to filter the changes. Although I had a quick look at the slider example you referenced and I certainly wouldn't have done it that way One thing you could do is build an array of the controls that are clicked and the latest value for that control and put that in the on change event case (the same on-change would be used for all controls). You would need to look up the control reference on each click and if it doesn't exist, add it. This is fairly trivial. Then, in the time-out case (set it to a few seconds for example) unwind the array using a for loop and read the control(s) that have changed and send the value to the the instrument(s). If nothing has been clicked, then the for loop won't execute when the time out expires. If some controls have been clicked (the timeout will be reset every click automagicaly) , then they will have an entry and the for loop will iterate through them. Well. That's one way at least. You could also use Cats previous method and start a timer when the user clicks on a control. Then, if the timer times-out,, activate a really annoying sounder (add flashing lights too) and a dialogue box saying "Press The GO Button Idiot". Finally, send an e-mail to the logged in users supervisor telling him that the operator needs scheduling for re-training as he cannot follow simple on screen instructions. I guarantee you will only be called out once late at night

It's a bit like asking "what's a LabView Wire" equivalent in C/C++

Amen!

HI Cat. Hows tricks? If I understand correctly (which is quite rare) could you use the "mouse leave"event case so that your "send to instrument" function only fires when they move outside the control (i.e stopped clicking and gone elsewhere). The advantage of that is you can attach all your controls to a single event case and use the events control ref to wheedle out the control and value.

Sorry for the delay. Had my own projects that weren't falling and needed kicking into place No need to apologise. I was just trying to let you know that you need to understand what you are doing OK. So you have a 12 digitally controlled motor. That's your design decision Nothing wrong with that, after all we need to keep within budget don't we? I'm assuming you have seen the NI PID Examples and seen that they get a lovely smooth control curve. Right?. Just change the sampling time from 50m to, say 500 m. Does it still look like a nice well controlled curve? What do you see? Remember we haven't changed any PID parameters, or the load we are controlling. Just how often we sample the PV. What do you think is happening here?