ShaunR

With the help of torekp in tracking down some issues; a new version (1.0.1) is now available.

I did find a bug for 64 bit that caused mapping to fail, sometimes, in later LabVIEW versions (it's written in 2009). There will be a new version in the next couple of days that I can test with your cmd-line software so keep watching.

As an aside. Item 5 on that list is why most companies' Agile development is pants. They put all the problems in the backlog (good) then the Product Owner prioritises which ones - if any - get fed into the next cycle (bad). Companies that have a policy of addressing all the backlog issues (zero backlog policy) before working on new features in the cycle, demonstrably produce far superior code. Most companies', however, just have an ever expanding backlog and end up with tripe 10-20 iterations down the line.

Are you using LabVIEW 64 bit or 32 bit? Generally speaking, if the other program creates the mapping then you should only open it instead of creating it so it may depend on which program you are running first (you create a file mapping in that example). Note there is no option to "Open Or Create" in the LV API as you have used in the cmd prompt software. Running your command prompt software first and reading with the following works fine for me in both the dev environment and as an executable (although it's LabVIEW 2021 32 bit since I don't have 17 installed).

Well. Posting a an image of a small section of your program means we have to guess a lot but here we go. There is no "best way" to display the information but probably the easiest is as an array of clusters. modules.vi As for reading the modules, that depends on the devices but guessing that your "Code" string is a long list of module capabilities and information (one of which being the version) encoded as hex; ultimately you will probably need an array of "Code" strings instead of a single "Code" string - one element for each of the PCB's queried. It looks, from your image, like you will have to refactor. When you do, get rid of that monster "Index array Element" and use a VI to splice (see below) the needed data inside of the big case structure. That will greatly improve the readability of your code and localise transformations/calculations to the specific case. It will also enable to create sub VI's to make your code more modular because, in this particular VI, you will just be passing the Code string into the big case structure. This will help enormously when you come to iterate over an array of "Code" strings. splice string.vi

Project Manager

It depends. How do you do it on Linux and Mac?

You'll get no sympathy from me There is a reason (actually a plethora of reasons) .NET is banned form my projects The RTF bug is in the save function. You can either save it as UnicodePlainText (lose all the snazzy rendering stuff like images) or get the RTF string and save it with LV file primitives. But your problems are only just starting with the RichTextBox. Like I said. It will get you 80% of the way there.

Just to side-track the whinging completely (most of it mine ) and to show that it's not as hard as NI make it out to be; this will get you about 80% of the way with UTF8 (UTF8 FTW) on English Windows systems. Note that the Windows ANSI functions - the underlying calls for the LabVIEW primitives - do notionally support UTF8. Rolf can give a much better explanation of why this works (Codepages) and the pitfalls of using it. There is no change to the VI, by the way. It is just changing the setting and restarting the OS. utf8.zip

It's not directed at us (engineers). It's a sales pitch to internal profit centers with the hope that external LabVIEW engineers will use the arguments to their upper management. In essence it is "this is good for both of us, but mainly us, and means we will listen more, maybe". You will notice there are no concrete or tangible benefits to anyone other than NI. However I don't think this brain-wave coming directly after NXG being killed is coincidence. What is clear is that their mind is made up and now it's just a case of managing the PR. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" - Captain Bligh in Mutiny on the Bounty

Then the hard work is done. The FPGA in that project was to implement the MIPI receiver. If your camera is giving you the FPS you need, then it's just post-processing you are interested in? You are already in the analogue domain so why not just use comparators for that? They are cheap and have can have nanosecond propagation delays. Unless, of course, the image acquisition ADC is not as bare-bones as I am envisaging. Where I'm going with this, though, is to do as much as possible in hardware but I can see the attractiveness of a general purpose FPGA. I would ordinarily suggest the so called "Smart Camera's" which are excellent bang-for-buck with these kinds of requirements and have a lot of the features that LabVIEW has but your sub msec requirement prohibits most of those.

I'm not sure you will find an off-the-shelf solution to this. Sub-millisec means a frame rate over 1000fps before you get to any processing. I'm not promoting this as a solution but you may find some useful information in this little project. Opens Source IMX219 Camera MIPI CSI-2 Receiver Verilog HDL Lattice FPGA MachXO3 Raspberry PI Camera mipi_csi_receiver_FPGA I'd also be interested in hearing more about your ADC solution if you can flesh it out more thoroughly.

I wouldn't bother, personally. It seems a poor solution. If I were to point to a problem with LabVIEW errors it would be resolution and they don't help with that. I did have a whole paragraph on what I would like to see as an improvement to error reporting and how to achieve it but I reconsidered in the face of LabVIEW still considering reading an entire file as an error and AQ's presentation.

I actually took it as an utter disdain for the time and cost of working around their deficiency. The presupposition that there was a work-around and I haven't told customers that we can't do it because LabVIEW doesn't support it. That the work-around would cost x weeks of project time to achieve (to the customer's surprise when they thought it would be par-for-the course) so the customer didn't order it. Or even an entire framework based on HTML interfaces was developed relegating LabVIEW to a mere back-end service (this also goes for his "Vector UI nonsense too). I'm sure the counter-argument would be the 3rd party tools that are available for internationalisation but that just shows that he's never tried to use them in a project or been called out to a customer site when they can't load a file because the filename is Unicode or suddenly everything has turned to Chinese characters. After all. We've only been complaining about Unicode support for a decade or so, right?

I'm not sure that was meant to be "Subscription model and related questions" but oh my god. After watching the full video I can safely say I would have walked out within the first 10 minutes. Not only was it not what was advertised but it was one big poll in a totally inappropriate format of "live". The lady that was incredulous about Unicode being so low was literally articulating what I was muttering at my screen. My muttering became shouts at this guy's response, which weren't family friendly. It's this kind of feedback gathering that is also responsible for all the inanely stupid political policies that are dreamt up with "focus groups". And when did "Service and Support Package" become to mean "Primary Software Sales Channel"?

I'm still none the wiser from that presentation but I will say it was probably too many Erics and not enough Darins.

Send an email to support@lvs-tools.co.uk with this info and we can start to look more closely at it. The next release has a lot more functions to deal with x.509 attributes so we can probably resolve this if we know what the NI OPC toolkit is expecting and make sure the attribute function is available to set them. With regards to the signature, those functions simply convert the byte array using the following code. So it seems strange that there is a disparity between the byte array and the hex string representation.

Just a heads-up. NI are offering Tools Network products the opportunity to move from the classic LVTN licence to a subscription licence. There aren't many details as yet and it's not clear whether you will lose access to the [separate] LVTN products if you don't keep up your subscription to LabVIEW itself, but it looks like everything will eventually be behind their subscription model.

I actually get this.

BBC Pidgin.

Except for all the in-place structures and array manipulation That won't save it in the i+j notation, hence my question. It also looks like the OP wants to interleave the data from the two graphs to get to his table when he could just have built the array the "old way" and sliced out the data for display.

The reason this doesn't work is because you are building a plot array of complex numbers and the Save To Spreadsheet accepts doubles. I expect what you were seeing was just the real part as the complex numbers were converted to doubles. Why are you building the array as complex numbers? Do you wish to save the data in complex notation?

I have to agree. The proxy indicator of Job positions also shows a rapid decline in Europe. Not sure if that is replicated in the US but I suspect it is.

No longer a stand-alone product. The Websocket API was rolled into ECL sans the FP and HTML library portion.