Jump to content

MarkCG

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

MarkCG last won the day on January 5 2019

MarkCG had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33

About MarkCG

  • Rank
    Very Active
  • Birthday 10/19/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bay Area

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2014
  • Since
    2007

Recent Profile Visitors

2,370 profile views
  1. Thank you Rolf and Tim. This crash has seemed to happen exactly one time but maybe with enough logging I'll figure it out. My other option is to just convince people get rid of ZMQ completely for this application and use UDP or TCP connection. The application is just sending data to one server anyways so ZMQ is not really adding much functionality anyways
  2. Hi all, I am running a real-time LabVIEW application that calls into compiled .so file. I am getting occasional crashes of the entire system, and the error log shows a segfault #Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2020 04:59:16 PM #Desc: LabVIEW caught fatal signal 18.0.1 - Received SIGSEGV Reason: address not mapped to object Attempt to reference address: 0x0x4 #RCS: unspecified #OSName: Linux #OSVers: 4.9.47-rt37-ni-6.1.0f0 #OSBuild: 264495 #AppName: lvrt #Version: 18.0.1 #AppKind: AppLib #AppModDate: am I correct in blaming this on the code in the compiled .so file (which happens to be a ZeroMQ library) ? There really isn't a way for LabVIEW code to create a segfault AFAIK-- you don't have direct access to memory. Also posted on the darkside but not expecting any response there.
  3. I remember reading somewhere that the idea behind LabVIEW was to make data acquisition as easy as creating a spreadsheet. That is anyone with some ability to use a computer and understand basic math could create something that worked for their purposes without being a programmer. Gradually more and more complexity and capability was needed and the professional LabVIEW programmer emerged, similar to how professional Excel/VBA programmers arose in the financial industry. But like everything the need for the professional LabVIEW programmer was a product of particular historical circumstances, and I think history has moved on. Since many big companies have invested a lot of money in NI hardware we will be some demand for LabVIEW programmers to maintain these system, but it will taper off over the decades. I think it will be like COBOL -- you'll have a few crusty old guys wading into ancient codebases to make fixes and smaller changes but no greenfield development. I may be wrong but I think NXG is NI's last gasp attempt to stay relevant and that it will fail. The attitude in most companies I have experience with is that "not owning your source code" is a major, major problem, and I don't see that changing. LabVIEW is seen as a sometimes necessary evil only. If NI wanted LabVIEW to stay relevant for years they would make it open-source, and keep selling hardware and software add-ons for it. But they know their business better than I do and what's good for me isn't necessarily good for them.
  4. Is there anything like Xcontrols in NXG? I didn't think there was
  5. Interesting, Beckhoff controller with NI hardware is the inverse of what I did. Going forward I can't see a situation where would use the NI EtherCAT chassis unless I needed to take advantage of the custom FPGA programming or maybe needed the special shock/vibe ratings. I really got shocked when I discovered how many more practically useful features the Beckhoff terminals and EtherCAT boxes have vs the NI C series modules and how cost effective they are. For example 50/60Hz bandstop filtering is selectable on all the analog inputs. This is something you have to implement in FPGA for C series or buy a specific module with filtering (9209?). Or short/open circuit detection on digital output modules. Using the "EtherCAT box" modules eliminated large amounts of control panel wiring and harnessing, and still cheaper on a by module basis.
  6. MarkCG

    Things I Hate

    at least it doesn't crash as much as it used to
  7. Thanks Rolf. The NI EtherCAT master leaves A LOT to be desired but I've successfully got it to work with Beckhoff EtherCAT terminals, even in star topologies. Fortunately I've gotten away from needing to deal with 5 different communication protocols to talk to random devices lately, as I've been able to control what hardware is used . Did you ever develop code in the TwinCAT/Visual studio environment and deploy it to a Beckhoff Industrial PC? How was that?
  8. Hi all, I was wondering if anyone here has had experience doing machine control with both LabVIEW and TwinCAT (not in the same project or machine) . I've been working with Beckhoff hardware and I'm impressed, and I'm curious about how the TwinCAT software compares to LabVIEW as far as ease of use, stability and bugginess, and the power and flexibility of the programming languages available, that is how versatile it is compared to a compactRIO, where it seems you can do pretty much anything. Also how does it compare to LabVIEW+ LabVIEW RT + LabVIEW FPGA software stack from a cost perspective?
  9. should we add Network Shared Variables to this list of left hand scissor features as well?
  10. I'm interested in learning more about it-- can we see the presentation? I have never installed NXG but this sort of thing is what would sell me on it. My superficial impression has been that it's, at this point, LabVIEW with vector graphics.
  11. Makes sense. To me it seems DCAF if very close is so close to doing everything I want it to, I'd hate to add yet another layer on top of it. Honestly my feeling is that all these frameworks are great but they are all using a lot of complexity to transform and stretch LabVIEW into something completely different from what it was meant to do originally. There has to be a better way, were Actors , state machines, tags vs command vs streaming data, and easily handling thousands of I/Os are fundamental concepts of the language.
  12. That's great, I had no idea! I'll take a look at it at least and see if I can maybe come up with something similar.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.