Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LogMAN last won the day on March 27

LogMAN had the most liked content!

Community Reputation



About LogMAN

  • Rank
    Extremely Active
  • Birthday 04/06/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2019
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

4,453 profile views
  1. You can change your terminals to dynamic dispatch at any time by choosing This Connection Is > Dynamic Dispatch Input/Output (Required) at the terminal block. You'll find that this option is only available for class inputs and outputs. To change your VI from static dispatch to dynamic dispatch, simply change both - input and output terminals - to dynamic dispatch.
  2. Not necessarily. Controls, Indicators and local variables have "built in logic to prevent front panel updates when continuously updating the same value. This prevents front panel re-draws". You can achieve similar results by deferring FP updates. Of course, writing to the control or indicator directly is the most efficient solution, because they "do not need to de-reference pointers, nor make copies of the data in memory". For your specific case, perhaps you can update the UI less frequently to reduce CPU load. Displaying a new value every 100 ms is more than sufficient for most applications. If you have a lot of graphs, pictures, etc., consider reducing the amount of data and update them only when necessary.
  3. Here is a KB article regarding the differences between controls and indicators, local variables and property nodes: Control/Indicator, Local Variable, and Value Property Node Differences There is also an article that explains the different threads in LabVIEW and what they are used for: How Many Threads Does LabVIEW Allocate?
  4. The front panel should be visible during the test to ensure that it is actually redrawn. It should also contain the necessary number of indicators to make both cases are comparable. If you reuse the same reference multiple times and defer panel updates, it only measures the iteration time of the For-loop + a single redraw, which is not the same as updating the UI on every loop iteration. Here is a version of your VI that has 100 boolean indicators on the front panel and is visible during test (it is also important to have all indicators visible on screen during test): MethodPerformance.vi On my PC the differences are much smaller with this version (if you set the number of elements to 1, the number of updates is roughly the same).
  5. You need at least four characters. Try "DLLs".
  6. Did you enable foreign key constraints? You need to set PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON Otherwise foreign key constrains are ignored. https://www.sqlite.org/pragma.html#pr>agma_foreign_keys
  7. Tested on two machines, same version, same issue. Selection box is an issue only on one machine, though. Found another strange behavior: When using View >> Always Show Labels and View >> Actual Size, this happens: 😕 Thanks, that fixed it for me too. However, only after opening the Launcher.vi. It didn't work by simply opening the example project. Than again, restarting LabVIEW unfixes it. Turns out, it sort of works when you open the class hierarchy window from inside a VI (an empty VI works as well). Steps to reproduce: Start LabVIEW Create new project Add new class to the project Open the class hierarchy window => notice that the window is broken Create a new VI Open the class hierarchy window => fixed 🤷‍♂️
  8. Got (the same?) issue with LV 2019 Version 19.0.1f1 (32-bit): One thing I noticed, if you try to box-select inside this window, it behaves irrationally, like a panel that was moved to far on the X or Y axis. Maybe that's a clue?
  9. I see the same issue with Version 19.0.1f1 (32-bit).
  10. LogMAN

    VIM and units

    http://www.ni.com/product-documentation/7900/en/ "LabVIEW 7.0 or earlier used a 64-bit double (DBL) to represent time, yielding 15 digits of precision. The number of seconds between 1st Jan 1904 (the timestamp Epoch or year zero) to 1st Jan 2000 is 3027456000. Representing this as a DBL would use 10 out of the 15 digits of precision. That leaves a very small resolution space to perform hardware timings using most of the resolution by simply going from 1904 to today. Representing time as a DBL was not ideal since it did not meet industry requirements."
  11. Most of them are actually LabVIEW specific and do not change based on OS settings. I suppose these are used to make LabVIEW look the same on all platforms. Some of them also emit special behavior. For example, 0x01000037 (system owner) is an opaque color that automatically adjusts the color of an element to the color of its owning container. Changing the color of the container then also changes the color of the contained element without having to address it individually. Maybe this is also useful for XControls.
  12. There are, actually, quite a few: https://labviewwiki.org/wiki/Color#Environment_colors
  13. It's a dataflow programming language that supports both functional and Object Oriented programming paradigms. Like C++ but not confusing LabVIEW will likely never be popular by the definition in this video, because it is not just a programming language but an ecosystem of hard- and software. It requires a lot of trust in NI and partners. You'd have to compare it to other proprietary programming languages with similar ecosystem for it to be "popular" in comparison. The first thing that comes to mind is interoperability. Calling external code from LabVIEW and vice versa still requires a decent amount of Voodoo (see the SQLite Library or OpenG ZIP as prime examples). To my knowledge there is no "plug-n-play" solution for these kinds of things. This is when the second best solution is often good enough. NI is of course interested in making LabVIEW more popular to grow business. As users we should be interested in making it more popular so that NI and the community can cope with ever-growing requirements and to open up new (business) opportunities. At the same time there is also a risk of growing too fast. The more popular LabVIEW gets, the more LabVIEW is used for tasks it wasn't originally designed for. This will inevitable result in more features being added which increases complexity of the entire ecosystem. If this process is too fast, chances are that poor decisions lead to more complex solutions, which are more expensive for NI to implement and maintain in the future. At some point they have to rethink their strategy and do some breaking changes. I assume this is where NXG comes into play. Is this good or bad? I don't know. It probably depends
  14. There is a forum where they want to discuss conversion tools, best practices et cetera: https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Bitbucket-articles/What-to-do-with-your-Mercurial-repos-when-Bitbucket-sunsets/ba-p/1155380 At git-scm they suggest using hg-fast-export. git-remote-hg seems to be popular as well. Someone wrote a script to automate the migration process to GitHub without using GitHub import. Although I'm not sure how well it performs it can be worth a try: https://magnushoff.com/blog/kick-the-bitbucket/
  15. Thanks for the heads up, this completely went by me. Here is the official blog post from Bitbucket if anyone is interested: https://bitbucket.org/blog/sunsetting-mercurial-support-in-bitbucket
  • Create New...

Important Information

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