crelf

QUOTE (jcarmody @ Sep 14 2008, 07:06 PM) That doesn't make it a good thing

QUOTE (mballa @ Sep 14 2008, 10:51 PM) Nerd.

:!: Spoiler Alert! The final BattleStar Galactica Toaster revealed!

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Aug 18 2008, 09:53 AM) That makes sense.

QUOTE (jdunham @ Sep 12 2008, 03:21 PM) Indeed.

QUOTE (jlaudie @ Sep 12 2008, 02:27 PM) Yep - it's an age old problem - you can't measure the frequency of a signal that's period is larger than your timeout I wouldn't so much ignore the error, but filter it and output a number that represents the lowest frequency that your timeout allows.

QUOTE (Norm Kirchner @ Sep 12 2008, 01:05 PM) were the type that catalyzed my fervor. ...well intended, the comments seemed over critical at the time and I felt that someone needed to stand up a bit for the tool and the fact that they made it work in the first place. That's exactly what I was saying! Read it word for word: "thanks NI for the tool, as I'm sure it'll help LabVIEW users". I consider my comment balanced and realistic.

QUOTE (rolfk @ Sep 12 2008, 03:08 AM) Yes, yes, the original link has been fixed.

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ Sep 11 2008, 07:42 PM) ...and a custom style where we could define what we wanted, and then save it off as a style file so we could take it with us, and share it amongst our colleagues. Just like VI Analyzer profiles.

QUOTE (JohnRH @ Sep 11 2008, 02:53 PM) Ohhhhhhhhhh - so you actually want to control/measure pulses of light... Sorry - I don't know of any. I have done some work in that area a long time ago, and we designed an ad-hoc interface of light sensors.

QUOTE (JohnRH @ Sep 11 2008, 02:16 PM) Stepping back a little - does it need to be optical, or does it need to be isolated?

QUOTE (Ton @ Sep 11 2008, 02:41 AM) No, as that could be seen as responding negatively to the post, thus violating our rules. Just report it and our admin or a moderator will take care of it relatively quickly.

QUOTE (pallen @ Sep 11 2008, 08:52 AM) They are?!?

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Sep 10 2008, 11:54 PM) I was kidding

QUOTE (pdc @ Sep 10 2008, 01:51 PM) No. QUOTE (Gabi1 @ Sep 10 2008, 04:50 PM) in the mean time, can you expand on the beta? No. QUOTE (LV_FPGA_SE @ Sep 10 2008, 03:19 PM) Use this link: http://ni.com/beta Thanks for including that. :thumbup: QUOTE (crelf @ Sep 10 2008, 09:50 AM) I think what NI's cooking up over there are some of the most important improvements for professional LabVIEW programmers that I've seen in years. Not including the project and LVOOP, of course

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Sep 10 2008, 03:28 PM) That's going to be one hell of an options page...

QUOTE (neB @ Sep 10 2008, 11:32 AM) Uh, yeah, it's a beta program so you will need to be a registered beta user to access it... If you're having issues with the NI site, then talk to NI directly (maybe mention it in the Champions' forum?)

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Sep 10 2008, 12:31 PM) You're a sad, sad man.

QUOTE (NareshN@Capsys @ Sep 10 2008, 07:17 AM) The runtime menu is displayed through your OS - it's not a LabVIEW thing, so to change the font size you'll need to adjust it in your OS.

If you're a professional LabVIEW programmer (not a casual LabVIEW user), then I strongly encourage you to get involved in the LabVIEW Software Engineering Tools beta. I think what NI's cooking up over there are some of the most important improvements for professional LabVIEW programmers that I've seen in years.

QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Sep 10 2008, 05:19 AM) I used to do that, but I came to a point where I figured that there's a reason the FP and BD are deliniated, so while terminals are the portal between the two, I figure that preserving layout between the two is not really relevant. That said, I still do try to match the FP layout with the connector pane for lower-level non-UI VIs, but I no longer preserve that layout to the BD as well. QUOTE (Justin Goeres @ Sep 10 2008, 05:19 AM) Now, that having been said, I think it's a great tool for people who don't already have a decade of personal style worn into the faux-woodgrain of their desks. It gives them a chance to see what their code would look like, if it were reasonably clean, and that's a big step forward... Or worse, NI could devote more resources to it in lieu of fixing other, worse problems in LabVIEW, and leave us all with shiny, clean, lickable block diagrams that still don't do what we want . I completely agree - thanks NI for the tool, as I'm sure it'll help LabVIE users (LabVIEW programmers - not so much), but don't spend too much more time on it. Please keep working on more professional tools for the LabVIEW programmer like the LabVIEW Software Engineering Tools :ninja:

QUOTE (iowa @ Sep 10 2008, 01:08 AM) You wrote the VIs? Did you write the DLL too? Can you tell us where to get it (or maybe upload it)? Do you know about the free http://sine.ni.com/nilex/DisplayLinkAction.do?id=163NILEX' target="_blank">NI-IMAQ for USB Cameras toolkit?

QUOTE (yazdihr @ Sep 9 2008, 04:00 PM) No worries cobber... Cheers

QUOTE (jdunham @ Sep 9 2008, 01:58 PM) As usual, my answer is "it depends" Error cases are important when used appropriately, and I agree that that wrapping all VIs in error cases can be overkill.

QUOTE (LV_FPGA_SE @ Sep 9 2008, 02:01 PM) That's a really good point. :thumbup: