crelf

Kinda reminds me of the old tracker days.

QUOTE(TG @ Mar 4 2008, 01:08 PM) I don't think anyone's suggesting abandoning anything that Ben's doing in favor of an RSS feed - all we're asking for is the addition of an RSS feed.

Love it - that's most excellent!

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Mar 4 2008, 12:28 PM) :thumbup:

QUOTE(Phillip Brooks @ Mar 4 2008, 06:32 AM) Yeah - and what ever happened to the http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/viewxps.mspx' target="_blank">Microsoft XPS format?

QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Mar 4 2008, 01:32 AM) Here here - to all of those comments. Also, you might want to make the comments section open - at the moment, users have to register to leave a comment, whereas I suggest you change it to accept anyone's comment (and then you can moderate them).

QUOTE(Daklu @ Mar 3 2008, 06:10 PM) Hey - I was in the group who got it "wrong" by trying to think outside the box, and I think that my reasoning was justified: if I was concerned about dataflow, then I would never have programmed it like this. Just because you answer a question the way your examiner expects, doesn't mean that you're technically correct (my high school finals English exam is a case in point: Abagail Williams wasn't evil, she was a young girl frightened by the societal pressures on her natural urges...)

QUOTE(PJM_labview @ Mar 3 2008, 04:11 PM) Sometimes things get out of order (especially if someone replies while you're replying), so I thought I'd clarfiy QUOTE(PJM_labview @ Mar 3 2008, 04:11 PM) ...basically that this would be nice to optionnally be able to have a Runtime engine webinstall if the target machine does not have it already. I agree that it'd be awesome, and not just for the RTE: it'd be great if I couldn't include links (automatically generated of course) to other components like drivers (from NI and otherwise).

QUOTE(PJM_labview @ Mar 3 2008, 02:43 PM) To what?

QUOTE(brent99 @ Mar 3 2008, 01:58 PM) Not everyone, but I'd suggest that the vast majority does.

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Mar 3 2008, 12:45 PM) Don't let the intellect fool you: I'm also pretty damn hot.

QUOTE(shavec @ Mar 3 2008, 10:16 AM) No worries mate! cheers, crelf

QUOTE(shavec @ Mar 3 2008, 08:58 AM) Select it, then change the size setting here: http://lavag.org/old_files/monthly_03_2008/post-181-1204556637.gif' target="_blank">

QUOTE(dasrobie @ Mar 2 2008, 10:36 PM) Here are your options: Try to find a model that's similar in the NI Device Driver Network - often command prototypes are similar enough that you'll only need to make some minor changes to get your model up and running (sometimes you won't need to make any changes at all). Check out the other models in the Aglinet>Analyzer>Test section. Import a Plug&Play driver from Agilent. Contact Agilent directly to see if they have a version of the driver available Contract a profressional to write the driver for you (this may not be as expensive as you think, especially if they can use one of the other drivers as a starting point. Write it yourself and then submit it to the NI Device Driver Network for all of us to use.

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Feb 29 2008, 03:06 PM) That confirms another engineering law: always listen to your missus.

QUOTE(neB @ Feb 29 2008, 02:54 PM) yep - spent many a midnight hour defocussing over execution highlighting QUOTE(neB @ Feb 29 2008, 02:54 PM) Another pattern I noticed is that if more than one "flow" has their inputs available, the thread that was dropped on the diagram first will be executed first. That's something I noticed years ago too - I'm not sure if it's still the case(?)

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Feb 28 2008, 04:59 PM) So, in summary, the order that the inputs of a VIs are satisfied is not necessarily the order in which those VIs are executed. This is pretty clear when using execution highlighting - sometimes LabVIEW likes to "finish a flow" before it goes back to others that are waiting mid-flow

QUOTE(PaulG. @ Feb 29 2008, 11:25 AM) :thumbup:

Have a look around the NI Device Driver Network.

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Feb 28 2008, 04:59 PM) So the real answer is that you shouldn't need to ask the question If you've written a VI like this, then it's irrelevant which one goes first because, if it was relevant, you'd have used dataflow to force execution order.

QUOTE(Val Brown @ Feb 28 2008, 05:03 PM)

I've gotta go with the top one - VIs will execute when they have all of thie inputs satisfied, and, based on dataflow, the top will one have it's inputs satsified before the bottom one will. There's question on which order the top tone measurement and the filter VIs run, but I'm pretty sure that the top tone measurement VI will run before the bottom tone measurement VI. QUOTE(van18 @ Feb 28 2008, 03:41 PM) I'm pretty sure the question means start first, not finish first.

QUOTE(Val Brown @ Feb 28 2008, 12:40 PM) Shouldn't you, at least, buy me dinner first? QUOTE(AnalogKid2DigitalMan @ Feb 28 2008, 02:26 PM) We secretly replaced Ron's Mark Super VII Quantum E-meter with a 5KVAC Hi-Pot Tester. The results were of great 'potential'. That pun was absolutley shocking.

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Feb 28 2008, 09:46 AM) No wonder I'm so sore...