crelf

I only occasionally use them, and it's to maintain two versions of one component. ie: if I release an API v1.0, then a new version 2.0 that uses a different version of the typedef. Now if I need to go back to fix an issue in v1.0 that requires me to update teh typedef.

It doesn't happen often, and there are plenty of dicussions online already on how version maintenance is difficult in LabVIEW. I think it would be sad if non-automatic updating went away, but I wouldn't be devistated. Especially if that spurred more discussion and ultimately an elegant solution for maintaining encapsulated versions of components.

Is it true that the LabVIEW RTE has an unlimited license?

That is also my understanding.

• %Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S
  
• 2012-10-02T17:16:03
  

I most-often use something similar, but with decimal places for the seconds

• %Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S%5u
  
• 
  2012-10-23T17:16:03.12345
  

Lots of Eastern Europe uses 12-XII-2012 or XII-12-2012, where the months are Roman numerals...

Replace "Eastern Europe" with "Not North-Amreican"

For such dates, I usually use 12XII2012 (always have the day number 2 digits, month 3 letters, year 4 digits, so the hyphens are a waste bits).

Middle Class Rapper

Love that show! Alan Davies cracks me up And they often have Bill Bailey as a guest = hillarious!

Aren't they Korean ? They are my favourite Korean group right now !

Actually, Mr. SmartyPants, they're Taiwanese. Which, in some circles, is considered Chinese Taipei. So, although not quite correct, I was (geographically) closer. BAM! You just got owned! Yeah, that's how I roll. Tru dat, boy howdy. Word.

I hope this doesn't end up like Fracking.

More like fraking.

Not a joke, we're trying to drill to the center of the earth: http://edition.cnn.c...sion/index.html

"It will be the equivalent of dangling a steel string the width of a human hair in the deep end of a swimming pool and inserting it into a thimble 1/10 mm wide" --Damon Teagle, University of Southampton, UK

That's what she...

(crelf: no TWSS jokes out of this quote are allowed)

oh... nevermind.

Seems like Mike's active in the VIPM Idea Exchange - things are changing their statuses - might be an indication as to what to expect from near-future versions of VIPM...

Oh, and while you're there, please vote for this and this

Cameras showed up in MAX no problem, but both MAX names would, if selected, lead to images from only one of the cameras. It’s was driver issue, at a lower level than MAX.

Ugh - that's ugly.

I think I’ve seen it with NI-IMAQdx. It’s only with some USB cameras, such as webcams. And it is only when using identical models; one can use multiple cameras of different models, because they go into the Registry under their model names.

If you're using IMAQdx, it uses the names listed in MAX, not the registry, so this shouldn't be an issue.

Had that problem. I believe it is because the Windows software was never made to work with multiple cameras at once. Each identical camera is listed in the Windows Registry under identical names. I believe you can modify the registry, but that is not a satisfactory solution.

Really? I've got it working just fine on my PC.

I wonder: are you using NI-IMAQdx? Or something different?

You can change their names in MAX (Measurement & Automation Explorer). Go to "Devices and Interfaces", then "IMAQdx" (this might take a few seconds to show up as it scans for cameras), then your cameras should be listed - you can right click on them to rename them there.

I can post my code (somehow ugly...

All* of our code is ugly at times

*Well, expect for mine, of course.

...several years ago I went spelunking...

That's a great term for some of the code I have to deal with occasionally.

So as per my post, I modified the code so that LabVIEW now handles closing the step VI references itself. Hey presto, the resetting message has not been seen since. Previously the error occurred every 4-6 hours. Now after 30 hours, no problem.

I'm not surprised. I mean, LabVIEW shouldn't get into the tub-of-war that AQ descriobes above, but I'm not surprised that not closing refenences put you there.

Glad to hear you've got a work around!

The LabVIEWWiki tells us that the defaultConPane key should work for new VIs. Are you saying the LabVIEW.ini file reverts after you make changes and save it?

...we occasionally see a message 'Resetting VI: <step name>'. Debugging is very difficult.

And what's the real impact? Does it show up for a second and then close itself? Does it show up for 5 minutes? Forever?

I'm implmeneted the user manager a few times and haven't had any issues - maybe you're not closing a reference somewhere? Can you post your code? Or, at least, trim it down to as little as possible where the issue still occurs (make a little example) so we can fault find.

lots of other arguments to make here but hand is tired...

You know, if you programmed graphically it wouldn't hurt so much.

More people would use them if they were more usable.

I guess everything makes sense if you don't think about it.

Yes, I know I'm probably the only person in the world that enables the warnings view in the Error List, but I'd like to be able to selectively ignore certain warnings. Read more here.

If you just want a custom extension there is no issue, just no other application other than yours will know it is a TDMS file so you will limit what will open it directly.

Right - we have a couple of projects that just use *.bin (or something more appropriate to show it's related to a project) so ppl are less inclined to accidentally find out that it's TDMS.

I think you've been hanging around hardware guys too much...or management...or sales.

...or marketing...

Any ideas what makes up the performance gap between Debug and Debug + PWD?

I second this question. I know it's not the original intent of the thread, but I think it might make for interesting reading...

How about a hook into LabVIEW to allow developers to add their own right-click menu items similar to the "JKI Right Click Framework"?

Mwwwuuuuhahahaha!

Christina, asking us to vote on menu items probably won't work. None of the menu items will garner enough votes to get on NI's radar.

How about this: select two items that are the same (eg: 2 strings), look at the list - implement those. Repeat for all node types

Unfortunately, that is what I'm saying. There is, as it turns out, a reason why we went without multi-select right-click menus for so long.

OK - I'd figured as much.

I don't think of it as "done"...

Well, you might not think of it as "done", but your new feature list suggests otherwise