crelf

QUOTE (malani @ Feb 26 2009, 01:04 AM) I'm not sure I'm clear on what you want to do, but won't the refresh palettes (application control > palette editing) method do what you need?

QUOTE (Bjarne Joergensen @ Feb 26 2009, 04:34 AM) You mean a reverse dependancy (what VIs depend on me?) - Vis don't store that information, so I think you're out of luck.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 26 2009, 06:45 AM) I agree with the sink/source idea, but I actually think the wire is a great way to represent that. Maybe all you're asking for here is the ability to adjust the brightness of the error (or other) wires? Then you could make them really light (but not transparent) so they are less confrontal. I dunno - every since NI made error wires their own special baby-poo-brown colour, I've been able to tune them out unless I'm specifically looking for them. I also usually line everything up on the error wires which makes that tuning out even easier. Back to layers: maybe we could combine layers and brightness? If we could define layers and have all wires that aren't in currently selected layers to be very light gray? Should we be limiting the dicsussion to wires? In CAD, layers are synonomous with common functionality, so it might be a good idea to group primatives, subVIs, wires, control nodes, etc into layers. Then when you mouse-over something maybe it could highlight everything on that layer?

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 07:17 PM) If the wires were transparent then I wouldn't be able to look at the code and see where the data flows. That would be a big step backwards IMHO. Layers in the diagram - well, that's different, and certainly deserves further discussion...

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 07:17 PM) If the wires were transparent then I wouldn't be able to look at the code and see where the data flows. That would be a big step backwards IMHO. Layers in the diagram - well, that's different, and certainly deserves further discussion...

QUOTE (ragglefrock @ Feb 25 2009, 06:30 PM) :thumbup: I like.

QUOTE (ragglefrock @ Feb 25 2009, 06:30 PM) :thumbup: I like.

QUOTE (gleichman @ Feb 25 2009, 04:56 PM) I would only support that if it were replaced by some other method of easily seeing the default of controls.

QUOTE (gleichman @ Feb 25 2009, 04:56 PM) I would only support that if it were replaced by some other method of easily seeing the default of controls.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 03:10 PM) I don't agree - I make a lot of decisions in my code based on what's in the error cluster, even before it gets to an error handler.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 03:10 PM) I don't agree - I make a lot of decisions in my code based on what's in the error cluster, even before it gets to an error handler.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 02:11 PM) Errors are data too.

QUOTE (bsvingen @ Feb 25 2009, 02:11 PM) Errors are data too.

QUOTE (Rio C. @ Feb 25 2009, 01:09 PM) That's a definate thread hijack right there - please start a new thread to continue that discussion.

QUOTE (zackbass @ Feb 25 2009, 11:37 AM) No worries - any time.

QUOTE (Ic3Knight @ Feb 25 2009, 10:18 AM) Yep - that one's static (there's no reference terminal). QUOTE (Ic3Knight @ Feb 25 2009, 10:53 AM) You can already get into that mess by dragging the top of the property node upwards... Yep - I think both approaches are equally valid, but NI just choose one way over another. I still prefer the reference/error clusters where they are, as they define the object, whereas the expandable nodes are methods/properties of that object. IMHO, I think it should stay the way it is, but it's always good to try to think outside the box every now and then

QUOTE (Ic3Knight @ Feb 25 2009, 09:32 AM) Another big convention is to have references wire in and out of the top of subVIs. QUOTE (Ic3Knight @ Feb 25 2009, 09:32 AM) I like my code to have a nice continuous error line somewhere near the bottom, but as soon as you start dealing with a few properties from one node, you can't do that neatly anymore. Are you talking about statically linked or dynamically linked property nodes?

QUOTE (zackbass @ Feb 24 2009, 09:06 PM) You could save it to a file, then FTP it from the RT target to the host.

QUOTE (Darren @ Feb 24 2009, 07:10 PM) I love the dude in the airplane all pissed about the internet link going down I'd never heard of Louis CK before - now I've got some googling to do...

Everything's amazing, nobody's happy.

QUOTE (MikaelH @ Feb 24 2009, 04:37 PM) Here are some very basic UDL file VIs that might be useful (yes, I know that at least one dependancy is missing - get over it! )

QUOTE (Kubo @ Feb 24 2009, 11:14 AM) I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "terminal" - can you post a screen shot on what you're talking about?

From what you've described, I don't think that having LabVIEW experience is really too important (although it sounds like a hybrid role - maye it's time to talk to your management about trying a different team model). Sounds like you're more after a systems engineer - someone who knows how to develop the requirements and design, then supervise it through development, then pick it up again for design of the test plans, etc?

QUOTE (wishfulthings @ Feb 24 2009, 05:57 AM) No worries. Care to upload what you did so we can take a loo?

QUOTE (JohnRH @ Feb 24 2009, 10:21 AM) Yeah - replicating functioning code on FPGA is pretty straight-forward. Are you running out of gates? Can you post your code?