Jordan Kuehn

LV 2011 has added the ability to place check boxes on the legend to en/disable the display of different plots. IMO should have been done long time ago, but it's the simplest way to do what you want.

I would also again emphasize the point I was making that when they wire error wires out and they autoindex a broken wire appears when running it into another vi. Of course you could argue that n00bs don't use error wires...

My SSD and large monitors have also done this. To counteract, I'll code on my laptop occasionally. The worst is having to code on a touch pad in the field. For an on topic response, no I don't use any of the extra buttons, though I do like having a wireless mouse. Logitech makes good products.

Well references and error wires could default to shift register terminals when wired into the loop? Much like arrays default to auto-indexing. This would also be useful for counteracting the auto-indexing of references and errors when exiting the loop.

My friend went to a CLD prep session at NI week and I can confirm that they are providing the front panels now with the tests and you save your work to the flash drive. A bit frustrating to me as I took the "old" version seemingly a few months before the "new/easier" version. Maybe it's an effort to push existing CLDs to quit being lazy and prep for the CLA. *points at myself*

memory usage, and maybe cpu usage?

PJM, That looks quite useful for replicating the cRIO code across units, and I will likely need to move towards making a cRIO image in addition to the image of the host machine that I'm also replicating. Right now it doesn't bother me much to manually configure each cRIO. The thing I am more concerned with is configuring the host machine to know what IP address to look for the cRIO at. (NSVs are hosted on the cRIO). Each unit has a cRIO and a laptop host. In addition to helping me set up each laptop, it would allow us to have a single backup laptop that could be quickly reconfigured in the field by a technician to target a different cRIO. The obvious answer may be to give each cRIO the same IP address and then it doesn't matter, but I think it's a legitimate concern that at some point we may be servicing multiple units and wanting to place them all on the same router to access from a single computer. If you have higher level suggestions that may eliminate the problem I have, I'd love to hear them.

I'm just using normal Network Shared Variables, no datasocket or anything. Does that change your assessment of the ability to configure what the SVE is looking for? I'm not entirely sure what steps to take to programmatically configure the NSVs. This is a unique use case for me as most systems we build are static.

Hopefully this hasn't been addressed elsewhere, didn't see any relevant posts. We are wrapping up the software development phase of a project that involves the production of a few dozen units. Each one has a cRIO controlling it. We've chosen to give each cRIO a unique IP address so that in the event we have a couple units back for servicing, we won't have IP collisions. Now what I need to be able to do is take a built host executable and modify the IP address it thinks the cRIO target has. I've tried modifying the aliases file to no avail. Currently I'm stuck rebuilding the exe for each new IP address. Any thoughts or suggestions, or perhaps I'm simply modifying the file incorrectly?

Daklu, I believe you need the xilinx compile tools. It seems they have gotten a bit hidden since the release of 2011. Here's a link that (should) still work for 2010: http://joule.ni.com/nidu/cds/view/p/id/2592/lang/en

I may be missing something, but how did you make a vi snippet that doesn't include the whole snippet? I see wires running off the image there...

Very powerful also = very finicky and frustrating when not used properly.

Today has me working on an embedded test system for various Frack Pumps and a vision system to count bundled product as it comes off the factory line to verify the correct amount of product in the bundle.

Your question is heavily dependent upon your sampling needs. If you are sampling over long periods of time (say temperature variations) then you are fine to use windows based timing combined with tab-delimited ASCII.

I can buy that; however, they are not listed under warnings once I fix the extra input terminals on the merge errors.

The referenced front panel item is not hidden and is just fine. However, when I resize the Merge Errors vi it fixes everything. This is repeatable. Why would a missing input on the Merge Errors vi throw the other two errors?

You can also take a look into Mercurial. That is the SCC we are currently using and is distributed. It doesn't really address the fundamental problem that is the source of all the others listed previously; VIs are binary files and all these tools are made for text files.

From my (limited) experience with C++/C#/Visual Studio palettes are far superior to the autotext thing they have. Palette + context help is great if you don't know exactly what you want. On the other hand if you do know exactly what you want quick drop is awesome. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who give you flak for using it a lot are the same people who don't like the autotool.

There has been the option of loading quick drop during launch. I wonder if they simply changed the default to this option?

I too would love for them to just put the iso's online. In addition to the annoyance of manually installing a dozen packages, I always seem to miss something.

They do claim some good improvements regarding FPGA. I'm excited to try these out. Perhaps I won't have to schedule my lunch around compiles anymore. I do agree tremendously though that moving to a new version can have dramatic effects on existing projects. Especially when the customer has their own LV license and plans to do work on their own. Stung me a bit when I got an SSD and only had 2010 on it.

I love how both the graph in this article and the one presented at NI Week have no Y-Axis labels. Also love the bar graph during the Tuesday keynote that was only upwards trending. No title or labels. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the features seem cool. It's just hard to buy into a better bug reporter as a key feature...

I'll point out that if you use 100MiB/s I think you are correct. 800,000,000 b/s = 95.367MB/s where B = 8 b, KB = 1024 B, MB = 1024 KB. Not sure where 800MB/s came from. //Ah I have it backwards. Technically 100MB/s is correct while traditionally 95.367MB/s would be used and 95.367MiB provides clarity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

Try this link from the iPad. Don't have mine with me to test. http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/ip.board-communities/id372597645?mt=8