ensegre

I have been using Fortran for scientific computing till the mid 2000s, and that was no way odd in the numerical analysis community. Only, I stuck to FORTRAN 77 when everyone already transitioned to FORTRAN 90. You do still find reputable numerical physics codes around in Fortran.

If you grew up on Fortran you'd know that I default declares to INTEGER and A to REAL.

The DSC module has a few of them, but alas, you can easily create better custom boolean controls yourself Here is an example of mine. The pipes, the pump PP1 and and all the valves come from DSC, almost all the rest are customized controls.

I said xControl first... 😏 The solution of the Program Drafts above is for sure a lot more developed - all the decoding of gif in G, honouring the time lags between frames, etc. etc.

IIUC the OP, he wants to click on a particular area of the plot (needs a mouse Event on the graph control, and identifying the coordinates) and then popup something (Show FP of another vi). My guess at least.

Have you seen this thread?

would seem VI properties/protection "Locked (no password)". Couldn't you just resave those VIs as "Not locked" before analysing? This is a snippet I used sometimes to set/unset passwords programmatically for all VIs in a directory, if it helps.

LV2018_64, 6 true cores linux, debugging disabled in main and all subvis. A typical run of a few seconds: Notifier 5.18M, Lossy queue 4.27M, Unbound queue 3.81M, High speed channel 3.2M, whereas Lossy channel 26k, Tag channel 19k, Stream channel 18k, Indicator reference 10k, and the remaining three 8.6k. Usere event is the second last, 8655, better only than channel messenger (8612). Quite different than @shoneill's. What can be the affecting factors? ETA: Inconclusive. I've been getting quite different results running a few times run Main.vi at time critical priority, then at other priorities, closed/reopened labview, then again at normal. Some system effect (not load) might affect all this?

This is also an informative post by Rolf about older versions.

You can quite get there customizing the control. this for instance is a q&d expansion of the button (on windows it might actually look better), you can always replace the pulldown button image with anything nicer. BigCombo.ctl Btw, perhaps the thread belongs to the UI subforum rather.

It is possible. You have to write VIs.

If you are reading single register values at 1Hz, sample rate doesn't look to me a limiting factor. The modbus packet size might be some 20bytes [Mike correct me], at 230kbaud they are moved through in a ms. The jitter in the synchronization, rather, might be, but that depends on what you can afford or tolerate. You have to keep in mind that both DAQ and Modbus are in principle asynchronous measurements. You can write a program which pushes a modbus command into the computer UART and a start acquisition command to the DAQ. Depending on how you write the program and on the realtiming of the target you run onto, you can approach a simultaneous firing of the commands, but still you don't know the latency of execution of them. The bottom line is normally that if you want sampling to be tightly synchronized, you have to do that by hardware triggering. In reading the results, you may afford delays.

Confirm. But I have seen such things happen with corrupted controls once or twice across the years. My wild speculation was that there is an underlying event loop which goes foul for some reason.

Isn't it the same I wrote about?

Firewall. Surely needs to be opened for the 5 relevant services on system 1, maybe on 2 too, I'm never sure; it is always so tedious to do. I wish someone had conocted a handy script for doing that automatically on every new LV installation.

From time to time, albeit sporadically, I have to build wrapper sets to .dll and .so, and I would love any improvement. Back in the days I was used to have to write my wrapper VIs one by one, and by now, especially for large libraries, the import wizard is a lifesaver to me. However, I end up still spending some amount of time, often significant, domesticating the .h files provided with the libraries so that the wizard sees better through them, writing LV translators between C structures and casted down byte arrays, creating ad hoc enum ring typedefs, hunting untranslated pointers, and similar chores. If that could be automated, I would enjoy it, though I agree that beyond some point that becomes project-specific. And at times (callbacks, message pumps i.e.) still no choice but having to write C containers. Have btw the import tool parsing capabilities got any better across versions? (I vaguely think yes but I don't have fair data for a comparison)

I'm not really sure about what is going on. I left the thread dangling because at the time I wrote I ultimately got away with a minimal size which was about right for my application, but there are certainly some limitations. This is the code I ended up using; and just checking it blindly today (linux, LV2017), I see that for the particular VI I try to resize, the minimal size is 50x20, otherwise Error 1 (the VI has all window decorations turned off). I haven't found a correlation between these numbers and what is shown on that FP (controls, menubars, title), maybe there is. I might try to investigate further someday.

Shootballing. It may very well be that the codec used for that video is incremental, so that only certain differences from the preceding image are encoded in the next. That at least is one of the tenets of mpeg. If that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised that reconstructing what looks as an innocent predecessor requires in fact to read much more information from disk, and perhaps more computation, than a successor. If so, that seem a characteristics of the codec used rather than a limitation of LV. For reversibility, perhaps a different codec should be considered.

No crash for me past the 2000th folder in 2017/32, 2017/64, 2018/64 on ubuntu18. 2018/64 btw is much faster in that than the preceding.

Yeah, this is what I would do too. I'm assuming the goal is to make sure that if the program aborts the file isn't corrupt, but you can do that with flush file. If you're taking data every second the continuous open/seek/write/close/open... is going to take a toll.  I normally use the open once - {carry on ref - flush file} - close at the end pattern as a rule too, but there could be an argument for the crooked way: the file is not locked for write by the OS in between writes. You never know what an end user might pretend to want to do, like editing the file externally during the test.

smithd just wrote it all, I myself would do pretty much like he says.

ok, nothing weird. I would perhaps have written the VI somewhat differently, but I don't spot a problem either.