Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Cool-LV @ Nov 20 2007, 01:47 AM) The post before your post explains that exactly. ipconfig can do that too. ipconfig /release [adapter name] will basically disable the network interface. ipconfig /renew [adapter name] will reconnect it. Of course there is certainly a way to do this accessing the Windows API, but the network enumeration API uses data structures that you most probably do not want to deal with in the Call Library Node, believe me. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(liber @ Oct 26 2007, 07:58 AM) I'm not to familiar with lvserial and don't know it's internal details. Also I'm not sure what Visual C version and options Martin used to create the DLL. It is very much possible that the code generation used is not able to cope with multi core (and mayb hypertrheading) CPUs to well. If that would be the case, recompiling the DLL with more secure options and/or a newer Visual C compiler could help. Another possiblity is the use of globals or some other non-reentrant constructs in the C code and not using the Ui threading setting in the Call Library Node. But as Micheal said, that library is nice but it comes at the cost of not having an entire development team ready to deal with any issues that can come up due to new OSes, hardware or whatever the powers in the world can come up with. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(akala @ Nov 14 2007, 12:19 PM) No way with any recent OS! The ability to start any executable remotely through a HTTP connection is exactly what all Adware, Malware and other suspect programmers would like to have. A system that allows that will be invested with these kind of things in a very short time when browsing the web. So any user allowing that in his Browser settings is out of his mind. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(paololt @ Nov 17 2007, 05:25 AM) First your use of the word ping could be a little misleading here. It usually means a specific network procedure that is passing small packages using the ICMP protocol. ICMP is one of the more low level protocols directly above the IP package layer and there are no VIs to access that directly in LabVIEW. From what I see you are using UDP instead to do some bit error calculations. I'm not sure what you are trying to do by this but if it is about classifying hardware failures for instance in the network cards or network infrastructure your attempt is flawed greatly. UDP while connectionless and not guaranteeing data delivery is also based on the IP protocol and as such has already gone through some IP checksum and such too. So you won't really get much information about the involved hardware failure rate, but at best some indication about the ability of your network topology to cope with the amount of data you throw at it. For small buffers and not being on a congested corporate network this should be very close to 100%. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Nov 16 2007, 05:03 PM) Before LabVIEW 8.5 LabVIEW only could backsafe one version backwards. 8.5 is the first that can safe two steps backwards (8.2 and 8.0) and according to a presentation I attended at this years LabVIEW User Group they intend to maintain that or even better from now on since they seem to have refactored the versioning of VIs in 8.x in such a way that backsaving to older versions got a lot simpler. Probably also the reason why they removed support for loading 4.x and 5.x VIs in 8.5. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Götz Becker @ Nov 13 2007, 08:29 AM) Well obviously the ports were not closed properly since your application got killed. Windows does have some resource garbage collection that will usually close all resources that were made on behalf of an application when that application leaves the building. For some reasons the manner of how the LabVIEW application got discontinued, did somehow prevent Windows to properly garbage collect the winsock handles.There is probably not much you can do about that except hoping you won't have to kill LabVIEW again like that. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Cool-LV @ Nov 14 2007, 09:13 PM) Well, it's not getting much clearer, but if the password is the only problem you are having, that is only required for remote shares that have a password defined. If it is a share that is open for anyone to read, you wouldn't need the password to connect to it. For a share that is password protected, their is no way to connect to it without password. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(tcplomp @ Nov 15 2007, 08:34 AM) Well not really, and they have much better things to do with their time. But in theory a few guys there have actually an idea how their compiler aligns machine code and where it puts it inside the binary VI structure so it would be possible to extract it and point a decent disassembler at it and guess from that the original code. But disassebling code is very hard, even more time consuming and in the end result you normally end up with a code construct that sort of resembles the functionality of the original code. However a machine code to LabVIEW code disassembler is definitely not available. The best you could get is some machine code to pseudo C code I would guess. Anything else would simply be way to much work, especially since the actual LabVIEW compiler evoles over time due to new VI elements as well as better code optimization. Machine code generated by LabVIEW 3 for sure will look diffferent than the same diagram compiled in LabVIEW 8.5. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Neville D @ Nov 9 2007, 01:24 PM) Windows can't do that. And to be honest I don't think any hardware except maybe some very special dedicated high speed routers would support that. The IP routing for such a system would get way to complicated with packets ending up being echoed over and over again. Also you would have to have two network cards on both ends anyhow and in that case what belets you to make them part of two different subnets each and maintain two different connections, one on each subnet? I think also that you expect a bit to much of Gig-E. The theoretical bandwidth of 100MB per second definitely is a lot slower for an end to end connection, both due to TCP/IP overhead as well as limited throughput in the businterface and even more so the TCP/IP stacks. They haven't really been designed for such high speeds and can't usually support them even close to the possible limit. Also the way data is handled in the LabVIEW TCP/IP nodes makes them also slower than what you can get in a more direct access to the socket library but that access is also a lot more though to manage than it is in LabVIEW. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(kresh @ Nov 5 2007, 08:17 AM) Duplicate post: http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...d=19997#M282599 Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ Nov 6 2007, 02:52 PM) Better yet! Just use LabVIEW alone as library name, watch out this one is case sensitive! And then you won't have to worry about lvrt.dll or labview.exe depending on if you build an application or not. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(crelf @ Oct 27 2007, 03:18 PM) Standardized works too, and for floating points NaN is probably the best approach, at least I do it that way if I do it at all. Of course it could fail if there is an actual calculation that is invalid and its result is wired to that input. But!! then having tested for NaN (and probably doing some default action) is still most probably the best course of action. In terms of subVIs I have not yet come across situations were I wanted really to know if a value was unwired, but quite often if it was valid at all, wired or not! Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(sprezzaturon @ Nov 1 2007, 09:22 AM) The standard developer edition does not include IMAQ Vision. It's an add-on to the developer edition too. And then comes the question isn't there some sort of discrepancy between LabVIEW Developer Edition + IMAQ Vision == WebCam? I would think so. That said if you have IMAQ Vision, the IMAQ for USB (which is a free and unsupported download) certainly would work. If you don't have IMAQ Vision I'm not sure where the analogy about coffee machine routines would be that LabVIEW might contain. Because your LabVIEW obviously doesn't contain real image manipulations too. Of course you can always use generic numeric analysis functions to work on images but by that definition every compiler out there should come with Webcam support. QUOTE I'm not expecting the world here. It's like buying the best DVD player in the world only to get it home and find out that it's buttonless and the remote is going to cost as much as the DVD player. Just a little vent of frustration... With nowadays DVD player street prices that is not even unlikely to happen . Maybe that could say something about what things might be wrong in this world, but that is more of a general problem and has not so much to do with LabVIEW. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(daro @ Oct 27 2007, 09:10 AM) I really doubt that Vision Assistent 7.1 can control LabVIEW 8.2 to create VIs in it. The other way around I think would work but not a random number of versions backwards. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(sprezzaturon @ Oct 22 2007, 07:01 AM) And I still can't control my coffe machine with LabVIEW!! Honestly you can always expect anything and everything but I don't think that makes it a legitime expectation just by itself. Most LabVIEW developers couldn't care about webcam access at all. If all you want to do is controlling a life webcam, then the LabVIEW Developers Edition certainly is not the right tool. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Panos @ Oct 30 2007, 08:16 AM) Cross posted at http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...ssage.id=281182 Please mention when you do a cross post so people can know! Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Giseli Ramos @ Oct 30 2007, 08:51 AM) The RtlMoveMemory function does not have to be a problem for you. LabVIEW also exports a MoveBlock() function that you can access with the Call Library Node. There is an example at http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/epd/p/id/3672 that shows exactly this and it works on every LabVIEW platform. But since you have the source of your shared lib, go for the changed API. It's clearer! Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(PJM_labview @ Oct 24 2007, 11:07 AM) Which VI/Xnode file would you suggest to look at as starting point for that? Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(tharrenos @ Oct 24 2007, 08:49 AM) There is no conversion really. The TCP nodes interpret the data that is passed to them simply as a stream of bytes, which a string is in fact too. So if you want to send binary data you simply create an array of U8 bytes the way you want your byte stream to look like and cast it to a string with the Byte Array To String node. If it is text your device expects you format this text into the string. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ Oct 22 2007, 02:43 PM) Apart from the already mentioned templates I don't think there is any way to have an Xnode work as a structure. They can be resizing nodes but that is about it. And if I was you I would try to patent it, before you publish it. Otherwise NI will do it :ninja: Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(tharrenos @ Oct 23 2007, 05:22 PM) Well how the Lantronix device converts TCP/IP into RS-232 will have to be defined by them. So read the documentation for the Lantronix device, bug their technical support and ask for some examples. And yes don't expect them to have LabVIEW examples. Much more than C is probably not possible, maybe one VB example too, but it should give you some ideas. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 5 2007, 03:42 PM) It's not that difficult once you now how ;-) Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Oct 17 2007, 08:10 AM) Well, that is not entirely true. The LabVIEW DSC Toolkit comes with an access control library with user configuration dialogs and login screens and a Wizard that can enable and disable controls in a front panel based on the currently active user from this access control system. It is quite powerful but the entire DSC Toolkit is not cheap and if it is only just for this user access control sybsystem it might be a bit overkill. On the other hand it is (or at least used to be, not sure about the latest status) something you could embed in your own applications without runtime license fees (not true for most other parts of the DSC Toolkit) and designing your own even remotely comparable access control system will cost a lot more in money and not have the ease of use of a front panel control configuration wizard. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(vinayk @ Oct 19 2007, 01:14 PM) The error means as the error handler VI can tell you, that the VI is not in memory. Why you may ask! Because you think you provide a path to the VI to the Open VI primitive, but you don't. This VI will interprete a string input as VI name and nothing else. And when you provide a VI name only the VI must be already in memory. What you want to do is change the string constant into a path constant instead! And with that we are at the next problem. Using absolute path names to refer to VIs is ABSOLUTELY the worst you can do. This will immediately break when you move your project, or build an executable and/or install this on another machine. So reconsider how you want to refer to those dynamic VIs. The way I do this is having a VI somewhere whose location is relative to the dynamically called VIs, for instance in the same directory. Then this VI queries its own path and strips its name from that path and returns that. Now append to that path the VI name you want to load et voila. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE(Neville D @ Oct 11 2007, 12:10 PM) <br /><br /><br />That configuration should be stored in the LabVIEW INI file and reused on each load. Not sure about the current version of LabVIEW but you actually needed to restart LabVIEW in order to get that configuration active when Thread support was introduced in LabVIEW 5.0. Rolf Kalbermatter