Mule

If I may inquire - would are the risks/negative attributes of having such a "ghost". If it doesn't pass data in, and sits dormant, where is the problem? Appologies if this is a silly/"newbie" question.

Thanks. I read in a recent tutorial (that I believe was linked from this site =D ) something I've always tried to do with my programming, and that is do your absolute best not to Design as you Plan. However, here's my basic assignment right now: Learn LabVIEW by making a program, and adding features that you don't konw what they do and figure it out, thus increasing your experience. This seems like a highly illogical approach, and that's what brought me looking here. For example, I had been coding a program that moved a "worm" around a waveform graph (graph manipulation, boolean logic, lots of applicable learning experiences), but eventually it started hogging 97% of the available CPU power (and I'm on Dual Pentium 3.0Ghz's!!). I can't find where the resources are being hogged, but I'm not going to waste your guy's time with the VI because, well you've got better things to do than fix my worms. (That's the wieredest thing I've said today...) However, since I recieved the suggestion of reviewing the examples that came with LabVIEW, and surfing these forums for new and old relavent materials that I can understand/decypher (don't worry, I won't bump old threads ;-p ), I think I'm absorbing the LabJUICE at least twice as fast as I was before, wading through it on my own. =) Back I go to work the wires ~~ Mule |

Well, this brings me back to my orginal assumption - I guess I just need more experience! =D Luckily, I'm a fairly quick learner, and if this thread is any indicator to the attitudes I'll recieve if I have other questions or comments, than I've certainly come to the right place! Of course, there is something that is going to be quite difficult. In about a month, I'll be taking a class in JAVA. So, I have a month to set aside my text-based mindset, then 3 months of setting THAT down, and then coming back to work ready to dive into LabVIEW again. Of course, I'm only a college freshman right now... but I imagine I can expect to be tossed around from platform to platform the rest of my career - no wonder my father (a CCNA) said stay out of any computer field! (Hehe) Well, thanks for your support and your valuable input on the matter! Although I don't still don't quite understand WHY the tunnels must be filled on everycase, I'm not so stuborn that I won't succomb to the logic of an advanced user =). In fact, I'm sure if you tried to explain it, I wouldn't yet have enough background to properly understand it anyway. Thanks again, guys! ~Mule

Umm thanks! I honestly don't know exactly what that means, but... I'm going to go look up some terms, find some examples and see if that works out like im talking about. =D However, to the suggestion - are there specific limitations in LabVIEW itself that say "No you can't do this?" Obvisouly in the current versions there is, but why I wonder. Why must EVERY tunnel be connected in EVERY case. That just doesn't seem flexible to me. Any reasons why not to make the program more flexible? To paraphrase Dilbert "Our prototype could turn into a monster that anahilates the galaxy" *he goes home* "Apparently I don't know what -worst- means". Hehe...

Wow - I thought as soon as I said I was a beginner to LabVIEW that I would get flamed!! It's very refreshing to deal with mature people on a forum! The problem is that it if has to leave the case structure at -any- time, then I need to have something for my False condition as well... Hence - my wish is "Let us have empty tunnels on certain cases" - Of course, I honestly have no idea how hard this is to code into LabVIEW. And when I say that I mean... "I have no idea how hard this would be for NI to add to the next release." But I think it would make many aspects of programming much easier. Here's another example where it might come in handy Three structures A - a T/F case structure B - a While loop C - a Whlie loop Variable X enters loop A if A is true, route X to loop B if A is false, route X to loop C This would require two empty tunnels (one on A.True, and one on A.False), which means it's currently impossible. However, if in a future release it WERE possible, it would make programming easier. At least, in my eyes (for what thats worth). And thanks again for patience with me and my lack of experience. But it certainly seems like this is an excellent place to share ideas and learn from experienced LabVIEW programmers. Heck I might even stay in touch with this place in the 3 months of school I'll have between internships! =D

Mmkay, I'm not very proficient in LabVIEW, so it could simply be that I don't know how to do this. But let's say I have a T/F case structure. Variable X enters the structure. On true... Variable X recieves some manipulation and leaves the case structure and goes... somewhere. On false, I want varible X to die. I don't want it to be transmitted to the next case. In other words, I wish that tunnels did not have to be filled in all cases. They don't have to be filled when using standard "type it out" programming (or at least, I've never had to). In fact in programming I often use the "type it out" version of a case structure to kill off a variable.