Jump to content

Tim_S

Members
  • Content Count

    831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Tim_S last won the day on December 23 2017

Tim_S had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63

About Tim_S

  • Rank
    The 500 club
  • Birthday 10/17/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2015
  • Since
    1994

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To provide the obligatory quote... " It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change. "
  2. Yes, I am assuming there is one pixel. Never found a way to create an actual borderless cluster with LabVIEW.
  3. I've gotten around this by selecting a region containing the control and then right-clicking on that.
  4. Total Harmonic Distortion (appears to have been renamed Harmonic Distortion Analyzer from when last used it) can be used to find the fundamental frequency.
  5. You could sample at the same sampling rate, or re-sample to the slower rate.
  6. Think I've narrowed down the cause... the uninstaller for VIPM 2017 is not on my hard drive anymore. The error message is misleading as the 'older version of VI Package Manager 2018' is actually version 2017.
  7. Posted this on the JKI VIPM forum a week back but haven't gotten a response yet. I've installed LabVIEW 2018 which also attempted to update VIPM. LabVIEW installed OK, but VIPM failed to install. Been getting the message "The older version of VI Package Manager 2018 f1 cannot be removed. Contact your technical support group." Anyone seen this before? Tried uninstalling VIPM then reinstalling through LabVIEW installer with no luck.
  8. Whenever I have something that an average human is going to edit I use INI files. It's a lot harder to completely mess up and easier to understand for non-software types. Otherwise, I've shifted to JSON.
  9. The only other company I know of that does XCP is Vector. Vector does have a .NET interface for their CANoe/CANAlyzer software, and there is a way to broadcast/receive UDP from their VN boxes. The price tag on Vector hardware and software is pretty hefty (I expect 14k to 25k USD every time I get a quote for a single station). Dearborn Group with their Gryphon boxes may be able to do XCP/CCP. Haven't done anything with them in a decade, so can't relate much more. Once again not cheap. Kvaser is an outfit I've heard about and briefly looked into a couple years back, but not used any of their products.
  10. Google produces: Queued State Machine with User Input Basic LabVIEW Design Patterns - National Instruments Queued State Machine QSM - LabVIEW Design Patterns
  11. Property and invoke nodes can also uncheck 'Remove front panel' when 'Use default save settings' is checked. Ones that reference the front panel certainly do (e.g., front panel->open), but I'm not sure about ones that reference controls.
  12. Tim_S

    NI DAQ alternatives

    What it sounds like you're asking for is where NI has gotten out of (<100 Hz) because there are tons of remote I/O options Rockwell, Siemens, GE, etc., already on the market. All of these use some form of bus (RS232, RS485, PROFIBUS/NET, Ethernet/IP, CAN...). Depending on what you pick you can spend just as much as a cDAQ in time and materials. NI acquired Measurement Computing some years ago. I've never used the hardware, but they do list having LabVIEW drivers. Some devices look to be able to handle industrial logic levels (24V).
  13. I'm not terribly proficient in Python, but wondering if Python is reacting to a termination character.
  14. Which is a big point to why we didn't use TestStand in that there is a cost in learning the system which has to be able to fit in budget and schedule of a project.
  15. I've run in to TestStand twice... The first was a project I got pulled in to at the 11th-and-then-some hour to make some changes. I got a quick intro to implementing LabVIEW code in TestStand and made the changes. I didn't get to do much with it, however the impression I got from people who had been with the project was very negative in how difficult the system was to use to do what was wanted and they intended not to use it again. This was with TestStand version 1 (and I believe LabVIEW 5) from people who (today) would be certified LabVIEW CLD, so take that for what you will. The second time I ran into it was as part of a major revision and re-write of an existing system including sequencer written in LabVIEW. We (two from my company and a local alliance partner) seriously considered using TestStand, but concluded that the amount of work learning TestStand, porting existing code to work with TestStand, build a system around this that did all the other things that were needed, and make it look like a homogeneous system would be more costly that just writing it in LabVIEW (version 8.6 at the time).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.