Mike Ashe

In the same boat. I've been reusing the same General Logging Library so long it is still in a *.llb and seems fossilized. My version is queue based with a handler that is started by calling the Startup method. Lets be clear that this is not OO based, or classes. The Methods VI is called with a "Logger Method" ENUM. I have a few extra "Methods" beyond those mentioned by others above, ENABLE / DISABLE - turns logging temporarily on/off OPEN / CLOSE - The background Manager is also a GUI showing the last 20 events, a new event alert flasher with Ack button. Open/Close methods make the GUI appear and disappear. The log files are closed and a new one opened on the first log entry after midnight, so each day has it's own log file. Several things I'd like to add or upgrade, but it's fairly simple and as Rolf said, just works, so it's never been a high enough priority to rewrite or make OO. I've also used it "as is" on several RT apps, with no problems, but they were fairly slow RT, log rates of 100 mSec. If I had to log a lot faster I'd add in some number and lookup tables like Paul uses. Haven't needed it so far. I've given quite a few copies away over the years, so I'll post it here. (LabVIEW 8.2.1, if someone needs it I could probably dig further down and find 7.1 somewhere)GLOG_General_Log.llb

QUOTE(NormKirchner @ Aug 23 2007, 09:59 PM) They are both nice.

Glad to hear that you got your project working (aren't bright eyed interns great?). Since there is not much motion control here on LAVA (so far) it would be great if you posted a short example of what you did to solve this. Every little technique explained adds up. Thanks!

Nice example Eugen, this could be worked into something suitable for the Code Repository, as well as Wiki. :thumbup:

I haven't really gotten into it in the last year due to the non-target deployment issue. Hopefully that will change in the next year. I've been working on a modularized RT (mostly PXI) system the past year and I think it would really benefit from LVOOP if we could get it down on the RT PXIs.

I can picture a figure skater, with special shoes, leaping and wiring and it looking real great from a gee-whiz standpoint, I'd love to see it. Not very practical for day to day.

I for one will continue to use QSM's in their various forms for a long time. I agree that they can get unwieldy, but I think that is more of a coding style and documentation issue than an architectural issue with QSM's. With a reusable template, a library of VIs to implement the QSM and the discipline to document properly along the way I haven't found them to be a problem. Just my $2 Mike

QUOTE(brianafischer @ Jul 2 2007, 10:26 AM) Are you looking primarily for a static display or one that updates programmatically at runtime? If you are looking for simple equations, single line and dynamic, you will find some examples shipping with LabVIEW. Use the Example Finder under the test menu.

All this discussion of the different disciplines reminds me of a study I once read about ... MIT once studied the differences in approach to problem solving by engineers, physicists and mathematicians, so they invited a sample group up to the lab and ran a simple experiment. The participants were to be admited to the experiment chamber one at a time and told to observe and take whatever action they deemed appropriate. The Engineer was admitted first and upon entering the room noted a fire blazing in the middle of the carpeted floor, with flames shooting almost to the ceiling. There was a bucket of water a few feet from the fire. The Engineer sprang to the bucket and quickly dumped the whole thing on the fire, which went completely out, filling the room with steam and creating a considerable mess. The Engineer then exited the room and announced, "I've solved the problem." The study group murmured among themselves, took copious notes, cleaned up the mess and reset the experiement. The Physicist was admitted next. The Physicist walked in, observed the fire and water, walked quickly but carefully around both, then picked up the bucket and carefully poured about 3/4 of it on the fire, extinguishing all but a single ember, which was then put out with a single extra drop. This produced minimal steam, almost no mess and an incredibly smug grin on the Physicists face while exiting the room and announcing, "I've solved the problem." The study group repeated the murmur, writing and resetting drill and showed the Mathematician to the door. The Mathematician walked in, stopped. A slow walk around the fire ensued, followed by a repeat around the water. The Mathematician looked up at the ceiling, seemingly lost in thought for a few seconds, then looked back at the fire, said, "Yes! Of course!" strode briskly out the door and announced, "A solution exists."

QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Jun 28 2007, 10:37 PM) I'll reply to you as I did to my first year EE professor, "with all due respect Sir, only electrons really flow, there is no such thing as 'hole flow' or positive current, protons do not flow, electrons do, and I'll put it down on your test if it will make you happy (and get me a good grade), but I don't have to buy into it, and I don't" That having been said, the video editor in me is thinking ...

Consider also the relativity of what is lifted in relation to what. If I stand on my head & hands (3 point) and then press up on a handstand (wish I could still do that easily ) then I am "lifting" the earth by the inverse ratio of it's mass to mine, just as surely as I am lifting myself. Today's bit of totally useless trivia ... Brought to you by the Makers of ...

QUOTE(jpdrolet @ Jun 27 2007, 07:19 PM) Break it, no Lay it aside voluntarily, yes Volition > Constriction As for measurement, sure. If a 3D cylinder projects itself through a 2D plane it shows up as an elipse, which in the domain of the plane (I couldn't resist) can be precisely defined and measured. It can come and go, (move), change shape, (morph) and disappear and reappear in a different portion of the plane and cause all kinds of arguments and discussion and disagreement as to it's nature among the inhabitants of flatland, yet the cylinder never changes it's 3D shape or nature. Even this is a totally inadequate analogy, as are all attempts to explain, measure or define God. Not that these questions should not be asked, pondered and even painted. But often times I wonder if the best answer to many of them isn't, "Mu..."

QUOTE(Ben @ Jun 25 2007, 06:15 AM) Somehow, this phrase, on this thread, Carl Sagan would be proud ...

As I recall, if you use EMF (Enhanced Meta file) you not only get scalable graphics, but you get transparency as well.

Congrats Joe!

Hello Craftmail and welcome aboard! Could you let us know a little bit about yourself and what you are using LabVIEW for? That is a good topic for your first or second post. Good luck here.

Welcome aboard skof! If you show a few really good successes with LabVIEW projects you will eventually attract some other people in your company, it almost always happens. Unfortunately it sometimes also occurs that you develop some very sharp detractors who are threatened by your success and their lack of understanding of LabVIEW. I hope you find this forum as friendly and useful as I have found LAVA and Info-LabVIEW before it. By the way, on your PXI, are you happening to be using LabVIEW RT?

QUOTE(orko @ Jun 12 2007, 11:51 AM) I may try to join you eventually. I grew up in Washington, amongst real mountains and trees. I keep looking for an excuse to move back, or at least as far west as Colorado, which, rumor has it, also includes a few real mountains and trees. But by the time we get ready to retire we won't need LabVIEW programmers to rewrite Basic code anyway.

QUOTE(PaulG. @ Jun 12 2007, 09:30 AM) I can agree here. I'm all for sentiment, but, like Linus' security blanket, eventually we put it away, or at least transform it into a sports coat...

Nice note on teh FYI Michael. And as I suspected, my WinXP machine exhibits the exact behavior that Michael describes, it's only the Win2K that shows only the outline.

QUOTE(Ben @ Jun 13 2007, 08:52 AM) 4.

Simpler is better, and Bob's code has the safety advantage that it cannot run away from you in an endless recursive call if someone makes a simple modification mistake, which can easily happen with self calling code. That being said, the technique in the second post has it's uses later in your LabVIEW life.

QUOTE(rolfk @ Jun 12 2007, 05:17 AM) I used basic on my first engineering project out of school, then was considering VB for then next when LabVIEW 2.5.2 came out on Windoze and I never looked back. Since then when I've used text based languages it has usually been only to provide some optimized code for LabVIEW to call (with one or two exceptions). But HP Basic and Rocky Mountain Basic have been great friends of mine over the past 15 years, mainly by providing fertile ground for consulting projects to replace them with LabVIEW versions of the same application :thumbup:

Hi Ben, Ritter's book: LabVIEW GUI: Essential Techniques has an implementation of an Outlook style sidebar that has groupings, icon selection, etc. It may not be exactly what you want, but it has full source code and you can tweak. I've used it both as is and also with some tweaks to implement a set of plugins that were dynamically configured based on how many plugins were found in a \PlugIns directory at startup time. The implementation in the book is a combination of icons in a subdirectory and an INI file with a lot of options settings. It is picture control based, has dynamic mouse-over highlighting, etc. With little work you can make it arrange the icons as a MxN palette rather than the vertical column in the Outlook style. The source code in that book is well worth the price of the book. YMMV

I like the older behavior, but if you have several panes, locked controls to maintain proper GUI layout, etc, I can see where the redraw might cause flickering, etc, especially on slower machines. Funny, but on one of my machines (LV 8.2.1, Win2K) I do not get this behavior, only a window outline, then eveything snaps into place on one resize. I'm obviously missing something simple here.