TerryS

From my interactions with him, Davern does not seem like the 'typical' businessperson, and though not technical I am not sure you need a technical CEO.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160829005895/en/NI-Announces-CEO-Transition-Plan-Position-Company

Certainly a big loss for NI or any company when one of the founders retires.  NI has certainly changed over the years and this is certainly going to be an inflection point when we look back a few years from now.  I'd like to think that the process and company structure in place will allow NI to grow after the end of this year.  From my interactions with him, Davern does not seem like the 'typical' businessperson, and though not technical I am not sure you need a technical CEO. Was wondering on the forum's thoughts on this.

I was scanning VIs that were recently resaved to exclude compiled code.  Then I did a scan of all VIs that their compiled code was indeed removed.  I would open a reference and then check the property.

Opening a reference to some files would crash LabVIEW (though they open from within their lvclass and run).  I noticed the black border as something these VIs had in common.  Anyone come across this?

I too would advise against implementing your own 1553!!!! (think 1.21 gigawatts in 1955) It is a tough call to build what you can buy. Also, Condor is not the only company; see NI's site for some of the other companies that make 1553 cards.

The higher cost 1553 cards are for testing your code and running various simulations. A production card is in the lower end and will cover most applications.

Also, I think the high cost of the cards may be that there is a lower sales volume compared to say the run of the mill serial buses that we more commonly use.

Also, glad to help; I have gotten a lot out of reading these forums and from the OpenG stuff; feels good to reciprocate.

A 1553 card is pretty expensive; ranges anywhere from $3k to $15k (USD).

We used a Condor (GE Fanuc) card on a project and it was not too difficult to use; it came with LV drivers. There are plenty of other companies. Could you please provide more information on what you mean by converting?

See these links/docs for more information:

http://www.condoreng.com/about/lit/index.shtml#other

and specifically:

http://www.condoreng.com/about/lit/pdfdata...cture_Guide.pdf

We too use SVN with TortoiseSVN. Best thing we ever did. Sometimes it is screwy with binaries (basically all LabVIEW files!).

This seems like overkill. What you are trying to do while not impossible is not how the Excel Active X interface was meant to be used. Rather than trying to find out how this would have to be worked out and then maybe the more complicated thing to try to explain it I would rather suggest to send the data to Excel instead and then start a macro in the Excel Spreadsheet that takes those data and creates an Excel Graph from it. While this may sound work intense I'm sure trying to get a LabVIEW graph properly into Excel as bitmap will be at least as hard and that would assume you know how to build a device independant bitmap in memory and transfer its handle across process bounderies.

Rolf Kalbermatter

I agree that a native Excel graph is better as the end user can do their own manipulations of the data and so forth. In our case, we provided another worksheet with the rawdata for their own manipulation. Also, to get Excel to format that was a bit time consuming (it seemed at least) and with the variations of the versions, we viewed that as an additional risk.

[quote name='ThomasM