Jump to content

Barrie

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Barrie

  1. A track I never thought got the recognition it deserved was "Skateaway" from Making Movies. Awesome!
  2. This is terribly unscientific but I have found that a VI that doesn't draw right, doesn't run right. I have abandoned approaches just because it doesn't look right and its rarely failed me. Its an aesthetic or gestalt thing. A very simple example is that my VIs run best when the dataflow is left to right, top to bottom, like a well drawn schematic. Call it, if you will, another example of "Thinking In G" So, I guess the question is; can aesthetics be quantified? VI Analyzer is a good start, but perhaps what you are asking is verging on AI. Please don't take this as discouragement, just a di
  3. Brain dead? Yes. Unusual? No so much. This site is good for a few chuckles or at least vicarious comiseration. B.
  4. Barrie

    Impressive

    I don't know if this should be in the Rube Goldberg section but it is implemented with NXT. It gives Fieldpoint a run for its money. Enjoy. B.
  5. Ok, now I'm really torqued. I tried exactly that about a week ago and I am 99% sure it did not revert. I just tried it again, and it did revert. :headbang: As you pointed out, if the 2nd level unbundle names are unique, it does not revert. That said, if I go back to the original scripting test VI and make the element names unique, it still doesn't work. Any suggestions for tracking down this elusive secret? Incense, chants, incantations or aligning the cpu with magnetic north will all be considered. B.
  6. Perhaps, but I would be happy if I could just control the polarity and magnitude of the fourth dimension, it would give me more time to study, well..... and of course other important things, like :beer: .
  7. Thanks Aristos and others: This "leg-up" prompted me to dig deeper into these structures and I must confess that my original question was an RTFM. The differences are not as subtle or obscure as I first thought. Call it laziness or fear of the unknown. I am using various versions of GPS receivers that are wildly different in their protocol (and data content :headbang: ) so selectively including drivers programatically will reduce the code size by quite a bit, but would lock me into a device-specific build. One thing that is not explicitly stated (or I couldn't find); I am assuming that a
  8. I've been using LV for more than a week or two but I must confess I am having some diffculty getting my head around some new features. The behaviour of the standard case structure has been compiler optimized to discard any code eliminated by a constant. Cool. So now we also have conditional disable and diagram disable. With the changes in the case structure behaviour the differences are, to me. subtle. Apart from the search function which allows me to find unique structures (and presumably delete them prior to a build), I don't have a solid understanding of where, when, or why I would use t
  9. This is really bugging me. :headbang: The timing is such that I was just about to start on a sub VI that needs to do exactly this. I'm not sure if I ever got the sample VI to work, so, not calling anyone a liar, can someone confirm that it did work consistently, at least for a while? if so, I can start working backwards to try to figure out what's going wrong. any other clues would be greatly appreciated. (Fresh copy of LabVIEW, window minimized, first run only etc.) It appears a reference is getting trashed, or some data is non-persistent, but that should create an error. The only way I
  10. Reminds me of an old bumper sticker that was near and dear to my heart: "Support your local musicians, blow up a disco." B.
  11. Thanks for asking, and NO I don't. Particularly when I have 7.1.1 and 8.20 open at the same time. B.
  12. Can't confirm for sure but you're probably right. I have the DSC package and symfac is installed. B.
  13. Gee, I thought everyone had the OGTK ! Good point actually. :thumbup: Here is the full .llb (with some diagram clean-up) Cheers, Barrie Download File:post-658-1162506452.llb
  14. Hello All: Rather than use trial and error to find what the terminal indices are, (and to explore scripting) I wrote this little utility. Feel free to suggest any corrections or additions. Cheers, Barrie Oh, and thanks to Chris Davis for the "leg up" that got me this far. B. Download File:post-658-1162432064.llb
  15. Thanks Chris! Just to confirm, your VI runs fine in 8.x and cut-and-paste does as well. Phew! I feel better now. I re-loaded both 7.0 and 7.1 and voila! everything is there. At first glance, there is a HUGE difference in what is exposed between 7.x and 8.x but there is also a big difference in VI server as well, so maybe there is a different paradigm. I think part of the change is the because "create constant or control" is no longer truly valid after the addition of the pane. I notice that that method is shown in red in 8.20, which means ???? deprecated??? Wiring a pane reference to "creat
  16. I feel your pain. I was in the same boat until recently, and even now, I'm not much further along. There are at least three issues here: - There is the concept of OOP in general. - There is the implementation of OOP in LabVIEW (At least two flavours) - The concept of how the G paradigm fits in with OOP In a nutshell, OOP provides enforced mechanisms to encapsulate and restrict access to areas of code. Interface points are written which operate on the protected code via methods and properties. A second key point is the concept of inheritance and classes. There's more to it, but that's al
  17. This is a great example for me because it shows that I am missing something fundamental. I have poked around scripting a bit, but never got very far. Now I think I know why. I have modified my .ini and can now see lots of new toys, but when I try to re-create Chris' vi, the Method "Create Constant or Control" is not exposed. It appears that I'm only getting part of the picture. I'm feeling kinda dumb right now, anyone care to enlighten me? Cheers!
  18. I second that! Seqoia Rocks! :thumbup:
  19. This is a very quick example of the basics. Of course you will want to break out the pattern creation from the display loop, but it should give you a good starting point. As for the fancy stuff, you're on your own. The robot vi is located in LV examples, probably in C:\Program Files\National Instruments\LabVIEW 7.1\examples\picture\robot.llb The Picture control is a much underused tool. You can really have fun with it! Good luck and let me know what you come up with. Barrie PS If the VI looks like a mess, it's because I created it on my laptop, which is wide screen. GRRRR! Windoze grap
  20. If you want to have smooth rotation, a pict ring would be cumbersome, (too many pictures). This sounds like a perfect application for using the Picture Control. The turntable picture consists of just a number of circles, filled with different colours. I would set it up this way: Set up a cluster array. Each cluster specifies a circle centre, radius and fill colour. A simple rotation transform on the array would put all the circles where you want them w.r.t. the centre of the picture control. Once the coordinates are transformed, a loop passes the coordinates to the Draw Circle primitive
  21. Hello All: I have just ended my exile in the Simpson Desert in Australia and I'm now on to a new project. I expect it to have around 500+ VIs and about 8 separate processes. My new task needs determinancy and it needs a GUI. One obvious solution is some kind of RT based front end coupled to a PC. Unfortunately, I also need a graphical display that also has a good update rate and determinancy, something that RT can not provide. There are a number of ways I can go, but that is not the topic of this post. When is overkill really overkill? Processors, memory and disk space are so cheap, that
  22. FWIW, I talked to NI about this some time ago. They recognize it as a problem and there are steps being taken to address it. They were unclear as to what those steps were, but at least they are working towards some sort of improvement. B.
  23. In the last few years it has become very fashionable to demonize corporations. Considering Enron, WorldCom, Nortel and others, this is understandable but really very silly. This is like hating humanity because some people rob banks. - Is NI profit driven? I sure hope so. I want NI to not only survive, but flourish because I have invested a great deal of time learning how to make the most of LabVIEW's features. (Note, I did not say mastering ). I want that product to get better and more ubiquitous. - Has NI been taken over by evil corporate zombies that want to imbed a chip in license hold
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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