Neil Pate

@Mahbod Morshedi no need to apologise at all. This is a journey for everyone and all the opinions here are given with absolute kindness in mind, just sometimes the message gets lost in text. If you add new features to your application, there is no need to make a new wire. Assuming you have some kind of core cluster you would just have a single wire through the whole application and you can add new stuff into this cluster. Now, that will start to get clumsy at some point (when it reaches what we sometimes call "megacluster" status). To prevent this from happening it is normally better to try partition your application into independent things, (loops) that contain just the data they care about. Then each thing becomes simpler. Then you need to figure out how to communicate between these things and you go down a rabbit hole. Have you looked at one of the popular frameworks like DQMH?

yes but I think X means creating polymorphic instances for all the unique typedefs/clusters inside, so not just the normal primitives that you can create once and forget about.

yup, completely agree with this ^^^^ I have done something similar in the past where I used a global variant as a data store, and then used attributes to store/get data (and some convenience VIs to convert to the known types). It was a bit of an experiment in a system that had many data generators (different interfaces to independent pieces of hardware) and several hundreds of data variables (tags) all communicated over OPC-UA, so had a fairly sophisticated method to set/get by name as I didn't want to deal with such a mega-cluster anywhere. It worked fine, but in the end I would not really recommend it for simple systems where you just dont want to make the proper data types.

Well then I don't get the question I suppose.

Have you looked into typedefs? This solves the problem of VIs breaking if you modify the data structures as there is then only a single instance of the definition of a data type.

How do you look up the data in your array? Via --Tag? If you are going to do that you might as well just use a map. But anyway, I am not a huge fan of this approach. I think better composition into clusters or objects will also make your wiring neater, more testable, scalable etc I do recognise the need for nice neat diagrams without wires going all over the place, but proper decomposition/architecture normally fixes this. So in general I would have to say you are not on the right track with this approach, but this is of course just my opinion.

That is weird. No sorry not seen that before! So you have tried manually changing the tool?

@Rolf Kalbermatter the admins removed that setting for you as everything you say should be written down and never deleted 🙂

yeah that is the payload 😉

😂😂😂

I also realised I messed up my benchmark and the final High Precision Time should be after the sorting. I meant to do this just forgot!

Done some simple testing. On a directory containing 838 files it took 60 ms.

Have you tried this? The `last mod` output should hopefully give you the timestamp of the last modification, and it would then be pretty simple to find the latest. I have no idea what the performance of this would be if you loop over 10000 files. That is something you would just have to try.

I actually had a similar experience when first moving everything to the new OpenG structure. It broke heaps of stuff (even inside its own OpenG stuff), so I rolled back the change. Some time later I tried again, and think I did have to deal with a bit of pain initially with relinking or maybe some missing stuff, but since then things have been stable.

Put the acquire image and save to file in the event structure timeout case, but only write to file conditionally (i.e. if the user has clicked the button)