AnalogKid2DigitalMan

DAQ card inputs are typically high impedance, when left unconnected, they are 'floating'. That is, charges and voltages can build up in the front end of the input and result in 'phantom' volatges being present. For a sanity test, short the inputs of each of the analog channels, you should then read 0 volts. Likewise, apply a voltage to each input (say, using a 1.5v battery) and verify the reading displayed. I once made an 'intrusion alert' vi that basically looked at the voltage impressed on a floating input with a few inches of wire connected to it. When a person approached, they would disturb the 60Hz EMI field and abruptly change the voltage on the input. Let me know if the tests above work out.

Good Work Regis! Kelbro's got questions, youv'e got answers! :worship: Looks like the Shack took the easy way out (and cheapest?) by sending each digit's segment status.

It's 4800 , *, No Parity, 1 stop bit Here's a link: http://support.radioshack.com/support_meters/doc68/68424.pdf I suggest dowloading meter view to test if meter is working, see link http://support.radioshack.com/productinfo/...Results&Reuse=N Have fun, looks like the data format is a hoot! :headbang:

Specs and features needed for the application would be of use in choosing

No, it is not included in the Base, nor Advanced, but is part of Professional. It can be bought as a separate toolkit, or can come bundled with SPC and Database Connectivity packagaes.

Use LV help to search on Examples containing FFT?

And another related (not so good) thread I came across. Was not looking for MCC, but it came up in my daily browse of NI discussion forums. http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...ssage.id=107861

On a somewhat related note of using MCC HW with NI LV: http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...uireLogin=False

cmaster: I do not think all is lost, did you look into the universal library in the link I posted above? DAQ functions and LV should work with the library, it is only $50. But I do not think it is MAX nor DAQMX compatible.

Did you purchase their Universal Library that provides drivers for LabView? See: http://www.measurementcomputing.com/cbicat...M19DA6EQRMF7X28 I do not know if their drivers allows MAX to see and configure the card, also do not know if it allows DAQMX functions support. My personal policy is: Use National's software, then use their hardware. Saving a couple hundred $ by buying a non NI card can cost you a heck of a lot more in lost time and lack of dedicated support (and finger pointing!).

You may want to refer to the pdf document "Using external Code in LabView" listed under Help/Search The LabView Bookshelf page. It contains all the skinny on conventions and compilers supported.

I concur with Louis, a lot of baggage is carried in the Express vi's. They are pretty cool though to get some tasks done outright in hardly any programming time at all. And the new 'signal' wire used in some is pretty handy. IMO, LV 7 has a lot to offer over 6. If I need speed, I code my own streamlined methods and try to shy away from the 'higher level' "one shoe fits all" vi's that NI has developed.

Would a good hard look at the task manager Processes tab for a period of time ferret out any periodic resource grabbers?

The WHO, Quadrophenia :laugh:

Could it be Geddy Lee and Alex Leifson from Rush- A Show of Hands Artwork? See http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/wallpaper/ASOHcov.jpg

Looks very 'Picasso-ish!"

enolij: IMHO, I must disagree about LabView being a piece of junk that always locks up. It performs quite well and reliably in all the apps that I have programmed and deployed. And LabView is not based on ladder logic, it takes the diagram and compiles directly to machine code. Please refer to the following link if interested. http://www.ni.com/devzone/lvzone/dr_vi_archived6.htm And is it slow compared to C? Not really http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/we...node=DZ52061_US

On the block diagram, select All Functions/Advanced/Synchronization/Rendezvous

I am on the fence on this one, did some quick searching a few weeks ago related to LV and SP2. It was a mixed bag- some people had no issues, others had frequent crashes after a while of running while others crashed right out of the gate. You can always uninstall SP2, but I do not know how much 'baggage' this leaves in Windows.

SimpleTaskMonitor example that ships with LV7.1 uses .NET to monitor memory, CPU usage, and processes, akin to Win Task Manager

I disagree with NI's proposed liscening. It could be a real hindrance to the typical (at least myself) developer/deployer of applications within my company. Consider the following scenario, with a single employee in the company who does LV programming. 1. Desktop PC is used for day to day operations, connected to the network and internet. LabView is loaded primary to open/download sample code off the internet for potential project development, gain further knowledge of LV, etc. PC is not used to develop potential applications. Could do without LV here (use LV player?), but would really restrict my knowledge of LV. 2. A general development networked PC, may or may not be connected to internet. LV is loaded and PC has DAQ and Framegrabber cards loaded. Used for tinkering/experimentaion/quick minor application testing. 3. A PC dedicated to a project, in the end it will be networked but no access to internet. LV is initially loaded, project coded and debugged over several weeks/months. Especially critical to have LV on it due to custom instrument communication and near project completion when system is delivered to production floor for quick bug fixes. An exe is built with App Builder. When determined that program is reliable and stable, LV is then removed from the system. Minor future updates usually can be coded on the general devel PC above. It would be a real hassle to mess with registration/deregistration or install/remove every time one has to shuffle between systems. LV code is never being developed at the same time on more than one machine. Is there a problem with illegitimate copies of LV being given away? I assume there would be. Never personally have, do not know of anyone who could or would use it. Do not have LV at home, get enough of it at work. Have used NI SW and HW over the past 10 years, and have purchased ~$60000 worth of it. I would hope NI would allow leniency for flexibility for long-time and loyal users of their products. Just my ramblings on the topic... :beer: :beer: :beer:

Here's a holiday diddy I wrote for our IT guys a couple years back: Marc and Greg: Hope you appreciate this, it wasn't planned at all and get's a little weak, took me about 20 minutes to hash together Twas the night before Xmas break and all through the plant nary a hard drive was spinning nor any traffic on the LAN The backup tapes were sent offsite with care In the hopes that vacation would soon be here IT was snuggled all up in their beds While visions of Bill Gates danced through their heads And Marc in his kerchief And Greg in his cap Had just settled down for their usual afternoon nap When out on the server there arose such a clatter Could it be U drives hard disk platter? Away to rack Marc flew like a flash While Greg inspected the small pile of ash The blue light is off on the newly fallen server Gave fits to IT and a panic of fervor When, what to their teary eyes should appear A virus in the form of Britney Spears With a little DOS driver so compact and quick They knew in a moment vacation was nixed More rapid than DDR, their curses they came And they hollered and shouted and called out by name: Now hard drive, now FAT, now partition and platter On SCSI, on IDE, on RAID and head chatter. To the top of the buffer, to the top of the firewall Now reboot, reboot, reboot now all! As viruses that before Norton diminish When they meet with an obstacle They always do finish. So out to their houses IT did they flew With the server up again, and Britney too! Merry Xmas and Nappy Yew Hear -Pete

Recent post from the Developer Zone: http://sine.ni.com/apps/we/niepd_web_displ...source=external

Dniz: To add elements, hover the mouse over the bottom edge of the node until handle boxes appear, then left click and drag the mouse down to add a new element. Then move mouse over the new element with the hand pointer tool and left click to bring up a popup to select what property to expose.

I am currently designing a moderately sized LabView application and cannot decide on the best architecture/design pattern or combinations thereof to implement. The program basically polls an instrument connected to a serial port continuously at a 2-10Hz rate. When operator clicks a button to start a run, the polled data is then filtered, has math functions performed on the data, writes collected data to files, and produces reltime graphs and calculates point-by-point statistics. At the completion of a run, some additional data files are written. I pretty much know how to accomplish all these tasks. What is also required is main-vi front panel interaction by the operator to access a database (via a C# dll with .Net) to query for specifications to apply in order to determine pass/fail status. Setup conditions also need to be changed from time to time by the operator and applied to the data in real time (ie- a measurement offset). I have prototyped the database portion successfully thus far. For the main vi, I started off using the Top Level Application Using Events design pattern (Event structure within a while loop). Copious use of bundled clusters and shift registers keep the database data updated. I cannot figure out how to have the top level vi concurrently poll the serial device as outlined above. The Event structure is only active when defined control values change, and use of a timeout is no help since it prevent data from being collected while the user is accessing the database. All database and setup parameters must be applied to the data as it comes in from the serial port. Error trapping/recovery is a must. Avoid use of globals! I believe what I need is two parallel processes running under my main vi (one for database and setup, the other for polling and data processing/display, but what would be the preferred choice here? Revert back to a polled loop in lieu of Events, use notifiers, occurrences, user-defined events, Producer-consumer loops? It