System button with image

[Ton Plomp]

There is a UI section.

Ton

[SebastienM]

Nobody see what I mean ?

...ok, maybe it was on the NI forums.

[SebastienM]

OK, it was the Dirk J. post, on the first page of this topic.

I do love his work.

http://lavag.org/old...3-1158942520.vi

Is somebody able to make the same but the right transparant arrow ?

[CharlesB]

My 2cts: the controls provided by the the "Missing" System Control Suite include system buttons with pictures.

[ensegre]

[zombie thread alert]

I landed on this thread, realizing that not much seems to have really changed in this corner since 2006. I guess one answer will still be "LV uses internally PICC". But one thing: anyone still knows what is this Control Parts dialog, and whether it is stiil available in more modern LV? Not even to think about programmatic access to this data...

 

On 11/4/2006 at 0:03 AM, Mike Ashe said:

When you get into the parts window you note that the light and background graphics are independent of the main button and can be independently edited.

 

 

 

[Phillip Brooks]

5 hours ago, ensegre said:

But one thing: anyone still knows what is this Control Parts dialog, and whether it is stiil available in more modern LV? Not even to think about programmatic access to this data...

 

 

You have to be in the control editor. Drop a control on a VI FP, select the FP control and use Edit -> Customize Control... from the pull-down.

Now, in the control editor, select the control and select Window -> Show Parts Window

 

 

[ensegre]

On 9/29/2017 at 8:30 PM, Phillip Brooks said:

select Window -> Show Parts Window

Doh, you're right, I wouldn't have thought at. Thx!

[is that a VI somewhere in /resource/, which could be hacked?]

Edited September 30, 2017 by ensegre

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

On 9/30/2017 at 8:43 PM, ensegre said:

Doh, you're right, I wouldn't have thought at. Thx!

[is that a VI somewhere in /resource/, which could be hacked?]

The control editor? No, that is in LabVIEW since at least version 2.x and at that time they didn't even have the option to call VIs as integral dialog of the IDE. These dialogs itself are in fact using the same resource format as a LabVIEW front panel, but the code handling them is all written in C and part of the LabVIEW executable.

[ensegre]

ok thanks Rolf. Impressing how NI didn't invest in this aspect across the years.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

15 minutes ago, ensegre said:

ok thanks Rolf. Impressing how NI didn't invest in this aspect across the years.

Well, the base was pretty solid and worked for most of the things. I personally find it impressive that it wasn't really necessary. That said the control editor certainly could have benefited from some love in the mean time. It works but always was a bit of a difficult thing to use for actual working on controls, and you can easily end up with a control so messed up and impossible to grab the individual parts in the way you want, that it's often easier to start from scratch again.

And I have it from the original developer who worked on the control editor, that the control editor wasn't actually a piece of software they still felt proud off and that in order to redesign it, it would need to be completely rewritten as modifications of the existing code base would be basically unmaintainable.

You can be judging on that but you have to consider the times back then. Experiments to compile some of the LabVIEW code base with C++ were a disaster as the C++ compilers at that time produced massively exploded code with sometimes pretty bad performance, so the entire code of LabVIEW was written in standard C. C compilers were struggling to compile the huge LabVIEW code base (NI had to beg Apple repeatedly to extend the internal tables of the Apple C Compiler to be able to handle the number of symbols the LabVIEW code required). NI could have waited a few years with LabVIEW hoping that C compilers got better but that wasn't really a good option so they had to work with what was available. And then as C compiler tools got better there were many other areas that required attention to implement new features rather than redesign existing features that basically worked.

Edited October 2, 2017 by rolfk