Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Michael Aivaliotis

What's wrong with this picture?

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Oct 26 2007, 08:34 AM)

What I'm really still dying to know is how the Required Outputs happened. Michael is being awfully coy about that.

This keeps bugging me too. Michael mentioned TS 4.0 in the "broken wire/runnable message", so I'm guessing it has something to do with TS providing access to VI properties that don't normally make sense from a LV standpoint. If it did come from TS, that might explain why Aristos couldn't find a LV way to do this.

I don't have TS, so it's just a guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Nov 15 2007, 09:49 AM)

I guess that makes 2 in the special "required outputs" club.

But I'm afraid you are still alone in the "detachable node" club :( .

I was going to explain how I did it, but I don't want to take away your well-earned NIweek beers ;) .

Saludos,

Aitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ Nov 30 2007, 07:25 AM)

What's wrong with this video?

It looks like to me like you're somehow changing the execution state of the VI while it's running. You manage to "break" (broken arrow) the VI without stopping it, and it's after that that the weirdness really begins. You sort of "fix" the problem by clicking the Run arrow again, which I suppose gets the VI back to a more self-consistent state and allows the Stop button to work.

I also note that right after you click the Run arrow for the first time, your cursor moves out of the movie frame. :shifty:

Care to make another movie where either

  • your cursor stays in frame the whole time? OR
  • the whole screen is visible?

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Aitor Solar @ Nov 15 2007, 02:24 AM)

Well, well, well, it seems really easy when you know how :yes:

Send me a private post or something. If you've got a way to do it, I want to know so I can see how the code is doing it SO I CAN BLOODY WELL MAKE IT A SUPPORTED FEATURE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Tomi Maila @ Nov 30 2007, 03:25 PM)

What's wrong with this video?

Maybe you are using the Fake Execution State method?

Saludos,

Aitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Aitor Solar @ Dec 1 2007, 10:05 PM)

Maybe you are using the Fake Execution State method?

Hint: The solution can be found from the dark side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Aitor Solar @ Dec 3 2007, 10:11 AM)

I think you are triying to do this, don't you? This avoids the "VI is not in a state compatible with this operation" error.

I'm unable to find this Fake Exec State scripting property. Where can I find it? I was using your and my own scripting tool...

EDIT: I found it, it was a method...

Tomi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to original question: Does changing it by means of a hex editor count? 'Cause that's how I did it. Odd side-effect is that the Info window shows the correct display in terms of its wiring property, but when you right-click on the indicator it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Oct 26 2007, 07:34 AM)

What I'm really still dying to know is how the Required Outputs happened. Michael is being awfully coy about that.

* crickets *

Come on Michael, at least drop us a hint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Saverio @ Jan 4 2008, 05:23 PM)

Does changing it by means of a hex editor count? 'Cause that's how I did it.

Did you changed the code of a .vi file? And doesn't LabVIEW return something as "corrupt VI" or similar? :o

Saludos,

Aitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Aitor Solar @ Jan 7 2008, 03:11 PM)

Did you changed the code of a .vi file? And doesn't LabVIEW return something as "corrupt VI" or similar? :o

Saludos,

Aitor

No. I just changed one hex value at a specific location in the file. That changed the behavior of the output to "required". It did not corrupt the VI, as far as I could tell. There was the side-effect that I mentioned, but I don't know if that's because LabVIEW inherently doesn't deal with required outputs, or what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 5 2007, 10:57 PM)

What's wrong with this picture?

Create an XNode, use the Terms ability to create connector pane inputs, set them to required. Place the XNode to a block diagram and open the Generated Code.vi. Make a new VI and drag the Connector Pane of the Generated Code.vi to the new VI. Create the controls and connect them to tha connector pane. Save the VI and voila you have required inputs.

cosmin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Dec 1 2007, 01:04 AM)

Send me a private post or something. If you've got a way to do it, I want to know so I can see how the code is doing it SO I CAN BLOODY WELL MAKE IT A SUPPORTED FEATURE.

DON'T BELIEVE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!

HE JUST WANTS TO BLOCK IT!

I know those evil NI types. :ninja:

cosmin, you wrote "inputs". Does this also apply to outputs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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