11-02-2006 08:05 AM
11-02-2006 09:15 AM
Hi mrbeam,
Wow, that does come off wrongfooted, doesn't it? I haven't hunted down the original document you cite to check the context, but I think I can guess why that statement was made. In LabVIEW 8.2 we introduced a new file format called TDMS and a suite of VIs to read and write those files. While the binary footprint is different between TDM and TDMS, the meta-data schema (3 level hierarchy and name-value scaler properties at each of the levels) is identical between the two formats. Basically, we created the TDMS file to give LabVIEW customers doing high speed streaming an option to get on the "TDM" bandwagon. Both TDM and TDMS files are indexed and searchable by the DataFinder and can be loaded into DIAdem.
So I'm guessing that the statement was intended to reassure the customer base that the TDM file format is here to stay, even though we are introducing a new and very similar file format that streams to disk much faster than TDM. The TDM file format certainly is here to stay, as evidenced by the fact that it continues to be the default file format for DIAdem, among other reasons. It's too bad that a statement intended to reassure the reader actually achieved the opposite result.
Thanks for asking
Brad Turpin
DIAdem Product Support Engineer
National Instruments
11-02-2006 09:37 AM
11-03-2006 08:45 AM
Hi mrbean,
Well, we can discuss the details of TestStands steps interfacing with DIAdem later on, but the answer to your question is that if you choose to store your results in the TDM(S) file format, all you will need to pass to DIAdem is a file path (and perhaps a VBScript path), and DIAdem will automatically be able to access all the data you want it to analyze and report. So using TDM(S) would greatly simplify the process of including DIAdem-specific steps in your process model.
Brad Turpin
DIAdem Product Support Engineer
National Instruments
11-05-2006 02:29 PM
11-06-2006 08:54 AM