LabVIEW Idea Exchange

I think the Array Element Gap should be sizable. This would facilitate lining up FP arrays with other items on the FP, or simply as a mechanism to add more apparent delineation between elements.

The size should be set in the Properties box, not by dragging the element gap with the mouse - that would add too much "cursor noise".

A new Property Node for this feature would complete Idea.

If you have mulitple versions of LabVIEW installed, some of them show up in the "Open With" menu, but regardless of which item you select, the VI will always open in whichever version of LabVIEW was opened most recently.

Example: if I opened a legacy VI in LabVIEW 2009, closed that version of LabVIEW completely, and opened another VI using the "Open with" menu and selected LabVIEW 12..., LabVIEW 2009 is relaunched and is unable to open the VI because it should have launched in LabVIEW 2012.

The current workaround is to add all installed versions as options in the "Send to" menu, but this is not nearly as intuitive as using "Open with" would be.

One of the most over-looked LabVIEW VI Properties, mentioned in all of the "Good LabVIEW Coding Practices", is the one called "Documentation", where you describe what the VI does, and its Inputs and Outputs (at a minimum).  [NI Examples are certainly guilty of this].

I've been trying (and mostly succeeding) to ensure that every VI I write has such Documentation.  Sometimes I make a mis-type, highlight "bad" parts, and hit the "Delete" (or backspace), then say "Oops, erased too much, let's undo that with ^Z".  Except there is no Undo, or at least it isn't bound to ^Z here.

I can find no other place in LabVIEW that doesn't allow ^Z to replace deleted text.  It works in String Constants, in Labels (whether Free Labels or names for Controls/Indicators), and other places.

To encourage LabVIEW Developers to use the Documentation property, can you please allow us to "undo a boo-boo" with ^Z?

Bob "Imperfect" Schor

Currently, the markers of intensity graphs are left-aligned with the intensity pixels. This is most noticable when graphing small arrays, but is a general problem. Have a look at the left picture (x0 and dx are at the default). There is one too many markers on each axis and it is errorprone to read out the coordinates of a certain pixel because it is always betwen two adjacent markers.

(If we graph a 1D array with 10 elements on a plain graph with the same size (loose fit off), the axis will go from 0..9. It is misleading to show another marker at 10 in the case of the intensity graph!)

Correct would be to center the axis markers on the pixels as simulated in the image on the right. Now the limits are correct!

The problem is even more severe with cursors locked to the plot. The cursors align with the markers and thus fall right between four adjacent pixels (left) while they should be smack dab in the middle of exactly one (right). Currently, we have a 25% chance of picking the right pixel with a cursor unless we are very carefully!

Idea summary: The markers of intensity graphs need to be centered on the graph pixels. Same for cursors.

(...of course the same applies to intensity charts and similar)

I would like to have an option to export a simplified image of a graph directly into png. The image formats available in LV2010 are bmp, eps, emf and pict. Png is superior to bmp with rougly 100-50 times smaller file sizes. At the moment if I want to export a simplified image of a graph to png then I have to use the extra code below or alternatively export the image to clipboard, paste that into a graphics editor an save it to png. It would be much more simple to have an option to directly export to png. My suggestions below:

Help! I need a way to pack more Classes onto my Block Diagrams!

This idea is simple and quite subtle- reduce the size of the Class Constant on the Block Diagram. The majority of the footprint belongs to the Class Icon, which cannot be sized smaller, but the additional border graphic that creates the "Object Cube" effect can be reduced to give a total footprint of 42x42 pixels down from 48x48 pixels. (If you're counting, that's a 42% reduction in "fluff", discounting the 32x32 that must remain!)

If you're not crazy about the first-draft artwork, feel free to post a new rendition in the Comments section!

Perhaps my most obscure suggestion...

You can't create a build spec with the same name as an existing one regardless of capitalization:

But if you use a mismatched case in "<vi.lib>\AppBuilder\AB_API_Simple\Build (path).vi" you get this error:

So either you should be allowed to create build specs with the same letters and different capitalization, or the API should be smart enough to find the matching build spec regardless of capitalization.