LabVIEW Idea Exchange

I really like having two different default locations for my terminal labels.  What I do not like so much is that I still end up dragging a lot of labels around after changing a control to an indicator or indicator to control.  I would like it if the label location was automatically moved to the default position when the direction of a terminal is changed. 

You could get fancy and only move it if it is currently in the default location, I'd prefer it to always be moved.  And I am not interested in the Quick Drop shortcut here.  I do not want a quick way to clean up the mess I do not want the mess made in the first place.

I've often produced VIs with non-array controls and indicators only to find that by changing them to arrays I can increase the power and functionality of my VI. When this happens you have to create the array element, drop in your control and then if it is connected to a VI input or output pin, rewire the pin.

What would be nice is to simply have the Add Dimension capability available for a non-array control to instantly convert it to an array and conversely the Remove Dimension to convert a 1D array control back to a non-arrayed control.

Not so much an idea, as a wish/plead/rant:

Please make the next version of LabVIEW a major update of the features we have available to create user interfaces.

2011 was the "improved stability" version. 2014 should be the year it became simple and fun to create user interfaces that blow everyone's socks off. I'm not even talking about fancy stuff, just get the basics right!  Fix the graph indicators, and provide better front panel scaling options - and that alone will make 2014 the best update ever(!).

I started writing a list of all the things I find bad with the graph/charts for example, and found out that it would be better to just do a search here on the idea exchange to see how many ideas mention graphs alone. 2390 ideas! (yes, I have not gone through them all to filter out the ones that do not actually request changes to the graphs, but most of them do, directly or indirectly...). My own little list started like this, in random order:

Graphs and charts

1. You cannot stack plots in any of the graph indicators, only in charts
2. Number of plots stacked cannot be varied at run-time
3. Annotation properties are only partially available programmatically
4. Auto-scaling cannot be restricted to one way-only, it's behaviour cannot be configured in any way
5. Legends, palettes and tools do not fit together to form an organized user interface, nor are they possible to detach from eachother to get more flexible designs/scaling for ecxample...
6. XY graphs become sluggish and almost unusable with large data sets, where alternatives written in other languages have no performance issues
7. Plot colors could automatically adjust to the chosen background color - suggesting unique colors for the added plots that provide the best possible
visibility.

8. Graphs on e.g. Google and Yahoo have tonnes of cool features like animated zooming, thumbnail graphs, highlighting of the plot you hover the mouse over etc. which provide a very interactive feeling, you can achieve some of this in LV as well, but it could/should be possible with little or no programming

9. To get charts to accept data with variable sample rate (delta X) is possible, but cumbersome and an almost hidden feature...

Mixed signal
1. You cannot set the group names programmatically
2. The number of plot areas is not configurable at run-time
3. You cannot assign plots to a given group programmatically
4. You cannot show the visibility checkbox of each plot etc.

And then you have the additional 2000 ideas...;-)

As for front panel scaling there are not that many ideas (naturally), but the impact/value of them would change every LabVIEW programmer's life significantly. We can stop spending so much time finding ways around limitations in LV, and start focusing on the actual goal of our applications.

Would that not make everyone's day?

There are several methods to exchange data between parallel loops.

These methods however are (intrinsically) not following LabVIEW's dataflow-along-wire paradigm.

If you think in different layers, where several loops are running in parallel at the surface, you could have subsurface datatransfer.

You could add a new "tunnel mode" to the LabVIEW 2013 right mouse menu on the border of a loop.

There you could also specify whether you would like the data passing the boundary to be queued.

You would however think of something to visualize these settings at the loop boundary as well as having some error terminals in case of queues.