Broken Array Wire Doesn't Make Sense

[rex1030]

I am trying to create a two dimensional array by decimating a 1-D array and then using the build array function to create the two-dimensional array from it. Does anyone have any idea why this isn't working? I feel like this should be working. I did something similar to this (i didnt do the mulitply by a scalar step) and it worked fine. Help please.

[tst]

Right click the Build Array primitive and uncheck the concatenate option.

[rex1030]

Wow, you are the man. Thanks. I feel stupid.

[altenbach]

Of course you realize that there has to be a better way to do all this. 🙂 Too much duplicate and excessive code!

Try it, it should fit on a postage stamp. 🙂

Can you attach your VI?  What is the size of the BLUE array input? 

Message Edited by altenbach on 09-04-2008 01:29 PM

[smercurio_fc]

---

altenbach wrote:

Of course you realize that there has to be a better way to do all this. 🙂 Too much duplicate and excessive code!

Try it, it should fit on a postage stamp. 🙂

---

That, of course, depends on the size of the stamp. According to Wikipedia, the largest stamps used were 52x95 millimeters. 

Message Edited by smercurio_fc on 09-04-2008 04:37 PM

[altenbach · Accepted solution]

There are many ways to do this, so here's one possibility. Would that fit on a stamp? (I guess it depends on the dot pitch of your monitor.)

 

(note that we only need to fit the "algorithm", not the terminals:D)

Message Edited by altenbach on 09-04-2008 02:45 PM

[rex1030]

My code fits on a postage stamp. Its a subVI, ha ha ha. Yea, I just inherited this project from a coworker who is no longer here. I thought it was a little inefficient, but I am just trying to get the whole thing working again before I start trying to make it more efficient. I'll fix this up though. thanks guys

[altenbach]

Of course if you are rewriting this thing, you might want to reconsider how you arrage your data. Most likely, you don't want to transpose unless there is a good reason.

Transposing does not change the information, but adds CPU cycles. 🙂

I only added the transpose to mimic the exact functionality of the original code.

[rex1030]

So, when it comes to how fast the code runs, you think the code I had probably runs faster?

[altenbach]

---

rex1030 wrote:
So, when it comes to how fast the code runs, you think the code I had probably runs faster?

---

No!!!

(If you are worried about performance, the only way to be sure would be to code up both and benchmark with typical data sizes.)

My solution is much more scaleable. Imagine you would need to rewrite it for 128 channels. You would not even be able to find a screen big enough, while in my code all you need to do is change a diagram constant. 🙂