LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Max 9.2.2 doesn't recongize com ports

Eric -

Thanks.

The situation is resolved.

 

We had run NI-DAQ902f0 which installed NI-VISA 4.51 or

we had run NIDAQ861.exe which installed NI-VISA 4.2.  

 

This allowed us to have access to COM1 to control a power supply.  (Not knowing anything about VISA.)

 

When we ran NI-DAQ922 no NI-VISA was installed.

The problem surfaced when cleaning off ALL NI programs, reinstalling the latest version (2010) Runtime and NI-DAQ no longer installed NI-VISA

 

The solution derived from understanding this has been simply to install NI-VISA (latest version)

 

There is some disagreement about the validity of what I've just said, but I'm reporting results from Uninstalling EVERYTHING and downloading and  installing the selected programs - MANY MANY TIMES in the last 3 weeks - I am not talking theory.  If you download the programs as above you will verify what I've said.

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
Message 11 of 18
(1,432 Views)

Test Engineering Leader-

 

I'm sorry you have had such a long issue with the download/install procedure. I think, however, that the behavior you are experiencing is intentional. Many people want specifically and only the DAQmx driver, and so when you install specifically the DAQmx driver on a clean system, it will only put that driver and any necessary components. It seems that the latest driver does not require the VISA component, so it did not install it, although I see how this caused issues since you were using the component that installed with the early versions of DAQ. I think this design choice was made for optimization and efficiency for applications that do not want to have extra components if not necessary.

 

In the future you may try downloading driver sets instead of particular drivers. This will put on your 'new' system all of the standard driver components so that the hardware should be able to work, and may be less hassle if you go through this procedure again.

- Regards,

Beutlich
0 Kudos
Message 12 of 18
(1,416 Views)

OK, what we are doing is installing (now):

 

LVRTE2010std.exe

NIDAQ922f0.exe

visa502runtime.exe

 

How is that different from a "driver set"?

 

 

0 Kudos
Message 13 of 18
(1,404 Views)

I guess that is a set of drivers, so if that works for your application then there is no problem. If you have issues with finding which driver is appropriate again, then you can try NI System Driver Sets, which are a larger set of drivers for most of the applications you could use with NI products. NI comes out with these sets periodically, so it is a convenient way to get 'all' of the drivers at once.

- Regards,

Beutlich
0 Kudos
Message 14 of 18
(1,395 Views)

COOL.

 

That looks like it covers half the world with drivers!

 

Was not aware of them, Thanks!

 

 

0 Kudos
Message 15 of 18
(1,391 Views)

And to reiterate: DAQmx is not necessary to talk to COM ports. All you had to do was install the LabVIEW RunTime and NI-VISA. That's it. That's assuming you're trying to get a built application running on a different machine. The suggestion of downloading and installing "driver sets" is, in my humble opinion, a waste of time if you just have an application that talks to serial ports. You can create an installer with the Application Builder to include the necessary driver installations.

0 Kudos
Message 16 of 18
(1,384 Views)

Agree with the minimum that's needed is Runtime and Visa, but Max is such a useful tool we'll contine putting it on.

In our application, putting the driver set on would be done once, where because of changes often made it would be repetative to do anything above the minimum.  That is just a matter of programming style  -  I'm sure that there are other situations where building the installer is a better idea.

0 Kudos
Message 17 of 18
(1,377 Views)

@Test Engineering Leader wrote:

Agree with the minimum that's needed is Runtime and Visa, but Max is such a useful tool we'll contine putting it on.


NI-VISA installs MAX.

 


In our application, putting the driver set on would be done once, where because of changes often made it would be repetative to do anything above the minimum.  That is just a matter of programming style  -  I'm sure that there are other situations where building the installer is a better idea.


Building an installer is typically always a better idea. Less things to go wrong. And that has nothing to do with "programming style". That has to do with software distribution, not programming.

0 Kudos
Message 18 of 18
(1,370 Views)