LabVIEW
update all tabs continuously
And here come the state machine suggestions :). I'll let others take care of those.
However, the first thing that jumped out at me is the stop button. Your program wont respond to a user pressing stop if that inner loop is running. That means you are using the abort VI. Tisk, tisk. Also, why are you using property nodes for variables in the same loop? Why not just connect the wire? for instance, move the iteration terminal up by the number to fractional string VI and just wire it straight in, rather than using a property node for the iteration value. I think you are giving yourself a possibly race condition using these property nodes. For example, D_Corrected_1 property node may be read BEFORE the value is updated. Then, you are not getting the value you want.
The main thing here is, get rid of all property nodes you use to get values. You don't need them, just use the wires.
That said, to answer your question, have your data aquisition in a parallel thread. As you get data, queue it up and in another thread dequeue it and write it to the tabs/files there. You CAN use a property node for the tab control and use the pages property. This will return an array of references to the pages. From that you can get the page name. See picture. I don't have time now to get into more detail than that, but that should get you started. Others will come along and add input.
aviator3 wrote:Using 8.6
I am trying to figure out how to have all my tab pages update continuously. Is this even possible?
Of course, but not the way you've done it. 
The VI will only execute the case that evaluates to whichever tab is selected. If you want to update all the meters in all the tabs, then you need to use a loop to update all the meters, rather than a case structure. The tab control doesn't need to be wired to anything.
Other comments:
- You are creating race conditions (and you didn't even need local variable to do it!). For example, down at the bottom you are wiring the iteration to a front panel indicator, and on the right you are reading the value using a property node. LabVIEW does not execute left to right. The right part can be read before the write has occurred. This is a race condition. You have other ones in there as well, like with the "Digits_I" indicator being written in the for loop and being read in the case structure. How do you know which one will occur first?
- You don't really need two loops to accomplish what you're doing, and in this case it works against you since when the inner loop is running, the outer loop is blocked (meaning clicking on the Stop button won't respond until the inner loop is done).
- You may want to consider an architecture such as a state machine or a producer consumer.
for(imstuck) wrote:
Other comments:
- You are creating race conditions (and you didn't even need local variable to do it!). For example, down at the bottom you are wiring the iteration to a front panel indicator, and on the right you are reading the value using a property node. LabVIEW does not execute left to right. The right part can be read before the write has occurred. This is a race condition. You have other ones in there as well, like with the "Digits_I" indicator being written in the for loop and being read in the case structure. How do you know which one will occur first?
- You don't really need two loops to accomplish what you're doing, and in this case it works against you since when the inner loop is running, the outer loop is blocked (meaning clicking on the Stop button won't respond until the inner loop is done).
- You may want to consider an architecture such as a state machine or a producer consumer.
Great minds think alike! Right on! haha.
Yeah, I saw your post after I posted mine (I was interrupted while writing it), and then when I went to try to edit it to indicate that you had already said the same thing, my computer promptly crashed. 
Just got it back up. 
smercurio_fc wrote:Yeah, I saw your post after I posted mine (I was interrupted while writing it), and then when I went to try to edit it to indicate that you had already said the same thing, my computer promptly crashed.
Technology sucks.
