10-09-2014 10:02 AM
Hi,
I am currently triyng to migrate an old test bench (which is working with Legacy DAQ) to DAQmx.
I have the following cards :
Our test bench is a simulator, developped with LabWindowsCVI 2012.
When I tried to initialize and configure the cards (with DAQmxCreateDIChan or DAQmxCreateDOChan for example), I have strange error code that CVI and the DAQmxGetErrorString() function does not know :
Where can I find the meaning of these error codes ?
For example, when I try to initialize the PXIe 6341 card, the task creation (thanks to DAQmxCreateTask) seems to be okay (the return code is 0). Right after this step, I try to instanciate a digital input on this card ("cardname/port0/line0") and the return code of the DAQmxCreateDIChan is -3944.
Are you familiar with this error code ?
Thanks in advance,
Best regards,
Pablo
10-09-2014 10:47 AM - edited 10-09-2014 10:48 AM
I cannot recognize any of these codes: DAQmx error codes are normally larger in value. Are those values returned from DAQmx functions? Can you post the code pointing out where the errors arise?
Also, can you try creating a virtual channel in MAX on the same channel and see what happens?
10-10-2014 04:19 AM
Thanks for your reply !
I can't reconize that error codes either, I tried to look for it on the internet, without any success.
The line of code which returns this error code is the following :
DAQmxCreateDIChan(gs_6341TaskHandler, "cDAQ1-Mod2/port0/line0", "cDAQ1-Mod2/port0/line0", DAQmx_Val_ChanPerLine);
Of course, the PXIe-6341 has been renamed to ""cDAQ1-Mod2" in MAX.
I also tried the input/outputs of my card with the test panel and by creating a virtual task in MAX, everything seem to be ok, the read and the generated voltages are correct.
Thanks in advance.
Pablo
10-10-2014 09:35 AM
I finally found the reason of this strange behavior :
However I did not find in the DAQmx API documentation any information about these two points ...
It still does not explain why an unregistered error code is returned by the functions... Is someone have more information about this last point.
Regards,
Pablo