LabWindows/CVI

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Using newer function panels with older LabWindows

Hi -

I'm using LabWindows/CVI v5.01, and I've updated to both VISA 2.60 and installed the NI IVI compliance 2.1 stuff. However, two of the newer drivers I've downloaded, one for the Agilent 444* series spectrum analyser, and one for a Tektronix oscope, when I try to load the .fp file into a project, I get "Not a valid function panel file" c:\path stuf\ehatever.fp".

Is this a backwards compatibility problem, or am I installing something wrong/in the wrong order/etc.?

Thanks much

Thomas McManus
0 Kudos
Message 1 of 5
(3,149 Views)
Hello

There are some differences in the format of CVI 5.5 fp's and CVI 5.0 fp's. I have attached a snapshot of the helpfile that describes the differences between the two. The instrument manufacturer might have made the fp for a specific version of CVI.

Hope this helps

Bilal Durrani
NI
Bilal Durrani
NI
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 5
(3,149 Views)
Bilal -

Well, that certainly would explain the error message. So I suppose the follow up would be how to work around the problem. Should I be able modify the .fp file to meet the restrictions/limitations of the older version of LabWindows, or would I be better off asking the manufacturer nicely for another version of the .fp?

Thanks for your help!

Thomas McManus
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 5
(3,149 Views)
You could get in touch with the manufacturer, or try downloading the eval version of the CVI 7.0 and try saving the fp in CVI 5.0 format. Open up the fp file, goto Options >> FP File Format, change it there and save it. I think it should work, but it might also break the fp file. This is assuming the manufacturer save the fp to a CVI 5.5 format for a good reason.

Bilal
Bilal Durrani
NI
0 Kudos
Message 4 of 5
(3,149 Views)
Bilal -

That was _almost_ all of it - I snagged v7.0 eval, and opened up the .fp in 7.0 CVI. But I ended up having to go through and edit all the node names down to < 31 char to get it to save to 5.0.1 format. Otherwise, you get an error message referencing node name lengths (surprise, surprise).

In any case, until I get my manager to spring for the upgrade, I'll have to convert them over this way.

Thanks very much

Thomas McManus
0 Kudos
Message 5 of 5
(3,149 Views)