Multifunction DAQ

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Can't get mxBase software to recognize NI USB-6009 device

I have posted about a similar problem in the past but it appears that a variant of this issue has come back to haunt me.

I'm working with an NI USB-6009 and I have some legacy software that needs to communicate with it via the mxBase libraries and firmware.  Due to the circumstances of this project, upgrade is not currently an option.  I went ahead and installed NIDAQmxBase15 and ran the "NI-DAQ mxBase List Devices" utility and got this line:

NI USB-6009: "Dev1"    (USB0::0x3923::0x717B::011E5E9C::RAW)

That seemed as expected so I tried running the "NI-DAQ mxBase Configuration Utility" and even after I refresh the device list I cannot select a device to create a task for.  I also tried running the sample application "readDigPort.c".  I added some code so that it would print the textual error information and I get:

"
DAQmxBase Error: -200170
Info: Physical channel specified does not exist on this device.

Refer to the documentation for channels available on this device.
"

For those not familiar with the source, the pertinant code is as follows:
   // Task parameters
   int32       error = 0;
   TaskHandle  taskHandle = 0;
   char        errBuff[2048];

   // Channel parameters
   const char  chan[] = "Dev1/port0";

   // Read parameters
   uInt8       r_data [1];
   int32       read;

   // Create Digital Input (DI) Task and Channel
   DAQmxErrChk (DAQmxBaseCreateTask ("", &taskHandle));
   DAQmxErrChk (DAQmxBaseCreateDIChan(taskHandle,chan,"",DAQmx_Val_ChanForAllLines));

The last line is where the error occurs and is reported.

It is important to note that I am familar with the driver swap process to switch to the mxBase driver.  This device has been accessed successfully with the more modern DAQmx libraries so maby the firmware on the device is somehow now incapable of talking mxBase.  During all of these tests the light on the device remains blinking (which as I've been told is actually the indication for everything being OK).

Thanks in advance for any assistance that you can provide.
0 Kudos
Message 1 of 3
(3,339 Views)

Hi Diodon,

 

Thank you for posting to the National Instruments forums.  I think you nailed the problem when you mentioned the firmware change that took place on your device.  The reasoning behind this behavior is explained in the following Knowledge Base (KB) article. 

 

Firmware on USB-6008/6009/6501 

 

As the KB states, you can use the driver selector from Measurement & Automation Explorer (MAX).  If you’ve used the device with a computer using DAQmx, then try switching the driver in MAX.

 

Also, you mentioned that upgrading was not an option – did you mean upgrading to DAQmx or upgrading your DAQmx Base driver version.  If upgrading to DAQmx (which supports the USB-6009 on Windows) is not option, you could also try upgrading your DAQmx Base version; Version 2.1 is the most current DAQmx Base driver available.

 

If you continue to have problems, please post back.  Thanks!

 

Ed W.

Applications Engineer

National Instruments

0 Kudos
Message 2 of 3
(3,317 Views)
Thank you very much for your assistance.  I'm certain I performed that driver swapping step several times before but this last time it appeared to install a firmware loader which must have done the trick because it is now recognized by the target system which is only running DAQmx Base.

To clarify, upgrading to version DAQmx Base 2.1 or to DAQmx are both undesirable unfortunately.  At this time we are not able to afford the time necessary to develop and test an upgrade to this system.  In fact related systems currently being developed do in fact use the DAQmx architecture via the Dot NET foundation but the system in question is a bit of legacy itself and hence relies on DAQmx Base.

I do hope that DAQmx is here to stay as I am hopeful that similar problems will not occur as our new system ages.  My only concern with DAQmx is that it seems somewhat cumbersome compared to it's predecessors, particularly considering that the only task we currently need to perform is check the state of relay closures.

Thanks again,
-Bill
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 3
(3,308 Views)