Re: Compressor Control Loop: Relay Index is Invalid; also, Robot Drive not Running fa
 

Team 3711 has just run into the same message . Our code looks exactly like that shown above for all three vi's. And we're getting the invalid relay index message (and "invalid" indications in the control loop vi front panel)
Modules are set to the default of 1. Both the pressure switch and spike PWM are in the number 1 slots. We've replaced PWM cable and spikes. The spike gets a continuous orange(ish) light and receives no signal.
If someone does have a workaround we'd love to see it since we're testing pneumatics on the robot using a manual switch at the moment.
Thanks very much.

Re: Compressor Control Loop: Relay Index is Invalid; also, Robot Drive not Running fa
 

Use your code that works.
There's nothing sacred about the custom vi. It's just easier to work with common code if we're helping someone.
It adds some extra complexity in it's design to handle multiple compressors, but serves as an interesting example of doing that.

It's time for a little library decomposition to see where the sensitivities may lie.

Re: Compressor Control Loop: Relay Index is Invalid; also, Robot Drive not Running fa
 

Is a puzzlement. Can you post your code so we can go through it in detail, looking for anything that isn't quite right?

I think you're talking about the 3-pin connections on the Digital Sidecar, but in case you're talking about the cRIO module, that needs to be in the number 2 slot.

Re: Compressor Control Loop: Relay Index is Invalid; also, Robot Drive not Running fa
 

Thanks again for your help on this. Yep, the slots referred to were in the sidecar. We have now created a new compressor while loop in the periodic tasks VI per the code given earlier in this thread and everything is working fine. All wiring (PWM and pressure switch) remains the same so it was certainly (if there is such a thing) an issue with code in the compressor loop VI.
Incidentally, I won't add our original non-working code here since it was an exact dupe of the suggested code from this thread.
Of course it's crunch time and there are more probs, but this will be interesting to think more about in a couple of weeks!
Thanks.