|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Labview-using timers to control motors
I think your information has probably been mangled in the retelling at some point. Much of what you've been saying has obvious errors in terminology, so it's possible that when you say "nested loops" or "compile time" you don't mean the same thing most of us understand by those words. It seems likely to me that your team's programmers were talking about long-running loops in the Teleop VI causing control lag or watchdog errors, and you simply misunderstood.
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Labview-using timers to control motors
I looked on snopes and it agrees, nested loops in LV do not contribute to long compile times --totally a legend
. Glad to have this one behind us.Greg McKaskle |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Labview-using timers to control motors
Alan and Greg,
The poster appears to be talking from an FTC standpoint. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Labview-using timers to control motors
FTC usage was definitely not something I'd picked up on, yet you would still need lots and lots of nesting to impact the compile time. I am happy to look into VIs that show otherwise.
Greg McKaskle |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|