Agilent BenchVue released - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:05:48 pm
content: I can finally announce it is ready ( i've known about this for almost 2 year . I was alpha and Beta tester for this thing)www.agilent.com/find/benchvueWhat is it ?A piece of software that connects to all your Agilent equipment (multimeters, scopes, spectrum/network, signal sources) and lets you control them, script them and perform configuration saving / restoring including data and image capture .Works with GPIb , RS232 , USB and LXI (ethernet) instruments.Can interact directly with Excel , word and Matlab.Automatically pulls in the electronic manuals and appnotes for the equipment it detects so you have on-line help for the instrument.You can save the entire state of your bench (not just a single instrument !)You can live connect a bench setup to a mobile device like a smartphone or Tablet to keep a remote eye on your setup (Ios or Android )It's the bee's knees !

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:16:59 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 05:05:48 pmThat is awesome! How does it feel, fairly mature? Are they planning to add old school equipment in as well?

author: Sparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:28:38 pm
content: Whoa! Sounds incredible! And it's free! Totally awesome!

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 05:29:21 pm
content: Wow! And it's free! I'll be able to hook it up to my scope, bench DMM and freq counter. Woohoo!

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 06:19:56 pm
content: Windows only.... Sucks!

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 06:40:27 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on February 20, 2014, 05:16:59 pmyeah, the compatibility list is pretty short.

author: nadona
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 07:18:54 pm
content: This is a really great product.free_electron: Thank you for the info and the participation in the program.I hope they will expand the supporting DMM to like 3456A, 57A, 58A.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 07:23:06 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 06:19:56 pmYes, that does suck. Doesn't run under wine either, unfortunately uses .net 4.0.Quote from: Fsck on February 20, 2014, 06:40:27 pmThey said more was coming, just hoping they don't leave older stuff off the list.

author: dc101
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 07:41:59 pm
content: I wouldn't hold my breath. Agilent is pretty good about about providing support for "obsolete" (their words not mine) equipment, but this program seems like it's missing some rather obvious new equipment. I was really hoping to see support for DC loads and frequency counters. I noticed there was no sig gen support either, but I suppose that's because they don't want to step on the toes of Signal Studio, which by the way, also doesn't support "obsolete" equipment, only E44xxC and above.Quote from: dr.diesel on February 20, 2014, 07:23:06 pm

author: gaijin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 07:44:46 pm
content: And how long until someone creates a program to act as a man in the middle and translate between this and unsupported instruments?I made one to translate between a Rigol ds2072 and Agilent's Oscilloscope Mobile Agent.Not that it was useful to me but just because I could.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:01:09 pm
content: give it time guys. it's version 1.0 after all.more is coming. they first want to polish this one.for the 'windows only' crybabies : Too bad you have to live without all the great software available on that platform.

author: bxs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:17:12 pm
content: A new soft that don't support MAC OSX or even LinuxNice they thought of mobile, but I'm almost sure that you need a PC as server to use the mobile app...

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:24:13 pm
content: Ah, man, why can't someone write one of these that isn't vendor-specific?All this does is make me want to avoid Agilent stuff. It DOES NOT make me want to buy Agilent.AGILENT: THIS MAKES ME WANT TO AVOID YOUR PRODUCTS.Vendor lock-in is silly to those who have gear from more than one vendor, like every place I've ever worked or set foot in for any reason.

author: plesa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:24:56 pm
content: Wauu, it seems to be pretty amazing. Thanks for sharing. I hope it will be more stable than Agilent DMM Connectivity Kit.The Library with all documents and related drivers is pretty good idea

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:36:46 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on February 20, 2014, 07:23:06 pmthe thing is, I'm a bit skeptical (I'm a pessimist, sue me) about exactly how old they'll go. the 3456 is like ~10 years older than me, the 3457 is like ~5, there probably aren't too many of those in the field for business use relative to the 34401 and newer pieces so the marketing/business types might just have them offer limited functionality or none at all in an attempt to force an upgrade to a new model.however, my skepticism could be completely off as they do not list compatibility with the 3458a, which is so brutally common and once support is added for the 3458, adding the 56 and 57 wouldn't be much additional work.

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 08:52:30 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 08:01:09 pmToo bad Agilent is ignoring a fair share of their customers. Also I don't appreciate being called a crybaby just because I made a valid but different choice. Why are you crying about crybabies?

author: plesa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 09:21:19 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 08:52:30 pmI installed it on the EXA analyzer, it is based on XP platform and it is working like charm. From PC I use the VNC :-)

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 09:23:53 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 08:52:30 pmI kind of see your point. In fact I do see your point. Are you in a position that you don't see free_electron's point? Seriously?If you are a hobbyist or a professional, you want to get things done. Build a kit, test a device, fix something. Does it REALLY matter if you have to use an OS you might dislike to get that done? It shouldn't. Your primary concern should be to get the effin job done. Everything else is secondary.The truth of the matter is that Windows makes development of software like this a lot easier than it would be to develop on other platforms. Agilent had something they needed to get done and they chose the tool they thought best suited the task at hand, and look at this, they succeeded.I don't like that they only support Agilent hardware. C# and .NET in general is object oriented. They could have written an interface that I could have crafted a plugin for that supported the instruments that I have on my bench. But, no. Agilent management believes that if you have a choice you will choose non-Agilent hardware, so they find ways to remove choices and lock users into their products artificially with software like this.If their hardware was the best, people would use it for everything, hobbyists included. Agilent, every other hardware vendor, too: let the freaking market decide and stop trying to fix the game with this vendor lock-in crap. It makes me hate you very quickly. It makes me believe your products are necessarily inferior BECAUSE you're trying to force people to choose you. It's weak, it's lame, it's short-sighted. Stop.Yes, it was Agilent's effort that created the software. Why would they let anyone just piggy-back on that? For the same reason that Microsoft lets anyone write software for their operating system; it encourages adoption of the operating system. Allowing other vendors to offer plugins for BenchVue would encourage adoption of BenchVue. The greater the adoption of BenchVue, the greater mindshare that Agilent/Keysight will have in customers' minds.I'm sure that Bill & Dave would have let end-users spend their own time to connect BenchVue to any GPIB hardware they had available because that's the kind of people I understand that they were. What happened to "If we don't innovate, someone else will do it for us?" I think John Deere said that, or something like it. He freaking innovated. He didn't lock anyone in to using only his attachments if you bought one of his plows. He stood behind his stuff and let the market decide. And now, John Deere is the #1 farming equipment manufacturer in the world, and they still don't require that you use Deere attachments on Deere tractors.Lock-in is shortsighted and anti-competitive.Hell, HP INVENTED HP-IB, and chose not to keep it proprietary. They opened it, standardized it, and called it GP-IB because they knew it would advance the trade. What happened to that attitude?Ok I'm done ranting now.... but I'm not done talking to AgilentIf Agilent opened this app to be usable by other test gear, they could identify any shortcomings of non-Agilent hardware when the user tried to do something that only Agilent gear can do, and alert the user to the functionality gap. "Sorry, but Device X doesn't support feature Y. Would you like to view known hardware that supports this feature? Yes button, No button, ask me later button, never ask again for this feature button." That's a freaking solid sales & marketing opportunity. By not supporting (or even allowing) non-Agilent gear you've cut those opportunities out. There would have been a hell of a lot of opportunities with that, too, because there is a LOT of hardware in the field that supports LXI, USB, or GP-IB that is not Agilent hardware. The user might not have even known about the missing feature(s) to begin with. Also, with this, you start to enlist employees within organizations to start asking for Agilent gear from within, while your normal sales and marketing do their usual job of approaching from without.If you're fair, Agilent, and I've already established that you're not, you'd allow other vendors to show features that their own hardware has that other vendors' hardware does not, including Agilent.Geez, the more I think about this, the more boneheaded it is that only Agilent gear is supported.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 09:47:46 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 08:52:30 pmSo your choice got less valid - live with it or choose again.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:29:04 pm
content: Quote from: bxs on February 20, 2014, 08:17:12 pmYour PC is indeed the server. the mobile apps can remote connect to the PC provided they reside on the same network. ( so it only works behind your router.You can alo take control from anothe rPC that does not have the instruments attached.Your stuff is running in the lab and you can take a quick glance, or change a setting from your cubicle / office / ipad in the breakroom

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:31:33 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 20, 2014, 08:24:13 pmlet's flip this around : go complain to the other vendors that you want them to make something for their products.. they don't have anything.besides , you can use other vendors machines. simply flick em into compatibility mode. Set your rigol multimeter in 34401 mode. Same for the Fluke or Keithleys that can emulate the 34401 commandset.

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:35:08 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 20, 2014, 09:23:53 pmIt's an extra hassle and extra cost. I don't want to buy a windows copy nor install an extra operating system just for this reason. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the software even exists. I will do it if I need the capability, but it still annoys me because it wastes my time needlessly.Quote from: Rigby on February 20, 2014, 09:23:53 pmNot true. It is actually harder to write Windows software than to write Linux software.Quote from: Rigby on February 20, 2014, 09:23:53 pmWell put and agreed. But now that I understand more easily. I hate it but I understand. In an ideal world they'd be selfless and not money-driven so they'd include an API. But Agilent wants to sell Agilent equipment. I'd even get it if they'd be making windows, and their software would be windows only. But since Agilent's making test equipment, they're annoying some of their customers with not supporting MacOS and Linux. Cross platform is not as hard as making and API to support every peace of test equipment possible. Its easier to wrap my head around than not being cross platform.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:41:33 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 10:35:08 pmOnly someone who hasn't developed on Windows would say that. I'm not even talking about Eclipse vs. Visual Studio, I'm talking about SDKs and frameworks and documentation. If there's ANYTHING AT ALL like MSDN available for ANY distribution of Linux at all, past or present, I will gladly stand corrected and admit I was wrong. If you say "kernel-dev list" or "IRC" I'm going to strangle something, because there is no more incorrect answer than kernel-dev or IRC.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:44:46 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 10:31:33 pmOk, but I don't want 6 tools from 6 vendors for my 6 pieces of test gear when the point is to get one bit of software to talk to all of it. I want one, from any vendor at all, that talks to all of it.And, do we know that emulated commandsets are supported with BenchVue? You might know, but I don't. And how much functionality is lost? Just be real and support real-world gear that's found in real-world labs. The first to market with that would be in a very good position going forward.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 10:55:44 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 08:52:30 pmBecause there just is no pleasing what i call the crybaby crowd. There, i said it. You can like it or not. it is my opinion and i stand behind it. If it were up to 'that crowd' everything would have to be built using 2 by 4's and 3 inch nails. Because only that is 'open' and available everywhere.There is a simple reason that this is windows only. It uses VISA to connect to the equipment. Neither National nor Agilent nor NCS support that on platforms other than Windows. Not anymore. VISA used to exist on Solaris ( which is a dead and buried Os as both desktop workstations and OS are dead) , HP-UX ( Dead and buried both desktop hardware and OS wise) and even on Digital VAX ( also a fossilized dinosaur now)99% of the TAM ( total accessible market) are running windows in the lab environment or to control instruments.So pardon me if, the first thing the "church of Linux" crowd does is throw in the "it's not available for -insert flavor of distro's here- ". this irks me.There is just no pleasing that crowd.what will you complain about next ? that it only interacts with word excel and Matlab ? why not openoffice ? why not Octave or Scilab ? why GPIB ? why only agilent machines ? why only instruments i don't happen to have ? i don't like the color scheme ? why does it need a mouse to operate ? why can't it be command line driven ? it's RHEL only , i want Ubuntu , or BSD ... or the other 'flavor du jour'. there's no sourcecode ...Here is a great tool. It's free (Gratis as in free beer). Runs on cheap computers. ( A PC with windows installed goes for 230$ these days). Made by a large instrument maker , talks to a list of commonly used equipment and more are in the works.[end rant]

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:01:41 pm
content: I agree with everything he just said. Linux folks are in the dark about a lot of realities, and they wonder why they get sidelined all the time. You sideline yourselves with your lack of flexibility, inability to recognize established realities, inability to compromise, and a general lack of understanding that other positions in the market are just as valid as your own.http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Advocacy.html

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:05:28 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 20, 2014, 08:24:13 pmWhy don't you go and write one?Seriously. If you think there is a market there, go for it.QuoteYou expected Agilent to support other vendors products?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:06:55 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 20, 2014, 10:44:46 pmThey work perfectly fine, provided the instrument implements the command set properly. Of course if the machine has a capability that 34401 (or one of the other supported machines) cannot do then you are out of luck using the emulation modeBut, you can send your own SCPI strings to a machine with this tool as well. So you could write your own machine definition. ( i don't know if it is in the release. the beta's had this)Any device that can connect using VISA (GPIb , LXy , VXI , PXI compliant devices ) can be approached with this tool.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:11:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2014, 11:05:28 pmI might. I have the skills to do so, and I can probably make the time to do it. I don't have access to the hardware I imagine I'll need to do testing, though, but I imagine I could come here and ask for help with that.Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2014, 11:05:28 pmI expected them to make some facility available for others to add support for their own products, yes. Maybe it's a foolish expectation, sure. What I see when I see vendors support themselves only is a vendor that knows their products are inferior, refuses to let those products stand on their own & fail, and uses artificial tricks to lock other vendors out in an attempt to maintain their market share. I see dirty business tactics and it makes me very, very wary of that vendor. I was 100% anti-microsoft when they pulled this crap like they used to. They're a hell of a lot more open now, so I'm not so vitriolic against them.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:13:04 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 11:06:55 pmThis is what I'm talking about. This is what I want to see, potentially. I might just have to give this a closer squiz when I get home.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:15:18 pm
content: It doesn't seem to support the function gen inside the Agilent X series scopes?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:41:08 pm
content: could be. version 1.0 .....on the SCPI : i was thinking about another tool. nevermind my comments on that. Agilent has another tools that lets you probe instruments save states and gives help on the scpi commands. -brainfart- on my side. i'm getting old and easily confuses. too much stuff going on

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2014, 11:42:34 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 11:41:08 pmno worries. bonus for admitting error without being challenged. kudos.

author: MarkL
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:09:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2014, 11:15:18 pmMaybe they'd like you to buy Waveform Builder Pro for that?http://www.home.agilent.com/en/pd-1962285-pn-33503A/benchlink-waveform-builder-pro-software?nid=-536902257.977229.00&cc=US&lc=eng

author: quantumvolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:45:11 am
content: I agree a bit with both sides here. And I have an idea:Why don't the EEVblog 'community' open a thread for studying and 'hacking' this software. And make it as state of the art as the LTZ1000 thread. With combined effort it will be a resource that surely will overshadow Agilent's own (imo not very helpful for people with older-probably-bought-second-hand, so-no-profit-for-us equipment) support forum for the software.I do not have the skills to build a general a GBIB-based interface. So my 34401A and 34970A are interfaced 2-way to PC via RS232 to Arduino to Processing graphic windows. Same idea as the Benchvue. But very low tech ...I have denied myself a USB-GPIB adaptor (which is necessary for BenchVue) because of the imo indecent price. But on this forum there are people who have made them. Also there are a lot of skilled people with protocol knowledge, logic analyzers, uC hardware and programming skills ... and so on.So I leave it as a challenge to the forum as a whole: Start a single never ending thread with tips, tests, hacks and progress in the making of a 'BenchVoyeur' gadget that allows interfacing ANY device that as a minimum is able to stream out RS232.Just an idea. Useful for many old and new users of the EEVblog - methinks...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 12:57:41 am
content: you dont need gpib . rs232 will work fine as well.the beauty of VISA is that it is interface agnostic. doesn;t matter if you use GPIb, RS232, old printerports, ethernet , usbit uses a kind of universal locating mechanism::USB0:VID0375:PID314A:SERIAL0034563::GPIB0:DEV17....::ASER:COM3...and so on.so from a perspective of writing software : all you need to know are the instrument commands and the pipe you need to throw them in. done.but of course VISA is a windows only system. It is free and works with GPIB boards from NI or Agilent or NCS. serial lpt lan and usb all work. so here you will have the 'complainers' that it only works with that particular hardware on that particular OS.That is why my standard comment on those homebrew gpib interface is : make a VISA driver for it (NOT a job for the faint of heart. it is VERY difficult)And then there is the problem : what language do we use ? VB / C / C# / queue the endless wars there ...Efforts like this invariably strand in a disaster.I have a framework in Visual basic that has various instrument base classes with instruments that pull from the base classesimports Vision ' load base systemdim myvoltmeter as new hp34401(17) ' gpib 17dim mysupply as new Xantrex550(12,1) ' gpib 12 , first channelmysupply.voltage = 12mysupply.current = 0.1mysupply.output = output.onmyvoltmeter.range = VoltDC100myvoltmeter.averaging = 32for x = 0 to 10print (myvoltmeter.reading)nextvery simple to use.you can download it here :http://www.elektor.com/products/books/programming/visual-basic-for-electronics-engineering.12244.lynkxon the right hand. vision.zipit works with VB5 and up ( including .net) all source is provided.I have newer versions than that which are .net based and have much more capability including the base classes .i need to clean that up to remove proprietary stuff (stuff that ain't mine) and then i will throw it up here.works with Vb express (free) 2008 and up. complete source.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 01:15:53 am
content: Yeah, software design is something you definitely do not want done by committee. Someone needs to just step and give it a shot. When they succeed they can post their code/program/screenshots and let someone else work on it, or let it die, or keep working on it.Marmad has a decent start going with the UltraVision stuff, but of course that's Rigol-specific.I have an itch to give this a try. I might give it a go and see what happens. I might not, I don't know yet.BTW, Java or C# are the way to do this. Not because of platform agnosticism, just because they're really good scalable languages with excellent debugging tools.

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 01:21:31 am
content: free-electron, thanks for notifying re program and for the lot of work that has gone into it (and prob more is to come). Robert

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 04:42:03 am
content: Only start/stop control for scopes is very disappointing, not even auto refresh on a timer. The function is there when you switch to demo mode's 4000X scope but the controls aren't there for my 3000X. If you are only using this to control scopes the only real plus is that it let's you export the full 4MP of memory unlike the IntuiLink or excel plug in.This is a monitoring app, not controlling.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 07:24:55 am
content: I'm sorry but a piece of software designed to consolidate instrument control and data gathering locked to only one vendors instruments is an utter and colossal fail

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 08:51:57 am
content: It's apity, agilent currently supports SCPI instruments only.Would like to see support for HP3458A.Nevertheless, thx for the info, nice program.Frank

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 am
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on February 21, 2014, 07:24:55 amI don't get it, why are people complaining about this?The app is free, and it looks good. What do you expect Agilent to do, magically provide a tool that works with every other competitors instruments out there and solves everyones obscure needs? What real incentive is there for them to do that? Is it even possible?, heck they can't even support all their own instruments. Are they supposed to field support calls when you can't get their software to talk to their competitors instruments?I think expecting them (or anyone else) to do that is not being realistic.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 01:44:03 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 amThis software had me thinking it was something it isn't and with this new perspective it's probably an improvement over other vendor offerings.Initially I thought this may have been a cut down version of their VEE suite or Labview but it's more like tek's wavestar or lecroy's ScopeExplorer except it does a much wider range of instruments and is a lot prettier.It's an easy mistake to make considering Agilent's GPIB interfaces, their IO Suite and all the API's they offer for programmatic access of any GPIB, VISA, LXI etc enabled instruments.Seeing them offer a free program that can access multiple instruments, I immediately assumed it would follow in the footsteps of their previous offerings

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 01:56:12 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 amYour guess is as good as mine as to why people vocalize their complaints sometimes and not all the time or none of the time.Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 amNot at all.Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 amWhat real incentive is there for anyone to do anything that isn't 100% selfish, then? That's a silly question. Incentives include: first to market with a universal bench monitoring system, which goes a long way toward market domination; making sure the name Agilent is on screen each and every time someone monitors their gear; providing opportunity to upsell to agilent gear when inferior equipment is attached; vehicle for agilent to deliver product updates, documentation, notices, firmware upgrades, etc.;Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 amOf course it's possible. It's easier to create a framework with per-instrument plugins than it is to create one monolithic app that needs a full update every time any bit of gear gets a bugfix. Agilent did it the hard way, intentionally, to lock others out. This is the root of my complaint, personally.Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:05:53 amI don't. It is indicative of short-sighted thinking and lack of a bigger vision.Why did HP spin off Agilent? Because of the way stocks work and how stocks are rated. It was a short-sighted decision with long-term consequences.Why is Agilent spinning off KeySight? Because of the way stocks work and how stocks are rated. It is a short-sighted decision with long-term consequences.Why are Agilent releasing software that is intentionally locked to only Agilent gear? Because they think this will sell more Agilent gear. It is a short-sighted decision and I guess we'll see what adoption looks like.This software is only going to be adopted by people or organizations who:A) have a genuine need for software like this,B) haven't already written something that works with all the gear they need it to work with, andC) ONLY have Agilent gear.I don't know of a single shop on the planet (except maybe Agilent themselves) that only has gear from Agilent, and I have set foot in many.

author: SpectrHz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 03:15:56 pm
content: Arg, os battles... As much as I love Linux for my file server and mail server, you really have to have a copy of windows floating around simply because it is so well supported... This software, and many others are great examples of why. If I had some gear for this program I can imagine how useful it would be, that warrants using windows even if you may hate it IMO.

author: Sbampato12
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 04:10:24 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 01:56:12 pmNice to meet you, I work at a place (university), that has two labs with all equipaments from agilent (or HP, the older ones). We have more labs, with do not, but these two are an example. On the lab I work everyday we have an agilent dsox2002 and a HP bench multimeter, plus more bench supplies and hand dmms wich doesn't have any kind of communication...

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 04:24:13 pm
content: Would you say that labs equipped like educational institutions (which get educational pricing) are common outside of education? I would not.The the nearest lab at my employer has power supplies by Tenma, Rigol, Tek, HP, and others. Oscilloscopes are Tek or Panasonic(!). Logic analyzers are very old Tek units. Multimeters are almost all Fluke. The next nearest lab has Fluke, HP, and Tek(!) multimeters, all scopes there are either LeCroy or Tek. Spectrum Analyzers are HP. The EMC analyzer is HP.In the real world it is almost always a homogenous mix of vendors, ages, and capabilities. I won't say "always" because I've not set foot in every lab.

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 04:48:06 pm
content: Even in education it is uncommon. In our Ion physics and quantum physics labs we have everything. Even no-name cheapos and china crap.Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 10:55:44 pmCitation needed.Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 10:55:44 pmI don't claim the OS I'm using is the only true one. I don't speak against people using Windows or MacOS or what ever they fancy. I'm not complaining.No doubt it would improve the software if one could use it on other OSs and no doubt it would improve it if one could use it with vendors' equipment. It is (maybe economically necessary) corporate dickishness to do otherwise. Nonetheless it is dickishness. Just like it is to call people crybabies if they raise constructive criticism about one's pet project.As I said, I appreciate that it exists and that it is free. That all I have to say as we are just throwing stale arguments at each other.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 05:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 21, 2014, 04:48:06 pmYou know that there's no definitive source for that information. You're in Austria, free_electron is in the US. That alone could affect the landscape greatly. Now, add that free_electron is in a professional production environment where timelines are important and that you're in education where education is important. That's another fundamental difference in environments that will make his 99% claim perfectly valid AND make your "linux is everywhere and important" claim perfectly valid. Each is valid from its own perspective. That doesn't make either claim correct or incorrect.Don't get beat up when someone from another country and completely different working environment has opinions on and experience with Linux that don't match your own. It's not a big deal.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 05:57:58 pm
content: Nice!Quote from: free_electron on February 20, 2014, 05:05:48 pm

author: HKJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 06:16:21 pm
content: I think it is a good idea with this kind of software, but it will only be really useful for a limited amount of people/companies. That is, of course, completely acceptable for a Agilent software package (Who would expect big measurement companies to support their competitors).Personally I have many brands of equipment and do not see any reason to install this software. I have many brands of equipment and my computer is not only used for equipment control. To fix this I have made my own software that works without any VISA drivers (i.e. I do not always need new drivers when updating windows), this software is limited to support exactly what I need.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 07:25:01 pm
content: Quote from: HKJ on February 21, 2014, 06:16:21 pmI'm not going to ask you to show me the source for this, but if you could give me a bit of detail about how you architected this software and what language(s) you used, I would greatly appreciate it.

author: HKJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 07:41:40 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 07:25:01 pmI program in Java and due to lack of time I have only implemented equipment with serial ports (including virtual) and lan connections.I have lots of DMM, both bench and handheld, electronic loads, power supplies, relays. Basically I add equipment when I need it.The program uses a script and generates CSV files with the result.Each piece of equipment can generate one or more columns of data. The electronic loads generate V, A, W, Ah, Wh and one or more time coulmns. And I can control the settings from the script, for power supplies I can ask them to slowly increase or decrease voltage while logging.You can see the result on my website:http://lygte-info.dk/many of the measurements are made with this software. The battery test is the most complex of them (All test is done with one setup and one script and takes a couple of days).

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 07:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 01:56:12 pmyou got proof of that ? if not ... eat your words ! This is just plain false !why does lecroy's scope explorer only work with lecroy scopes ? why does tektronix wavestar only work with their Arbitrary generators ? Why does your diesel engine only run on diesel and not water ? why does the batteyr of a nokia phone not fit in an iphone ?why why why ?The fact of the matter is that Agilent created a focus group constructed from people working in labs having to collect and control instruments. I was one of those people.We each had a one on one interview and then Agilent distilled a set of questions. The second round we were all interacting with each other answering the question set and bouncing idea's off one another. there were Labwindows user, Labview user Vee users, C coders , VB coders and plenty of other platform usersThe outcome of this experiment was the following : It is too annoying to have to write a program to do simple things like record data over time or grab screenshots and data dumps. Every time you want to do something simple you have to start coding . Why don;t you make a base tool that can control instruments from the desktop. and do simple things like logging over time and upload download files/ screendumps.6 months passed and we got the Alpha. The alpha could only control a 34401 and a e3631. The user interface was annoying , too many buttons to click too many menus , not logical. this was reworked , polished, streamlined. another six months later alpha 2 passed critiscism . so beta was released.Bugfixes, instrument disconnects etc were al solved. another 6 months later V1.0 is released.don't go looking for conspiracies. Agilent created a focus group because they were got questions from users. so they anted to find out what was 'missing' in the gap between full blown code riting ala Labwindows Labview C or Vb and instruments on a bench.This is the outcome.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 08:11:20 pm
content: Quote from: HKJ on February 21, 2014, 07:41:40 pm+1 for Java+1 for minimum app required to get the needed results.

author: HKJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 08:23:07 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 08:11:20 pmJave is mostly ok to program in, but its support for hardware is not very good.Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 08:11:20 pmThe app it not exactly minimum, it took me about 5 minutes to move a test from a Fluke based setup to a Agilent based setup on another computer, I only had to change the instrument names and the ports, everything else stayed the same.Forcing all instruments to fit the same template has advantages, but, of course, also disadvantage. I can extend the program to overcome the disadvantage, if I need it.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 08:31:04 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 21, 2014, 07:58:32 pmHow is it false? This software doesn't support hardware from other vendors. It is intentional because the ability to connect to non-Agilent hardware isn't present. Didn't work last night when I tried, anyway.Quote from: free_electron on February 21, 2014, 07:58:32 pmfor the same reason Agilent's software does the same. Everyone is afraid that if they standardize, people will choose competitors. It's a coward move that is considered industry practice, unfortunately. Proprietary connectors/software/protocols/form factors suck, and everyone knows it.It used to be that when you bought a bit of test gear, you got the schematics, service manual, and calibration manual. Now, you get a bit of paper with a URL on it, and if you're lucky, you get a CD with marketing documentation and a very basic user's guide.Quote from: free_electron on February 21, 2014, 07:58:32 pmI'm not looking for conspiracies, and I'm surprised and impressed that Agilent actually spoke to folks about their needs. That isn't common in my industry. What I'm not impressed by is that no one thought (or that collectively, you didn't think) that maybe since you're working on standardized physical interfaces (GP-IB, RS-232, Ethernet, USB), with a standardized data protocol (VISA) that it might be, oh, i don't know, wise, possible, or realistic to be able to talk to any gear that implements that protocol over those physical interfaces. It just doesn't seem like a stretch to me, and as a software developer, I can tell you it wasabsolutelya design decision to do prevent that, because the natural way to do it on .NET is to use objects that represent the ideas your application works with..NET is an object oriented platform. If you want to write software for an object oriented platform, you take advantage of the facilities that object orientation gives you. In this case, polymorphism and inheritance at least. This means that (even if you're supporting only one vendor) that you create something like a "multimeter" class and you create one subclass for each actual model you want to support. If you do that, and it's really hard not to if you know object orientation at all, supporting any "multimeter" is as easy as writing a subclass for it. Call it a plug-in if you like. Same goes for oscilloscopes, power supplies, electronic loads, all of it. Either Agilent has done that all wrong, or they've blocked the ability to load external modules.Agilent doesn't have to support those modules. Agilent doesn't have to say that their app supports those modules. Just make it an option for folks like me who know how to do it. Make the license for BenchVue prevent me from selling modules. Just let me do it, augh.And it's not Agilent I'm mad at. It's just that this was an opportunity to talk about how stupid we're all getting in terms of proprietary lock-in. We all think it's no problem, yet we all know that proprietary physical connectors suck hard. This is the exact same thing.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 09:40:49 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 04:24:13 pmIf you are buying gear for an automated test rack for example then it's not uncommon to buy all the same gear. And something like availability of this program to tie them together might make the choice easier.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 09:42:49 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 08:31:04 pmYes, because it would be quite a risk for a company to allow the program to support other vendors tools, because THEY would end up with the support calls when it doesn't work.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 09:45:46 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 09:42:49 pmThe software community worked that out long ago - don't offer technical support for other vendor's stuff. Application support for plugins and technical support for plugins don't have to go hand in hand.edit: one can also define their plugin interfaces so that support information is mandatory in the plugin, that use of the plugin requires that the support information be shown, and that the framework (BenchVue, in this scenario) disable any plugin that is not operating properly. So you can mandate that a single plugin cannot consume too much RAM or CPU, for example, or that plugin faults automatically perform some action, such as pausing all communication, or whatever the user wishes, really.Pretty much anything is possible in software, if you know what you are gonna need before you start architecting, or really work to create an extensible framework.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 09:54:56 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 09:45:46 pmDoesn't stop them calling.It's simply a smart pre-emptive move to not support other brands. Ans as I said, they can't even support all their own products yet, let alone competitors.Really, what is in it for Agilent to support other vendors products? Nothing, that's what, just headaches and extra work. This is free software, and is designed to support the sale of use of Agilent products, and there is nothing wrong with that, every other manufacturer will do the same.If you don't like it, fine, move on, or go write your own custom job as needed, like it's always been done in the industry. Or if you sense an opportunity here to go write your own universal tool as I suggested, there must be a huge market for that requirement, you'll be rich.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:01:29 pm
content: they don't have to "support" anything. just allow end users to talk to non-Agilent stuff. make it hard so that dumbshits who don't know how tech support works can't load non-Agilent stuff.step one for Agilent support would be to instruct the caller to disable all non-Agilent plugins, anyway. If that fixes the issue, then politely explain that non-Agilent plugins are not supported and wish them well.If one knows enough to set it up and use it, then that person would be someone that knows what is supported by Agilent and what is not.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:02:38 pm
content: the more I talk about this the more I am resolved to create the mythical open test framework myself. if done properly it will be awesome.

author: quantumvolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:03:35 pm
content: Imo many good arguments for openness and generality in several posts.Whatever Agilent's goal was/is, it lacks imo a broader perspective. If Agilent does not grab the chance to become the standard in this kinf of software, somebody else will (sooner or later). History shows imo that programs that are meant to patch together stuff, are best made with an application (task)-oriented structure. Boxes change - supplying and 'counting' electrons does not.Anyway - Agilent (the company) prescribes emulation in order to have old customer test programs believe that the 34461A actually is a 34401A (video on YT). So the question is: If this software is any good - who will be the first to write/make emulators that mimics one common Agilent instrument of each supported class?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:08:28 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 10:02:38 pmThen don't waste your development time complaining here about how some company is a pack of unfair bastards for not giving you exactly what you wanted forfree. Go create it yourself.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:08:54 pm
content: I only have HP DMMs, so I can't check that on my own:This BenchVue, and its predecessor only support SCPI instruments, obviously.SCPI on the other hand is a universal instrument command language, and competitors of HP claim, that their DMMs may emulate HP instruments.Could anybody, who owns a Keithley or Fluke or else of that kind, if it's possible to make BenchVue think that an HP instrument is connected?Frank

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:19:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 10:08:28 pmmy kid is using my computer.it's not free, though, is it, Dave? You have to own Agilent equipment to make use of it. that is a cost, and not an insignificant one. "Buy any supported Agilent test gear, and get communication software FREE!" That's not free.edit: and it isn't Agilent that is a pack of unfair bastards (I love Aussie slang), it is us as a community that fails to recognize lock-in like this as a software-only proprietary connector. This is a proprietary connector, in software. I can'ttouchthe connector, but that doesn't make the connector any less real.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:28:33 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 10:19:31 pmA pad and pencil works a treat for sketching out ideas and planning. Hurry.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 10:42:09 pm
content: I'm getting nowhere convincing anyone, so I'll end my participation in this thread, here.We, as a community, are getting (or have always been) pretty poor at recognizing proprietary stuff. When it is physical, it is easy to spot. Dave just did a rant video on proprietary connectors. When they are in software, no one seems to care. That's what I don't get.Anyway, if anyone feels that I attacked them personally, I apologize, as that was not my intention at any point. I'm just frustrated. What is the point of open, standardized connectors and protocols, one of which HPinvented, if you're not going to honor them, choosing instead to artificially restrict and create a virtual proprietary connector? I can't even begin to fathom how this is justifiable.free_electron, I hope I didn't ruin your thread. You didn't deserve (no one deserves) to have their thread overrun with my stink. Agilent clearly spent a good amount of time and effort on this, and that is to be commended.Quote from: EEVblog on February 21, 2014, 10:28:33 pmJust tell me to go away, if that's what you mean. I'm not asking for a ban, but if you tell me to chill out, I will. Just say that, if that's what you mean.

author: ShiftRegister
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:04:52 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on February 20, 2014, 06:19:56 pmDamn! That sucks indeed!

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:06:28 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 01:56:12 pmJust because it is not in there doesn't mean it is intentional. It is only intentional if there is somewhere a written clause in the design spec that says 'thou shalt not support non-agilent machines'. it works fine with a rigol dmm configured to emulate a 34401. if they deliberately wanted to cripple it they could have probed to find the real name ( yes there is an instruction to do that ) and shut down. They don't.Quotefine. let's all agree toonly make instruments using 10 watt 10k resistors , 2x4's and nails. anything beyond that is 'proprietary'. definately no SMd or BGA as joe schmoe can't solder that at home with his flamethrower. Let's stop making asics and construct everything with 2n2222 transistors. IC's are the work of the devil.Quotehave you taken the time to read the users and programming manuals from agilent for their new instruments? They are hundreds of pages. very detailed. Schematics don't make sense anymore. Half the machine run's on ASIC's you can't get your hands on and trying to fix the 10 layer boards full of BGA's is BER : Beyond Economical repair. Agilent , Keithley and Tektronix have ZERO income from hobbyists anyway. Hobbyists and small companies buy used stuff from ebay. Hobbyists fix broken stuff found in the bin. Not their target audience.I agree that, as a hobbyist, this is a bit of a problem and we will have to restrict ourselves to older machines.QuoteReally ? i'm am flabbergasted ... speechless.In the 9 years i have been in SV not a single year has passed where i was not in at least 3 such panels. I'm doing one next week on spectrum Analyzers. Last november i sat in one for MDO (not Mixed Signal Oscilloscopes. MDO is Mixed Domain Scopes). I've been in panels for different products and companies. These are organised by Market research companies , on demand from their customer. You interact either directly with the customer , or in 'guided discussion' using a moderator. Typical sessions are 1 to 3 hours. Everything is recorded and filmed through one-way glass. You sign papers upfront not to discuss what you saw or commented on BEFORE it is released to market. They pay you for your time. Typically a preloaded VISA card a rato of 100$ an hour.QuoteOh, it is object oriented. But they don't provide an API so you could attach your own code. This thing is closed source. sorry.and who knows, they may eventually release an API so it can be extended. Like i said this is Version 1.0... and the ARE listening to feedback ! Get on the Agilent forums. voice your gripes there. you may get lucky !

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:15:12 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 21, 2014, 11:06:28 pmBased on the general response I'm getting here, I'm not even going to try. I'll make my own framework! With hookers! And Blackjack!

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:32:14 pm
content: Quote from: ShiftRegister on February 21, 2014, 11:04:52 pmdear shiftregister, please keep clocking yourself until you contain all zero's. thank you.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2014, 11:54:46 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 11:15:12 pmyou forgot booze. Actually forget the blackjack and the h...I re-read the thread and i think i know why you have been applying the flamethrower to the thread.you expect something from this tool that it is not. It was NEVER designed for an audience that wants to control complex test setups, extend them with their own drivers , and write code.As i explained what the focus group was about : this is a tool for people that want to do a few , simple things, repetitively , without writing code.an example : some physiscist is tasked with testing a new compound for a rechargeable battery. he has a power supply and a few multimeters,set the power supply to a fixed voltage with current limit. when we start charging the output voltage is limited becasue the supply operates in CC. once we hit CV mode there is still ongoing charging until current becomes zero.We want to plot actual Vout, Iout and temperature ( multimeter with thermocouple attached)this is an ideal candidate for this Program. start program , configure power supply. set a recorder with time interval 5 seconds and read back actual output voltage and current from the supply (an E3641 has a built in 5 1/2 digit meter ). also , record every 5 seconds the battery temperature. spit it into matlabPhysiscist walks away. checks from his office using his tablet or local computer from time to time progress without having to drag his theoretical ass to the bad lab where manual labour is done. when he ees the thing is stable he stops the recorders opens matlab and he can have a ball racking his brains on statistics.THAT is the target audience.Now, if you want a universal tool. that has been tried over and over and invariably ended in a massive disaster.National instruments tried this back in the DOS days. Labwindows Basic and C under DOs. it could talk GPIB ( there was only gpib or serial back then as LXI and USb hadn't been invented.they gave some example 'drivers' for some machines. pretty soon they discovered there were so many different machines from different vendors, each with their own instruction set they really would need to buy one of each to write the drivers... So they tapped into the 'open' community. Using bulletin boards users could post their own drivers to share freely.Most of these drivers were written by nitwits that had no clue , were far from complete or simply plain wrong.HP had the VEE framework under HPUX. same story there... They supported the stuff they had but were not going to buy a rohde and schwarz spectrum analyser to provide you with a driver...rohde actually made the effort to make drivers for both NI and VEE but gave up because of support required and ever changing revisions and incompatibilites between revisions.this went on for a few years until a taskforce was created : SCPI STANDARD COMMANDs PROGRAMMABLE INSTRUMENTS.everybode (tek, hp, rs, fluke,keithley,ni , cec and many others were in on it.)Let's once and for all define a command set , sort of XML style in the sense it is extendable , and structure how to parse it. this will make building drivers easier.if i send :MEAS VOLT DC to any multimeter it will switch to volts dc mode ( if it can do that of course)so SCPI was drafted and ratified. all was well. making drivers was easier... until we started needing new command not originally in the spec. and then certain instrument makers descended the wrong branch... commands that clearly belonged under the trigger branch where thrown in a different branch (SCPI defines root branches) because the designers of those machines felt they belonged better there according to their intuition.So there you go. compatibility is now lost.the same crap is still ongoing today. Nationla labwindows and labview 'drivers' are only made for national stuff. all others are skeletons or crap thrown together by nitwits. the ones that do work right are not interoperable becasue the instruments are not interoperable as they violate the SCPI standard. poof. there goes the nice balloon.So , you are welcome to make your own super duper environment that supports all. I'll be the first one looking at it.But you better include a driver for my half million dollar scope that is complete and bug free or i will be the first one lighting the flamethrower the moment you start a topic that your version 1.0 is released. 'Wo is you' when i find out it doesn't support all the machines i have. (and i got some really archaic ones you can't even get your hands on). and it better run on windows is i can't be arsed touch those weird environments like Loonix or that overpriced CrapOS.so it is lost upfront. you are looking to a massive investment developing this and a massive financial investment buying every single piece of testequipment ever made to complete your program.Trusting your 'users' to supply working and complete drivers ... has been tried many times. doesn't work. Users are nitwits and complainers.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:28:57 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 21, 2014, 11:54:46 pmIt's no where near that bad. There are drivers submitted by third parties (nitwits?) that may or may not be certified by national. There is a huge collection of non-NI drivers on their driver websiteQuoteThat's a bit harsh. Non-certified drivers are a good starting point to create or modify your ownQuoteI must have SCPI's purpose all wrong then. It's just as difficult for the standard to cater for every instrument as it is for benchvue or any other "framework". In Labview if a device requires some "non-standard" scpi commands you simply double click the icon carrying out the function and in the "schematic" for that you just change the ASCII command to what ever the instrument requires. If instead of MEAS DCV it needs DCV just go in there and change it. It's that simpleQuoteLike it or not, your words carry a fair bit of weight and I won't for a second presume to tell you how to think but you should consider that discouraging experimentation or simply just trying things for oneself isn't conducive to advancement in anything.If the frame work is open and it doesn't support you million dollar voltage viewer, then a decently designed tool will just require you to look into your manual and write some simple text commands to do what you want

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:30:20 am
content: Ok, as a total beginner with computer controlled test gear I understand there are ancient standards like GPIB and LXI (Ethernet), as well as old RS232 and modern USB.I understand that all these interfaces should be able to be controlled when you install National Instruments VISA (for Windows). Indeed the crummy software given away with chinese equipment appears to assume this is installed to begin with, in my experience.I went on to look into LabVIEW (7 day evaluation), sadly the only device that I have a driver available is the Rigol 3058E which I have on backorder and won't get 'til May. So much for the 7 day eval. But I did notice some kind of custom device driver building tool. So surely I can control any device I want using LabVIEW?My other USB based test instruments are Hantek MSO5102D and Siglent SDG1025, with the Rigol DP832 to come. Quite surprised that LabVIEW doesn't come with the DP832 driver, especially as the DP832A is sold because of its GPIB and Ethernet. Maybe I am just relying on NI's website for drivers and not looking hard enough. Not surprised about the Hantek and Siglent though.Anyway, just what does Agilent BenchVue give vs. NI LabVIEW? What is it for if it's just for Agilent?So what is it that BenchVue gives over NI LabVIEW?

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:35:16 am
content: Quote from: Macbeth on February 22, 2014, 12:30:20 amYou can use labview to create something like Benchvue. The difference is Labview is designed for designing interfaces (amongst many other things) where as benchvue is just the interface

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:57:33 am
content: i just want a way to support my gear, not all gear, or even your gear, necessarily. I do want you to be able to add your own gear, though, and anyone else can add their own devices. I am not interested in supporting all gear, just my own.As you say, supporting all is a lost cause. I want the individual end users to be able to extend my mythical remote device framework to include the devices they need it to include.And if those end users want to share their extensions, then they can.I ABSOLUTELY love the idea of BenchVue, and software like it. They all get so close, but none that I know allow the end user to do the work that the end user should be doing: customizing their tools (including software) to their unique needs.My solution is not a no-programming solution, necessarily, unless others write what is required for you to have all the kit you need supported. It is, however a less-programming solution, as all that would need to be written by an end user for a compatible piece of test equipment they want supported is the device-specific SPCI commands, the code to handle the returned values, and a device specific GUI, if required. All features that are common between most/all oscilloscopes, for example, would be provided out of the box. I imagine the list of common stuff is pretty small, probably around 100-200 commands for an oscilloscope. Sounds like a lot, but many are settings and return nothing.I don't know. The lack of enthusiasm for my notion is telling me that maybe it actually would not be useful to many. I am always resistant to the idea that I might be wrong, because so many people come to me so often for technical guidance, and later thank me for giving them what they didn't know they needed.I'll have to fester on this a bit...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 01:25:13 am
content: Quote from: Macbeth on February 22, 2014, 12:30:20 amYou answered your own question. It's for those with Agilent gear. If you don't have Agilent gear it's not for you, use something else.Quote1) It's free2) You don't have to learn Labview

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 01:31:46 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 21, 2014, 10:42:09 pmI meant what I said, no hidden meaning, hurry up and and go develop your own application instead of just complaining that someones tool doesn't do what you want. You might just find yourself with fortune and glory. Seriously.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 01:37:10 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 22, 2014, 12:57:33 amYou are both right and wrong. Of course it would have been nice if Agilent had written the software to support other instruments and/or allow user to add their own. But there are reasons why they didn't do that, and you IMO are wrong to complain about a free piece of software and calling Agilent "unfair" for not doing so.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 02:38:48 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 22, 2014, 01:37:10 amI'm not sure I used the word "unfair" and if i did, I misspoke. Point taken.Software like this one all get so close to actual usefulness without quite reaching it, and it's always intentional.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 08:11:31 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 22, 2014, 02:38:48 amQuote

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:07:44 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 22, 2014, 12:57:33 amHold it. Let's change 'i' and 'my' with 'agilent' in the first sentence....Agilent just want a way to support agilent gear, not all gear, or even your gear.BenchVue was not designed to be customisable. The gui panels are static.Let's say you wanted to create a 'driver' for a fluke multimeter. It goes beyond just the commands. You may need to add a few buttons or options to the gui as well... And then it begins....Agilent traditionally delivered individual programs with their test equipment. There was a program for the scopes, one for the multimeter and so on. One problem that popped up in the focus group was : they don't interact. BenchVue solves this. You can sync i struments to do thing like recording over time. You can set number of points or start and stop time and intervals.The target audience for Benchvue is non-programmers.If you want extendability then there are other solutions (labwindows/labview or any programming language for that matter. Simply instantiate the VISA object and off you go. If there is no VISA for your operating system of choice you are screwed... You'll have to cook one up and that is even more complicated. VISA abstracts the interface and the datatransport to the machines and is very succesful at that.Assuming you got the interface and datatransport covered (VISA or an equivalent), the problem is the 'middleware' (the library that wraps the instrument commands in human commands) the machines are so different that it fails apart from some very basic commands.It is very difficult to come up with a universal 'driver' that can handle all machines of one type.For the sake of clarity let's not call these things 'drivers' anymore.. Let's call em instrument classes.If i pull an instance of a multimeter i need to be able to find out what will happen to an existing lump of code if is swap an agilent for a fluke.So here is how i solved this in my solution:I created a base class called DMM. Any machine specific code, if that machine is a multimeter, needs to overload the base class or extend it.So:Dim Myvoltmeter as DMM = new hp34401.DMM is the base class. It contains no instrument specific code. Actually it contains no instrument code at all. The base class forces any child to require a number of properties and functions.Here is what i force on them:Properties:Channel : by default 1 . If a machine has more than 1 channel, like a two channel power supply you tell which channel you are linked to.Address : the VISA locator string (::usb0.... Or ::gpib0....)Functions:Connect and Disconnect (flick machine in remote operation or release it)In my visual studio project increate a separate module called 'MyBench'. That holds the definitions of the instruments i am using. All functional code resides elsewhere. So now stuff becomes eally easyDim myvoltmeter as new dmm = new hp_34401Myvoltmeter.address = "::gpib0:17"Dim vcc5 as supply = new xantrex550Vcc5.address = "::usb:vid...blabla"Vcc5.channel = 2Dim vcc12 as supply = new hp_e3631aVcc12.channel =1Vcc12.address = "::goib0:12"Now two things are solved: my main code is interface and transport agnostic and my main code is instrument agnostic.If i need to run my testprogram with a different meter, i only change a few lines in the 'MyBench' file.I alter the class and the address. Done.If i use two supplies and happen to have a dual channel one i can point the instances to the same address , but different channel.If i have two single channel,supplies , no problem. They can even be different brands.For some instruments the base class forces base functionality.The supply base class forces the following properties.voltage .current and .outputstateReadonly properties : .setvoltage and .setcurrentAssign a value to .voltage and you set it. Read .voltage and you get the real voltage read by the machine. Want to retrieve what you set : use .setvoltage.I also export an event called 'overcurrent' you can attach a handler to.I also export a function called 'panic'The panic handler for a supply is : output off, current zero, voltage zero.The panic handler for a multimeter is voltsac1000 (or whatever is the highest voltage range in ac mode)So my main code has a function called panichandler.Sub panichandler()For each machine as instrument in instrumentsMachine.panicNextMessagebox "panic",systemmodalEnd subAll base classes (Dmm, scope) are subclasses of 'instrument' class.Instruments is a dictionary holding the knstances. Whenever you create a machine instance it adds itself to the list. The instrument class fores the 'panic' on its child classes.So if a supply trips an overcurrent event is simply call my universal panichandler and the system goes to a steady state. User gets a popup and system is safe.I put a breakpoint on the msgbox so th box pops up and the program stops in break. So now i can backtrace where the event happened. See what is wrong with my system under test.One of these days i want tomextend the panic code so it saves current instrument state before panicing . When you click continue it restores automatically. Now a panic turns the machine off and that's it.If you dont want to use the hard-stop panichandler you can write your own.When the event fires i passes the firing object to th handler. So you can find out exactly what machine fired an overcurrent event . So you can act appropriately.I have large setups with 10 to 15 machines including temperature chambers that runfor days. Works flawlessly.Now, if the newly selected machine lacks a certain functionality i will know immediately as visual studio will throw realtime warnings, even before compilation, that functions are missing.So it's easy for me to see what instrument i can use. No warnings ? Instrument will work as is. Warnings ? Find another instrument , or find out what the function does, see if it is required and comment it out.If somewhere in my code it says .range =voltsdc1000 and i get a warning it means the machine does not have such range. I go to that line and i get a pulldown list of availalble ranges (all that stuff is stored in enumerated lists overloaded from the instrument classes. The base class forces the enum name on you but the child class must populate it.So even in such cases you know immediatelyVisual studio is a great help because of this realtime code check. You know, even before you compile, what is missing , which line.This is a framework i have dragged with me for over 15 years (it started as a vb 5.0 project) and it works very well.I need to clean it up though. I can't release it 'as is' as it contains other things that belong to my employer (made on their time) . The base system is mine as i wrote it at home for hobby.One of these days i will strip it (remove drivers and classes that are useless for the outside world. ) and throw it here.It is written in plain visual basic express 2008 (don't start a holy war on programming languages. For me, Basic is the most human friendly language out there. It's almost english. That's why i use it) .You can port it to C# (too many curly brackets, symbols and semicolons to my liking. Scares me). There are translators on the net. I don't use any crazy stuff. It's all commented and easy.I created base classes for multimeters, supplies, scopes, and generators.My only fear is , if i release this, it will turn into a other endless holy war on languages , operating systems and other waste-of-time. Maybe i will put in a dictator-for-life clause like that Python dude did. But then again i don't like python either (one of the reasons being this dictator for life thing.)Sigh...

author: coldframe
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:42:47 pm
content: That is awesome! And it's free!I could do with a use right nowUnfortunately, My laptop is being repaired.Anyway Thank you for the information!.P.SWould you please review this and get your comments to me?https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hpagilentkeysight-34401a-2w-problem/msg389344/#msg389344"a problem comes up"Thanx!,coldframe

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 12:56:54 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on February 20, 2014, 07:23:06 pmAppearantly not for the professional market then. They may not want to get in the way of LabView (which supports Linux and Mac).

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 05:48:43 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 22, 2014, 12:07:44 pmExcept for the Visual Basic, that's pretty much what I had in mind. C# is much more a native language to me, and I know that's not true for everyone.This is inheritance and polymorphism is the very basis and the power of object oriented programming.

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 09:17:20 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on February 22, 2014, 05:48:43 pmVB.NET and C#.NET are not very much different and easy to manually read/convert code between them. Good old VB5/6 to VB.NET is a massive (and much needed) change. Ditching all those COM objects, etc.Now I am just trying to get NI-VISA to recognise my chinese instruments. My SDG1025 is basically the same as the LeCroy WaveStation 2000 series, and I downloaded the LabVIEW driver but it fails to do anything so far. I only get COM and LPT ports, no USB. The EasyWave software provided by Siglent requires NI-VISA, so I don't understand why it is only visible to EasyWave and nothing else that uses VISA.Trouble with my Hantek MSO5102D - it just shows up as "Unknown Device" in device manager and no VID or PID for the USB device. The MSO software doesn't work either. Doesn't help that the drivers/apps on Hanteks site appear to be older versions of what I had supplied on CD and so my "upgrade" has probably frakked it.I don't need fancy interfaces, just the ability to control my equipment from Visual Studio or VBScript (like in Excel).

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2014, 09:28:30 pm
content: Quote from: Macbeth on February 22, 2014, 09:17:20 pmThere are some language features that exist only in VB, and others that exist only in C#, if you didn't know. Use of those can make things challenging when switching between the two. Fortunately, they are edge cases, as they are mostly relatively new language features.Quote from: Macbeth on February 22, 2014, 09:17:20 pmIs there an EasyWave service running continually? If so, try stopping that service before you launch LabView.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2014, 03:24:42 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 22, 2014, 08:11:31 amyup, you were right. I somehow knew you would be.Dave, you and I are so much alike. We would either NOT get along if we spent time together in person, or we'd be proper mates in a day, I honestly don't know. I lived in Sydney for two years in the early 2000s, and I made more friends during my 2 years in Sydney than I've made the other 36 years I've spent in the US, combined. I stay in touch with almost all the folks I knew in Sydney to this day.given what I know of my own past and how it helped form my desire to optimize, analyze, and be correct (except when internet-arguing, apparently), I wonder if the broad strokes of my childhood are similar to yours. I will say that I went through some MAJOR crap when I was a child, I am pretty sure that the 'shenanigans' that I endured at the hands of authority figures then have affected how I relate to authority today, and I can say that I now defend against 'shenanigans' as an adult by being very diligent, very closed off, and I am extremely quick to declare others as idiots when they don't know things I know or when they make decisions I wouldn't make. I do not easily make friends, I am very quick to argue, am almost always correct, and have truly awful social skills.I feel connected to you in a way, independent of how close we are in personality,I am pretty sure that we would be chalk and cheese if we were to ever meet.I wrote that incorrectly. We would either be chalk & cheese (don't go together well) or wine & cheese (goes together very well.) I honestly don't know which it would be, and neither would surprise me... reading that again, is there anything I won't analyze? Apparently not.

author: plesa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2014, 05:24:57 pm
content: Today I need to measure some stuff and decided to use the BechnVue and found following issues, maily minor, depends on your usecase:The BenchVue was installed on clean WinXP SP3.Power supply E3631A - it is not possible to select more traces and trace the voltage and current simultaneously, It has slow response compared to other instruments. But it has been connected over GPIB and not USB.Function generator 33522B - It works correctly, and I can recomends it for usage. I would like to see the name of ARBs which are stored in the instruments and not only the PN7..PN20.Multimeter 34411A - No issue found, I can recomend it for usageMultimeter 34461A - No issue found, I can recomend it for usageDSOX3k scope - just able to take screenshots, it is similar to the VNC connection to the instruments more over the control the instrument.EXA Signal Analyzer - Similar to the DSOX able to take the screenshot not control the instrument.Keithley 2002 in HP3458A emulation mode is not recognized and not work at all.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2014, 12:26:26 pm
content: Tried benchvue with my 3631A and MSOX 3000Not impressed at all. My 3631A via Serial continues to disconnect and reconnect and sets error 410 - and MSOX only does screen shots. For a free tool it is great for the price - but it its current state I would not pay $5 for it.Why spend so much time on a mobile app when the main app does not work very well?

author: neslekkim
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2014, 02:13:24 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on February 21, 2014, 12:57:41 amdo you know if anyone have done something with this?, ie on github or other places?, or if the licenses are ok to push it to github?After finding benchvue, it looks very interresting, would have been cool to make something to also control for isntance the signalgenerator in rigol's -S serie scopes, grabbing ideas from this might be interresting.

author: uoficowboy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2014, 10:25:20 pm
content: Hi - I have a 34401A as well as a Prologix USB-GPIB adapter. Does anybody know if it could be used with BenchVue? Or would I have to use the serial interface of the 34401A? Is there any advantage one way or the other?Thanks!

author: dc101
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2014, 11:44:43 pm
content: Quote from: plesa on February 23, 2014, 05:24:57 pmThe HP/Agilent 3458A isn't listed as a supported DMM, so it's not surprising that it wasn't recognized.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2014, 12:33:38 am
content: Quote from: uoficowboy on March 03, 2014, 10:25:20 pmSerial prt should work. Prologix will not work. That thing is NOT a real gpib controller. Only GPIB cards (pci , isa, usb , ethernet ) from NI, Agilent or NCS are supported.

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 04, 2014, 01:01:44 am
content: Hi free-electron, from reading this post my inadequacies of understanding GPIB are becoming apparant, are you aware of a source of succint information re gpib interfacing? (for the uninitiated)Previously some of Agilents application notes have been good but the only one I can easily find seems limited to labview.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2014, 01:34:07 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on March 04, 2014, 12:33:38 amQuote from: Agilent Website**cough**

author: dc101
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2014, 10:34:36 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on March 04, 2014, 01:34:07 amThere's loads of cheaper USB GPIB adapters on EBay. Usually the Agilent or NI ones go for around $200. I have the NI USB GPIB adapter and I've never had any issues with it.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2014, 11:42:23 am
content: Exactly. Simply buy a used one on ebay.The whole thing stands or fails with the availability of the driver. Real gpib cards like national instruments, agilent and ncs provide a device pipe.This is going to get a bit technical now,Remember in the old dos days there was com1 com2 lpt1 lpt2 etc ?You could send a file to a serial port by typing copy file.txt com1:Well, the real gpib cards create a gpib0 device (or gpib1 and so on if you have multiple).There is actually a reserved hardware address in the old ISA adress space. Just like lpt1 is 378, GPIB also has one. I believe it is simply 488.In the dos days the driver was a TSR hooked in via int21 and int5 or int6Int21 was the software interrupt giving access to the bios and extentions.Int 5 or 6 were hardware interrupts given by the gpib board when traffic occurred.The real drivers recreate this and install a trap and hook for these addresses. Just in the same way printer and serial ports are trapped and hooked.Besides that they also expose a common library called gpib32.dll. This gives access to the device from a windows environment and provides a base api.The gpib32.dll then connects to the sys file holding the real hardware driver for your particular board.Gpib32.dll is an agreed upon api by both NI , agilent and a few others. There is a list of functions and their arguments.Non standard gpib controllers like all the homebrews and the prologic do not have this. They don't have the dll, they don't create the hooks and cannot create the device pipe.So, they are not compatible with the industry standard. Like it or not. Agilent invented the thing, they get to dictate how it must work. Deviate and interoperability goes to snot. Agilent does not prevent you from building your own , just provide the gpib32.dll for you hardware with the specified api and it will work.The requirements are public knowledge. Several companies like CEC and NCS have done that, and they work perfectly fine.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2014, 02:07:08 pm
content: that makes sense. It's nice to see hardware living on those low addresses, somehow. And with their own interrupts, too.

author: alex.forencich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2014, 08:13:41 am
content: If anyone is interested in open source, extensible, cross-platform instrument control, I have been working on a Python library called Python IVI that is designed to be very easy to extend both in terms of adding new instruments as well as new interfaces. It does not use the NI VISA library to interface with instruments, instead using pure Python implementations of the VXI11 and USBTMC protocols.http://github.com/alexforencich/python-ivi

author: neslekkim
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2014, 12:04:45 pm
content: Very interresting!Just for curiousity, I saw that you are organizing the code by brand, one folder for rigol, one for agilent, instead of organizing by type, say multimeter, scope, functiongen.so, since you have these:Oscilloscopes (scope):- Agilent InfiniiVision 3000A X-seriesFunction Generators (fgen):- Agilent InfiniiVision 3000A X-series (Wavegen option)Which file in the Agilent folder is for each of these?, are the functiongen defines and scope defines in the same file?And, I thought I saw something about 34401A in the agilent folder also, not anything about it in the readme, does that mean that is in the works, or fully supported?Mostly asking because I have an rigol ds2202a-s, which is an scope and an fuctiongenerator (wavegen or something), and I have an agilent 34461A which i would like to try to get into this.But first, i have to understand python, I'm more into C# and stuff like thatBtw, will this work on Windows?

author: alex.forencich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2014, 05:53:36 pm
content: Quote from: neslekkim on March 05, 2014, 12:04:45 pmYes, this will work on windows. The only part that might not work are the instrument interface components (Python VXI11, Python USBTMC, and pySerial), all of which habe been verified to work on windows. The rest is just pure python, so if you have python installed, it should work.The Agilent Wavegen components are a very new addition - I think I just added that last week. Basically, in IVI, there are a set of base classes that define the common interfaces for a bunch of different instruments. There is one for oscilloscopes, one for function generators, one for power supplies, etc. It turns out that the scope and function generator base classes don't conflict with each other, so you can actually make a driver that implements both base classes and use it exactly as you would either a scope or a function generator. So that's the story with the Wavegen option - I just added it to the same scope driver. It lets you do fun stuff like this:Code:import iviimport numpy as npimport timemsox = ivi.agilent.agilentMSOX3014A("USB::2391::6056::INSTR")msox._interface.timeout = 10000scope = msoxfgen = msoxfreq = np.logspace(2,5,61)amp = np.zeros(freq.shape)fgen.outputs.standard_waveform.waveform = 'sine'fgen.outputs.standard_waveform.amplitude = 0.5fgen.outputs.standard_waveform.dc_offset = 0.0fgen.outputs.enabled = Truescope.channels.enabled = Truescope.channels.offset = 15e-3scope.channels.scale = 5e-3for i in range(len(freq)):print("Frequency %e" % freq)fgen.outputs.standard_waveform.frequency = freqscope.timebase.scale = 1/freqtime.sleep(10.0)print("Reading peak-to-peak voltage")amp = scope.channels.measurement.read_waveform_measurement('voltage_peak_to_peak', 1)with open('output_3db.csv', 'w') as f:for i in range(len(freq)):f.write("%e, %e\n" % (freq, amp))In this case, you could swap out the msox for two different instruments and the rest of the code would still do its thing correctly.

author: Sbampato12
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2014, 11:31:23 pm
content: I have tested with my power supply, E33649A. It worked in the first run, but I noticed some 'lag' on the on/off switch. I don't know if it is because I'm using the serial or not. But by now I don't have a GPIB port on any computer, so I could not test with this kind of port.But it is very interesting, because it is a very easier to set the voltages, current, limits an protections, with the BenchVue.By now I give a.I think a month or two, in my work we will get some news dmm, functions generators and power supplies too, so I could do more 'tests'.+ It worked in the first run, I just installed it all and tested.+ It is very easy to understand- I had to download the library's during the installation, I prefer when it has the option to download a complete version of the install software. Some computers aren't allowed to connect to internet...

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2014, 05:12:43 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on March 04, 2014, 01:34:07 amI managed to get a new, factory sealed box Agilent 82357B USB-GPIB for $150 shipped from an Asian ebay seller. That is only a little more than a 82357B knock-off. Definitely worth the extra for the real thing. Now I can ditch my old Pentium 4 with the ISA-slot NI GPIB-TNT. Just finding something as new as a P4 to support that ISA card was difficult and expensive (but not as expensive as a PCI GPIB was a few years ago).

author: Christopher
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2014, 07:38:13 pm
content: So it's like a posh version of labview??With probably more ball-ache? I hate labview. With a passion.

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 07:43:50 pm
content: Quote from: Christopher on March 07, 2014, 07:38:13 pmTell me about it. I just recently converted the Teledyne LeCroy Wavestation driver to work with my Siglent SDG1025. I have the 45 day trial of LabView.What a palaver. I keep looking for some decent code, but no, it's all some weird graphical nightmare. It also seems to remember my fuck ups I did along the way, so when I deleted all my Siglent conversion code and re-downloaded the LeCroy code to only apply my successful changes - it remembers shit I did before like change text boxes from "LeCroy" to "Siglent" - only it buggers up the text justification too so it comes out all wonky and there seems to be nothing I can do about it except perhaps format my HDD and re-install Windows and LabView. What on earth is it playing at?Then I found out the price of this turd abomination and couldn't stop laughing.The NI-VISA drivers are free and work fine with proper programming languages. I will stick to them. Sadly I also have to feck about with proprietary drivers too.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 08:44:02 pm
content: Quote from: uoficowboy on March 03, 2014, 10:25:20 pmI have been using BenchVue with the original Agilent GPIB to USB converter (IEEE 82357B) and it works perfectly with the 34401A and the 34410A. At one time I had 4 pieces of 34401A simultaneously connected through GPIB chain and one USB connection and all 4 instruments acted perfectly.I really love this Agilent software. The 34461A I had connected through the LAN connection and three 34401A with GPIB, still all working perfectly.For me it is amazing what Agilent is building in quality instruments.I don't know, why so many people are complaining about Agilent. They have amazing test gear and even more amazing customer service. I think we have to see it all in perspective of the bigger picture. And in this bigger picture, Agilent builds some of the most useful instruments. And if they break, you can download schematics and fix most of them (at least the older models)

author: stuartk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 12:13:00 am
content: Has anyone noticed that Benchvue requires a license?When I try to datalog past 1 hour, the logging stops.When you try to manually set the logging to anything > then 1 hour it says:Elapsed time is limited to 1 hour for unlicensed software version.I can't find a provision in the software to upgrade and it's certainly not on their site, or for sale.I have to say that I'm disappointed. This severely limits the software's utilityI hope I'm wrong and that I've missed something...

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 12:26:04 am
content: Sounds more like they've missed something.

author: stuartk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 12:55:43 am
content: Quotelol, I hope your right!But it sounds more like they're planning something...

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 02:25:28 am
content: Quote from: stuartk on March 17, 2014, 12:55:43 amPossibly. Or, they're reusing code from some internal project that got cancelled or this code existed in this project from a time when it wasn't meant to be fully free and no one in beta caught it.Or, like you said, they're gonna bait & switch and make it non-free soon. Who knows?

author: Noise Floor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 03:12:55 am
content: Quote from: stuartk on March 17, 2014, 12:55:43 amThe datasheet says"Basic data log with strip chart and controls (1 hour duration)"The word "Basic" suggests: 1. Agilent knows one hour is not as long as some people would like; and/or 2. Agilent is planning an "Advanced" version in the future.

author: Stuey
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 03:28:39 am
content: I have run into conflicts between BenchVue and NI software. They're aware of the issue and hopefully a fix is on the way.As per the 1 hour data logging, I noticed that some of the download links are for a "trial."I won't mind too much if there's a "full" version if the software as it is now is the free "lite" version.Update: The issue turns out to be a minor bug with Windows 7's "pin to taskbar" action.

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 04:59:12 am
content: If they are going to charge money for this thing it better have some non-pathetic support for scopes.

author: plesa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 10:38:46 am
content: I have similar issue with DMM connectivity utility, it also stops the logging after while.

author: stuartk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 09:48:24 pm
content: I've asked Agilent for a quote for Benchvue software and here is what they had to say:Quoteand my response to them:Quote

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2014, 12:07:56 am
content: if you need to log for a week, it would be best to write your own app to do it, I think, if you can, anyway, and if you're not making up that requirement to get an answer out of them. it isn't that hard.

author: stuartk
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2014, 12:42:32 am
content: So I spoke with Agilent. There will be an advanced version of Benchvue released in the fall. Pricing is not yet set. I could not get information about the additional features. One of them will be that it will allow you to datalog for as long as you like.They said that they will maintain a free basic version, which is what I'm guessing is available now.I recommend that you download the older Digital Multimeter (DMM) Connectivity Utility, while you still can. It allows you to datalog indefinitely. I did 70,000 records before I shut it down.http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/software.jspx?ckey=2303260&lc=eng&cc=US&nid=-536902435.1060970&id=2303260&pageMode=CVCheers to all,Stuart

author: robint
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 07:40:12 pm
content: Quote from: stuartk on March 24, 2014, 12:42:32 amMany thanx for your advice, I shall dl older DMM s/w as you suggest. IMHO Bench vue has many dumb bugs in it. Should never have been released in its present statedeg 1 hr limit - without warning you, wasted half a day on thiscant change time base (x) display it defaults to 4x the sample intervalreal time clock doesnt sync with its host pcI need it to dump an XL file not open up MS Xcel as wellCant see the contents of the DMM internal memory or access it for remote dumpYou have to be SOO careful with what buttons you press or you lose all your stored data - without warningNotice that "Data Logging" is not mentioned anywhere in the Agilent docs - very suspicious - as if they didnt want you to use your DMM for that purposeIf I had paid for Benchvue I would demand my money backI could go on, but I need to get my kit working as a logger - as it can and hope I get a result with your tipI am going to write (yes real paper sword - with recorded delivery) a stinking letter to their CEO in UK asking what were they thinking, spoiling their eminent reputation with a cheap charlie product like thisOtherwise I am delighted with my 34461a DMM, amazing kit with trace cal certificate even though expensiveCheers, any update pls postRobin

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 08:47:30 pm
content: I've not tried Benchvue because none of my HP/Agilent gear is new enough but I'm not sure what all the moaning is about anyway? It is FREE. it isn't COMPULSORY to use it so I'm not sure why there are so many people moaning that it is designed to work with Agilent HW.In my case, I'm not bothered either way because I've always written my own datalogging and control SW in MS VB (via RS-232 or GPIB) because it puts me in complete control over what I want to do with the instrument(s).eg I might want to datalog the analogue voltage out of the back of my ancient HP431C power meter using a bench DMM whilst also controlling a sig gen and logging the results onscreen and also storing the data in a text file on the PC HDD in a format that I like. I can make the GUI 'look' like an old HP431C if I want and it isn't difficult to do stuff like this in MS VB (I'm not a professional programmer BTW)For example, if someone can program Arduino HW then they should easily be able to look at Benchvue and say "that's pretty" but then walk away and go on to learn to write a simple VB datalogging program for a PC to produce something more focussed to their own needs. it won't look as pretty as Benchvue but it probably won't be as buggy and annoying to use as a generic logging program from Agilent

author: robint
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 12:38:56 am
content: get a reality checkIm trying to run a lab tech testing facilityI dont have time for geek stuffsorry wrong planet

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 03:17:33 am
content: Something being free does not render that thing immune to complaint or critique, and it does not justify one using complaint to invalidate another's opinion.So quit saying people should not complain because it is free. Free has nothing to do with it.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 08:00:27 am
content: Quote from: robint on May 14, 2014, 12:38:56 amIf you really want to dumb it down and get away from using VB directly you can use a recent version of Microsoft Excel to datalog the instrument and get raw data with a few lines of script in Excel.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 06:28:45 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on May 14, 2014, 03:17:33 amI'm referring to people who use this 'free' tool as an excuse to complain and say they won't buy Agilent products again just because the free tool doesn't do everything they want it to.I've not tried to use BenchVue but I can guess that the primary users of this software will be people who want to casually dump screen data or do some very basic logging. It's the equivalent of freebie bundled software that comes locked to some PC based hardware. i.e. it's going to be restrictive, buggy and of very limited use to most of the ATE industry.But it's free...

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 06:39:15 pm
content: More people need to learn basic programming, and/or simpler graphical programming languages need to be developed; logging data from a multimeter over SCPI is something so easy that i consider the 1Hr limit of BenchVue to be an outright insult.That, actually, is probably a utility that I could find time to write & release. I just need to buy a multimeter that supports logging, now.I envision something like this being freely available: from the command line, run "dmmdata <LXI address> <sample frequency>" which you could then pipe to an output file, if you chose.

author: gmb42
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 11:43:33 am
content: Have a look at this thread onPython based Instrument Control.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 12:43:49 pm
content: Quote from: gmb42 on May 15, 2014, 11:43:33 amI don't know why, but use of the Python language immediately makes me lose interest in a project. If Python were half as good as the vocal advocates say, it would be the best programming language ever created by a very, very wide margin. It is not the best programming language on the planet at all, and to me that means Python is chosen solely out of peer pressure or some other external force. This renders the entire effort moot to me.I just can't get interested in Python or any Python apps.

author: neslekkim
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 01:42:52 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on May 15, 2014, 12:43:49 pm+1

author: gmb42
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 11:18:33 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on May 15, 2014, 12:43:49 pmQuote from: neslekkim on May 15, 2014, 01:42:52 pmOf course you're all entitled to your opinions. and Python may have the same share of fanboys as other languages (which I don't entirely buy into), but folks who do use Python find it very productive.I'm a C++\proprietary script programmer in my day job, but for my own projects I often use Python, just one of the many tools in the box.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 03:10:22 pm
content: Yeah, I agree, it's just another tool in the box, and there's a limit to how many languages one person can be productive with. I've met my limit: C#, Perl, Java, PowerShell, DOS BAT, Bash, and a couple others I scrape up when I need them. No room for Python in my feeble mind.

author: robint
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 04:50:40 pm
content: I shall ignore the geeks and their softwars, completely missing the point of this thread.Thanx to SK I can now report my DMM is fully functioning as an unlimited logger. I dld the earlier dmmcu and , after some fiddling, its loaded and works as expected - problem solved. Why Agilent chose to divert customers on to a beta lite version of this is quite beyond me. I shall ask the CEO to explain the unbridled decisions of his junior managers. No one sane would dump a customer with crippled beta software.FYI unload the Benchvue rubbish before trying to load DMMCU - obvious reallyPity you cant squeeze up the timeline, but I can live with a CSV file and make my own graphs on Xcel.ALSO FYIthe dmm can function as a standalone logger, just set the delay interval to whatever and start, it will log point as rqd and rollover the data store after 10k points. Its crude but it works. You can save(export|) data to the thumb drive but remember, all this does is to dump the internal memory into the drive and this does not happen real time, you have to consciously SAVE it. All you get is a column of data points, no timestamp data. So you have to note exactly when you started and when you stopped and your interval to construct your own time column - tedious in 2014So happy days ahead with my 34461a (and some unhappiness for the CEO for wasting my time)CheersRobinOBTWI had a very bad experience some years ago when I inherited a VBA project concerning instrument data sheets. Some erstwhile junior manager had allowed a script kiddie to run loose on compiling code for this project. It ran into difficulties when trying to install the app on differnet machines, numerous bugs and freezes. When the problems mounted the kiddie vanished and I was left with a thousand pages of unstructured code to manage. We couldnt find anyone reliable and experienced to take on the job in diminishing time, so the whole mess got binned and cost the Company months of time, money and loss of confidence cos of one little geekSo the moral is .............

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 08:55:25 pm
content: You don't have to be a 'geek' or a programmer to qualify to be able to datalog test gear without having to resort to BenchVue.Agilent are very keen to show people how to log instruments using basic everyday tools like MS Excel. They even provide online tutorials (on youtube) to spoonfeed people through each simple step. They even give links to their excel workbook examples used in the tutorials. eg stuff like taking 10 (or 100 or as many as you like) samples from a meter. There are Excel addons freely available from Agilent like 'Agilent Command Expert' that make the task simpler and also add some extra versatility. I believe that Command Expert supports all instruments that support SCPI commands and isn't restricted to Agilent test gear.However, I still think it's better to go one step further and use something like VB as it is much more powerful. You can soon write a few lines of SCPI commands to control/log several instruments at once. These instruments can be from any manufacturer

author: quantumvolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 09:22:40 pm
content: Re: GeeksBabies depend on their mothers, grown up men on their wives. Engineers that depend on f#&%ing software consultants, external programmers and software package makers grow meta-MILs.Free men do what ever they like. A few lines of code, and you can log microvolts for years with an Arduino

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 09:29:03 pm
content: Quote from: gmb42 on May 15, 2014, 11:43:33 amsemicolons make my full colon cramp up. combine that with the usage of indentation and it culminates in explosive diarrhea.to top of the turdcake they broke the language between 2.xx and 3.xx.no thanks.

author: robint
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 10:57:51 pm
content: what you do in the privacy of your own garden sheds is your business. In the real world you wouldnt get the job with that attitude or if you had blagged your way through somehow you'd soon be firedwe senior managers have all learnt our lessons and can spot the BS in a heartbeatstroll on

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 11:25:04 pm
content: Quote from: robint on May 14, 2014, 12:38:56 amSome just try. Others actually do.Quote from: robint on May 16, 2014, 04:50:40 pmThe moral is that things did fall apart when you took over. Since then you made yourself and your employer dependable on commercial products only, with unpredictable schedules, unpredictable support and inflexible functions.Quote from: robint on May 16, 2014, 10:57:51 pmActually, I have an idea who wouldn't get at job at my employer.

author: bitrat
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 03:13:40 pm
content: Quote from: stuartk on March 24, 2014, 12:42:32 amI've got a benchvue 2.0 final released version. Like you said, the "apps" are devided into 5 parts, DMM, Function Generator, Oscilloscope, Power supply and Spectrum Analyzer. Each app need an individual license.The new benchvue provide some simple online control function, and the "pro version" provide unrestricted measurement data logging with limit checking and alerts.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 03:25:35 pm
content: Quote from: bitrat on October 14, 2014, 03:13:40 pmThanks for the update.Any idea, when the official public release will be out and how much the Pro version will cost?

author: eurofox
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 03:55:42 pm
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on October 14, 2014, 03:25:35 pmProblem is that only Agilent/Keysight instrument are supported.I think nobody got in he's lab exclusive Agilent instruments.I connect recently almost all my instruments to my computer (USB, Ethernet, GPIB over USB)I think the only software that can really be implemented to support different brands is NI, is expensive and need learn

author: alex.forencich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 04:04:15 pm
content: No, you don't need expensive NI software. The VISA library can be procured for free and works with many different interfaces. Then you can interface with VISA from many different programming languages, including C, Python, and others. No need to use labview. There are also solutions that do not require the NI software at all, depending on the interface - there are native C and Python implementations of VXI11 for LAN instruments, for example. There is also the Linux GPIB project that supports several USB GPIB cables.There are also implementations of USBTMC available.

author: eurofox
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 04:22:01 pm
content: Quote from: alex.forencich on October 14, 2014, 04:04:15 pmThis I know but it need to be hard code, NI allow to build applications, logging ...

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 05:15:02 pm
content: Quote from: eurofox on October 14, 2014, 04:22:01 pmMay be you can try Dasylab.This software is made in Germany and was for a while owned by NI but then given back to the original owners in Germany.It reads the VISA info from Agilent and NI and is very easy to implement.The cost is much lower than NI and the learning curve is not nearly as steep.I still like the Agilent BenchVue, because it is so simple and easy to quickly grab some data.So, I am looking forward to the Pro version.Hopefully it will not be too expensive.

author: plesa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 05:34:39 pm
content: If someone needs only logging feature with DMM DMM_Connectivity_Utility_1.0.2.0.exe work without any limitation compared to BechVue with 1h logging limit.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 08:33:16 pm
content: Quote from: plesa on October 14, 2014, 05:34:39 pmor you could just write a little script. it's not hard.my point is that you don't have to let yourself be tied to crappy bait & switch software to get what you need.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2014, 11:36:10 pm
content: I used the freebie Benchvue a few weeks ago to dump a load of screenshots from a PSA analyser.Because it was free I can't be too critical. But here's a few observations:It wasn't very stable over time because I was taking plots across a whole day and Benchvue would sometimes become unresponsive and would require to be quit/restarted.The save screen function kind of worked OK but it was too fussy and required quite a few mouse clicks and it pops up another little window if you want to change the filename. None of this stuff looks familiar to a Windows user and I would have liked to have 'seen' the directory contents in a window so I could click/overwrite an existing file if I wanted to. It was too fussy and messy here IMO.Every time you finish saving the screenshot, it then opens up an external Windows explorer window to show you the contents of the directory with the new file added. So if you save a dozen plots you get a dozen windows in the background. This was annoying. Maybe it can be turned off?The overall appearance looked like something produced by someone who wanted it to look 'different' to a classic MS Windows app and the result is something that looks a bit gloomy and scattered. But it got the job done. I will definitely use it again for casual screen dumps from the PSA if I don't have a floppy to hand but I hope some of the above issues are resolved and it would be nice if it looked a bit less gloomy