10-03-2024 01:40 PM
I work in an engineering lab, last week all of our myDAQ devices had the same Error 201003. In NI MAX there were two myDAQ devices listed under instruments, but there should have only been one. I deleted the myDAQ experiencing the error, then renamed the other so that LabVIEW would reference the correct one.
This seemed to work just fine, however the error just popped up again, with the exact same issue appearing in MAX.
Any thoughts on how to make a more permanent fix? All of the software is up to date and should be compatible.
Solved! Go to Solution.
10-03-2024 02:25 PM - edited 10-03-2024 02:26 PM
I may be one of the few "regulars" on the Forum with a myDAQ, so I am in a position to test your code (which, of course, I've never seen). I also know absolutely nothing about your environment, so while I'm more than willing to help, I can only shrug.
Consider doing the following:
Bob Schor
10-03-2024 03:22 PM
Here's the link to the WP describing the error if you have not seen it.
Possible Causes:
Try changing the cable and USB port and see what happens.
10-03-2024 05:57 PM
Thanks Bob,
We are using
- Windows 11
- LabVIEW 2022 Q3
- NI myDAQmx Device Driver 22.5
- NI ELVISmx 19.0
10-03-2024 06:00 PM
I don't think we have anything that would be causing that issue, it could be USB problems but we had 6 computers experience the problem simultaneously.
10-03-2024 06:04 PM
Here is a screenshot of what I see in MAX if it helps. I have a temporary solution that has been working, but I would like to find out if there is a permanent fix.
10-03-2024 06:30 PM
@IzaakWalton wrote:
we had 6 computers experience the problem simultaneously.
Is there a large EM pulse nearby? This is neither a software error nor a hardware error if it is happening simultaneously to multiple systems.
10-03-2024 10:21 PM
So MAX is telling you that you do have a myDAQ attached to your PC, and identifies it as myDAQ2. If you try to run DAQmx code and specify "myDAQ1" as the DAQ device to use, you will (as MAX shows you) get an error because (again, as MAX shows you) "The specified device is not present or not active ...".
Every time you plug a DAQmx device (like a myDAQ) into your PC and MAX is active, MAX scans for devices and caches their serial number (or something like that -- I'm describing what I deduce from my observation using DAQmx and MAX -- I may get some of the details wrong, but the principles, I think, are largely correct). As you can see from your own Screen Shot, MAX identifies devices (such as "myDAQ1") not only by model "NI myDAQ", but also by Serial Number (03253E8C). What happens if you've plugged multiple devices of the same Model into your PC and MAX has "found" them? It adds them to its internal table, and gives them a unique name that you can use (such as myDAQ1 or myDAQ2). When you have multiple instances of the same Device in the table, you need to know "which one is connected".
Fortunately, DAQmx gives you a way to find out. You can interrogate the table of MAX devices and (instead of "guessing" at the Device ID) determine the Device ID of the Device you want to use.
Let me find some example code that I used to do this ...
Bob Schor
10-04-2024 04:06 PM
Well, I found my code that "used to work" (I incorporated it into a test routine less than 6 months ago), but now it just hangs or gives me an Error Message. I've tried it in several versions of LabVIEW, all now fail. So I went to the Web, found precisely the code from NI with Snippets from LabVIEW 2019 (which is the version I'm using most of the time, and used in my Test routine), and it gives the same Error. Just in case it works for you, here is a link to the Knowledge article that duplicates my code (though I coded this method for myself around 2016).
I'm going to try to report this "non-working Feature" to NI, and see what I can learn. Meanwhile, you should be able to fix your immediate problem "manually" by doing the following:
Good luck.
Bob Schor
10-07-2024 01:29 PM
Sounds good! I was hoping there was something more permanent than this "manual" solution, but it seems that you reached the same conclusion as me. I hope we can hear back about what causes this issue and find a more permanent solution if one needs to be implemented. Thanks!