MechaWare Release Notes 04.03.08
MechaWare Version |
MPI Version |
Release Date |
Production Release |
04.03.08 |
21Mar2014 |
Production Release |
04.03.07 |
30Oct2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.06 |
18Oct2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.05 |
1Oct2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.04 |
27Aug2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.03 |
23Jul2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.02 |
10May2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.01 |
5APR2013 |
Production Release |
04.03.00 |
11Mar2013 |
Installation Note: The MPI 04.03 library must be installed before installing MechaWare. For more information about instructions on installing the MPI Library, see Installing the Motion Development Kit (MDK).
System Requirements
Important Things to Know - This section highlights important changes for this release!
Software Installation Instructions
New Features
Version 04.03.00 - 04.03.08
<none>
General Changes
Version 04.03.00 - 04.03.08
<none>
Fixed Bugs
Version 04.03.08
|
Relation Block (ROLBlock) great than (>) and Less Than (<) not working correctly (crashes) |
|
|
Reference Number: MW81 |
|
|
Type: Fixed Bug |
|
|
MPI Version: 04.03.08 |
|
|
Problem:
Customer tried to use '>' or '<' in block and it didn't work. Using '>=' will work as a work-around.
Cause:
The operator '>' and '<' values are 0 and 5.
But thoes values are undefined or 0.
|
|
|
Fix/Solution:
A space was added to '>' and '<'.
Example: ' >', <'.
All comparisons of operators are 2 byte words now.
|
|
PID_GT and PIV_GT Blocks are not supported in MechaWare API MPI 4.x |
|
|
Reference Number: MW80 |
|
|
Type: Fixed Bug |
|
|
MPI Version: 04.03.08 |
|
|
Problem:
PID_GT and PIV_GT are not supported in the MechaWare C++ API.
Cause:
There are no PID_GT and PIV_GT functions in MechaWare library.
|
|
|
Fix/Solution:
PID_GT and PIV_GT code was added to MechaWare library.
|
Version 04.03.07
|
Models that include labels on the signal won't load |
|
|
Reference Number: MW79 |
|
|
Type: Fixed Bug |
|
|
MPI Version: 04.03.07 |
|
|
Problem:
This problem was in the malfunction of the Name tag not being anticipated.
Cause:
If the customer defines the name of the wiring, it will have a new tag name called "Name". Therefore, it is misunderstood with Name of the block.
|
|
|
Fix/Solution:
Information on wiring is skipped and is disregarded for now.
|
|
Feedback redirection does not work |
|
|
Reference Number: MW78 |
|
|
Type: Fixed Bug |
|
|
MPI Version: 04.03.07 |
|
|
Problem:
Feedback block cannot refer to previous connection.
Cause:
The cause of this problem was in the processing order of the connected investigation and the reference. The Feedback block had to have finished the investigation of connected situation before that because the reference to the connection information was earlier than other blocks. .
|
|
|
Fix/Solution:
The processing order is now corrected.
|
Version 04.03.04 - 04.03.06
<none>
Version 04.03.03
|
Multi-Ouputs (when input or output object is subsytem) are incorrectly handled by mdl2mw |
|
|
Reference Number: MW77 |
|
|
Type: Fixed Bug |
|
|
MPI Version: 04.03.03 |
|
|
Problem/Cause:
Multiple Outputs are not handled correctly by mdl2mw when subsystems are involved.
Two cases of failures:
1. Multiple block outputs (e.g. 2x2 block) which are inputs to Subsystems: mdl2mw uses only the first block output as inputs to both Subsystem ports.
2. Multiple Subsystem outputs which are input to blocks (e.g. to 2 user buffer blocks): mdl2mw incorrectly converts the block output and maps it to a wrong pointer which is the input for the user buffer block.
|
|
|
Fix/Solution:
Multiple output ports are properly resolved.
|
|
|
Affects to Application Code:
mdl2mw correctly maps the output pointers when subsystems are involved.
|
Version 04.03.02
<none>
Version 04.03.01
|
Multi-Ouputs (when input or output object is subsytem) are incorrectly handled by mdl2mw |
|
|
Reference Number: MW76 |
|
|
Type: Fixed Bug |
|
|
MPI Version: 04.03.01 |
|
|
Problem/Cause:
Negative values in inputs are not handled as if they were 0xFFFFFFFF in BROL block (and UserBuffer block). They were handled as if they were 0.
This was caused by a bad type conversion.
|
|
|
Fix/Solution:
The types were correctly converted.
|
|
|
Affects to Application Code:
Negative values are handled as if the user entered 0xFFFFFFFF
|
Version 04.03.00
<none>
Open Issues
Existing Bugs
Currently no existing bugs.
Limitations
Currently no known limitations.
|