New features wanted!! Apply here!

[BobO]

We've actually talked about packing up the engine in DLL form and allowing people to integrate MX control into their application. Perhaps later.

As for a true PC control product...been around the block with that. Not opposed to it, but we'd like to begin recovering beaucoup million in R&D costs before we start muddying the stream.

Without a doubt, however, the retargetable MX engine can run control dang near anywhere. We'll let the market decide.

[watertech2]

This is excellent news!  I have been following the buzz for a while, and it looks like this new PLC and programming package will possibly deliver on many features that I've wanted, especially on board documentation and more user friendly math and data manipulation functions (i-boxes were a step in the right direction!).  I will "patiently" wait for it's release!

I had been looking hard at the Productivity 3000, but definitely like the 250 platform.  Hopefully the new controller will be compatible w/ the existing Hx-CTRIO cards or come w/ it's own hi speed counter cards.

[BobO]

This is excellent news!  I have been following the buzz for a while, and it looks like this new PLC and programming package will possibly deliver on many features that I've wanted, especially on board documentation and more user friendly math and data manipulation functions (i-boxes were a step in the right direction!).  I will "patiently" wait for it's release!

I had been looking hard at the Productivity 3000, but definitely like the 250 platform.  Hopefully the new controller will be compatible w/ the existing Hx-CTRIO cards or come w/ it's own hi speed counter cards.

I am certain that you are going to be very pleasantly surprised. I-Boxes were great, but MX is a quantum leap over them. Fast, great math, very extensive instruction set, super comm, and a very nice bunch of native CTRIO instructions...and I am barely scratching the surface. We are also going to be releasing the CTRIO2 at the same time; MX has added some very nice motion extensions for the CTRIO2. It has been a very long development road, but we are very proud of the results. You're going to like this PLC.

[odwyerpw]

Robert,
This is exciting news.  I've always thought the DL205 platform had too much going for it to be obsoleted....glad you will be giving it a substantial upgrade in the form of a new CPU, new control engine and programming package.

Presently, I just love the CompactLogix with RSLogix5000 platfrom, but that comes at a cost.  Really keen on seeing what you folks have in store for us.
Peter

[Glennlee]

Hi.

I have had one issue with Directsoft that continues to irritate me:  When I type OUT and then try to enter a V-memory address, (forgetting to hit the forward-slash key) Directsoft just "bonks" and looks at me.  Why can't the program "see" me type a "V" and automatically change to the correct function?

I realize that this is a minor point, but the extra key-stokes during a lengthy programming session tends to irritate me as I usually type in the entire V-memory address THEN Directsoft protests when I hit the enter key.  I now have to hit the forward-slash and re-enter the address.  A waste of time.

Please humor me and at least see what it would take to include this in version 5.4.

[franji1]

Hi.

I have had one issue with Directsoft that continues to irritate me:  When I type OUT and then try to enter a V-memory address, (forgetting to hit the forward-slash key) Directsoft just "bonks" and looks at me.  Why can't the program "see" me type a "V" and automatically change to the correct function?

I realize that this is a minor point, but the extra key-stokes during a lengthy programming session tends to irritate me as I usually type in the entire V-memory address THEN Directsoft protests when I hit the enter key.  I now have to hit the forward-slash and re-enter the address.  A waste of time.

Please humor me and at least see what it would take to include this in version 5.4.

Sadly, no.

Maybe we could make this an option in a future version.  Would you also want a confirmation dialog (maybe you meant to enter OUT coil C7, but fat fingered and entered V7?).  I'm guessing that if you have this feature ENabled, you would NOT want the confirmation?

[Controls Guy]

I have had one issue with Directsoft that continues to irritate me:  When I type OUT and then try to enter a V-memory address, (forgetting to hit the forward-slash key) Directsoft just "bonks" and looks at me.  Why can't the program "see" me type a "V" and automatically change to the correct function?

Just use the new MX processor and you'll probably never use another accursed OUT box!  Hosties, does MX even have an OUT box?

[franji1]

Just use the new MX processor and you'll probably never use another accursed OUT box!  Hosties, does MX even have an OUT box?

Nope, just OUT coil.  No LD* instructions in the new MX controller either.  No LD, LDA, LDIF, LDI, LDX, LDR, ...  None, nada.

The accumulator is not directly accessible via user instructions, so MATH gets easy
(SQRT(R1 + V0) / 3.14 + D7) * LOG(V1)
where R1 is an IEEE 32 bit floating point register
V0,V1 are 16 bit unsigned integer registers (range of 0-65535)
D7 is a 32 bit signed integer register (range of +/- 2 Billion)

[Controls Guy]

Yeah, I was thinking between MOVE and MATH, why would you ever need an OUT box anymore?, but wasn't sure if you kept one for old school guys.  Personally, I'm glad to be rid of the thing.  Working on the 405 when I was used to the 505 made me want to pull my hair out, between the accumulator, octal, and BCD, especially BCD.  Oh, and no K-Memory and no forces (at that time).

[BobO]

Since the math stack is now managed by MX, and must stay at a well defined state, it was necessary that all instructions that modified the stack be private instructions. There are several different ways you can go about getting a value into a register in MX...MOVE, INIT, and MATH...and perhaps 5 others I am not remembering.

[Controls Guy]

Oh, believe me, I'm not lamenting its passage.  More like dancing on its grave.

[plcnut]

I know a while back in this thread we spent some time on PID's... I have had an issue on a couple of applications where it would really help if the error deadband could be adjusted to offset the split between the positive errors and the negative errors. For example: I have been working with some processes that are constantly pushed to the "red line" and the operators want really tight control of the top end of their process. they don't care if the loop is a little slow to come back up if it gets a little low, but expect a fast response to bring the process back down. The problem is, the process responds very quickly to an increase in output, but really lagges in response to a decrease in output. It would be really nice to be able to enter two separate error deadbands for positive and negative errors to greatly simplify the program. I know that rll can control this using compares and the read-on-the-fly deadband term,(Or maybe even run two completely separate algorithms for positive errors and negative errors) but maybe this is something that can be easily changed when you all dig into ds5 again... (I haven't had a chance to check out mx to see how it deals with this situation). Thanks for your time

Any advice from you experienced process engineers in cyberland is always appreciated (sometimes I just look at things backwards )