New features wanted!! Apply here!

[BobO]

What Mark was saying is that DirectSoft is pretty much 2 separate packages already...crammed into one application. Nothing is formal, but our intention is to continue the trend of having all PLCs programming with 1 'package'...with 'package' being the important word here. The programming environment will likely be more loosely coupled than previous versions, but will likely be part of a single DirectSoft 6.0, upgradeable as usual. The new controller is enough different than existing controllers, that trying to merge environments into a single app was looking dang near impossible. The most likely scenario is that they will share the comm server, launch window, and other common stuff, but the actual programming app will be different...but amazingly similar.

What Mark alludes to in terms of marketing questions, is that we are looking at the new control engine as having somewhat of a life of its own, independant of the platforms it runs on, and there is some consideration being given as to what that looks like going forward. The short answer is that until we get some customer feedback and market presence, anything we say is pure speculation of future events...aka...fiction. We try not to make plans on the basis of fiction, but as times cannot help but ask and predict and make plans...that we usually get to change.

In some ways, I really hate opening the kimono this early and leave you guys (and gals?) feeling jerked around...but...I hate even worse developing in a vacuum and not making use of the talents and experience of our customers. This topic has started wandering into a bit deeper waters. We really should get some of you under NDA and start a private forum for the more intimate details...

[Controls Guy]

Please.........whatever you do, keep the kimono closed!    More intimate details would be welcome, as long as they don't involve the kimono.

[PLCGuy]

Nice reading all the good stuff coming in the near future. Where does price fit in all of this? Since the old stuff will still be around, it is nice to see new stuff coming out. Can not wait to see what AD does with the programming languages. The one thing that got our attention here was the price. For instance the Allen Bradley HMI is $3000 compared to C-More at $800. There PLC,s cost way more than AD. And the AD ease of use is unbelievable. We had a vendor come over and demo, we said no thank you. What took him to do in hours with AB we did in minutes with AD. He was surprised. There is not much we can not do with a AD plc. I was reading here customers running out of room for recipes, we have not experienced that yet. AB does do good with motion control, but we do not use AB motion so we do not need that in a plc right now. There are so many Servo Vendors out there, we found two we like. And they interface well with AD. The servo systems we do use, dont require a PLC, all is built into the drives. They have a computer controller so there is no need for a PLC. Keep the good stuff coming. AD your doing great.

[missouri100]

1.  double word comparitive elements would be very nice.
2.  a way to list elements that have been named but are not used.  as i edit and trouble shoot the code i seem to have elements that i don't use anymore.  since they are named i don't reuse them.  it is just too time consuming to go back to the ladder and do a search.

[BobO]

@PLCGuy: Sorry not to have responded regarding price...I really can't comment specifically yet, but trust me, you'll like it. 

@Missouri100: #1 is a done deal and #2 is a great idea. Not sure when we'd get #2 implemented, but I think we'll do it eventually.

[ATU]

What about comparitives for string variables?

A =  B   Strings are identical

A >  B  Alpha-numeric sort, String A would proceed String B

A <  B   Alpha-Numeric sort, String A would follow string B

[BobO]

String processing is an interesting problem in a PLC. We definitely want to do it right, and plan on putting some considerable thought into how to do so. My instinct tells me that string handling is probably best handled by a high level BASIC-like or ST-like language, but as we get a little closer to that point...probably not the initial release...we'll have a better sense of how to do that right. Certainly comparison functions or operators would be a must in any complete implementation. I'm sure we'll use the forum to gather input when the time comes.

[Controls Guy]

2.  a way to list elements that have been named but are not used.  as i edit and trouble shoot the code i seem to have elements that i don't use anymore.  since they are named i don't reuse them.  it is just too time consuming to go back to the ladder and do a search.

But doesn't cross reference view in usage mode handle that?  I often already have cross reference view open in normal mode and just use that, although it's not quite as functional for this purpose as usage mode.  But my point being, if it's more trouble to click the button to change to usage mode, normal mode must be fairly functional for this.

I also tend to preplan data memory in Excel, at least in programs that let us do a good import of synonyms [ahem] and assign entire blocks of data, including some spares.  I admit that tends to get out of sync with the code unless you update it every half hour, and if you're going to do that you want to make the Excel copy the master and make no changes from the ladder editor.

[Controls Guy]

String processing is an interesting problem in a PLC. We definitely want to do it right, and plan on putting some considerable thought into how to do so. My instinct tells me that string handling is probably best handled by a high level BASIC-like or ST-like language, but as we get a little closer to that point...probably not the initial release...we'll have a better sense of how to do that right. Certainly comparison functions or operators would be a must in any complete implementation. I'm sure we'll use the forum to gather input when the time comes.

I'd certainly like to be able to do comparisons in ladder, and move values around that I'm not actually performing any other operations on (like the part name in a recipe), and even do simple manipulation like concatenation or substrings, but when it comes to parsing some string from a scale or something, I'll take the BASIC/ST please.

[franji1]

2.  a way to list elements that have been named but are not used.  as i edit and trouble shoot the code i seem to have elements that i don't use anymore.  since they are named i don't reuse them.  it is just too time consuming to go back to the ladder and do a search.

We've kicked around the idea of a "Super View" that includes XRef, Doc Editor, Data View functionality in one view, where you can turn on or turn off "columns".  With that, it wouldn't be too hard to add some filters like elements in the program, elements NOT in the program but with documentation, et. al..  This last filter would be perfect for your purpose.  It would also be cool to sort by element, by nickname, by first address referenced, etc.

However, this view is just pie in the sky stuff for now 

[Controls Guy]

Oh, yeah, and a Data View that can show hundreds of values on the screen on the same time without the BS columns and without the setup effort.  [screenshots to follow]

[hauck]

Ok...realizing that I might find myself frightened by the proposals....I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Simple question: If wishes were free, what changes would you make to the DirectLogic PLCs?

We're leaving this wide open, so don't be timid! Post!!

I would like to have an IBox equivalent to A-B's Scale with parameters function

[franji1]

I would like to have an IBox equivalent to A-B's Scale with parameters function

Please describe in enough detail that we understand the basic functionality (we're not an A/B shop  )

[b_carlton]

The box contains an entry for the input location, input min, input max, scaled min, scaled max, and output location. See attachment.

Its much like the current IBOX except it doesn't assume 0 - 4095 as the desired min and max input points. You could do the same thing by thinking about what the engineering unit would be at 0 input and 4095 input but then the whole point of these boxes is to remove the thinking part.

[franji1]

Bernie,

Thanks!  That's exactly what I needed!