Host Engineering Forum
General Category => Do-more CPUs and Do-more Designer Software => Topic started by: BobO on December 27, 2013, 10:12:51 PM
-
OK...so here's the deal...
Do-more has been in the wild for a little over a year and the response has been overwhelmingly positive...however...we do get a lot of requests for platforms more like the DL06. That's not surprising, the DL06 has been so incredibly successful. The question is what that really means. The DL06 is a nice chunk of built-in I/O, with 4 expansion slots, at a good price...but what is the real driver? Price? I/O count? Package size? Expansion? I suspect it is a combination of all of the above, but I would really like to hear your opinions.
I am personally pretty fond of expando-bricks...bricks of one or more base size(s) with some form of modular expansion, so I'm pretty sure that will factor heavily in the design. The question becomes I/O counts and types, and where the sweet spots would be if there were multiple brick sizes. Obviously you want a ton of everything...in a super small package...virtually free...right? Unfortunately reality dictates that we have to make compromises.
So...with the intention of optimizing price points, sizes, and application fitness...if you could choose 3 basic brick sizes, specifying discrete, analog, and encoder/pulse I/O types and counts...what would they be and why? The key point is to *balance* cost, size, and fitness for the broadest application base likely to use Do-more. More isn't better if it drives price and size out of range.
I'd love to get a very robust discussion going here, so don't be shy!! It's pretty rare that end-users get to 'sit down' with the designers and offer guidance on a product, but that is exactly what I want to do here. So...sound off!!
-
Yes I would agree with your thought. Something like a dl05 expandable like an 06. I like an 05 better when it comes to wiring. Something like a click is OK too. We do more smaller projects where a dl205 is overkill. Or maybe install a domore processor in an 05 and 06 .
-
I almost never use an 05. The low I/O count (8/6 expandable to 30) in combination with lack of expansion is a killer, plus no PNP outputs.
The I/O count on the 06 (20/16, expandable to 100 + Modbus) handles probably 10 times the fraction of projects an 05 will, so I use a lot more of them, but the size and aspect ratio is weird. Prefer deeper, less panel area, with wiring arms running vertically in normal PLC style. Don't care about having space for an LCD on the front. I've used one of those exactly once.
Personally, I don't like I/O modules that are too dense to have terminals and you have to use a high-density connector and a remote terminal. Once you figure in the added space and cost, you haven't saved anything over having modules with terminals. The exception is when you can use a cable with free leads on the other end and you can connect to loads in the control cabinet. I've used the 32-point 205 modules like that.
-
With the release of the Analog options for the Click, at our shop we have actually stepped away from the DL05/06 series for our smaller projects. Now we use the Click for small jobs and the 205 /w a Do-More for the more complex jobs. And by small jobs, anything with more than a few relays and a timer or two, and its done by the Click.
And I'm forced to agree with Controls Guy, sometimes smaller isn't that much better, some of these super high density connectors have really become a pain to work with.
But for the next 'Vision' of the Do-More? Why not do something that combines the best of both worlds? A Microbrick format like the DL05 with the expansion style like the Click? Add more on as you need it and not be limited to just the 4 slots?
-
I would like to see
1. Native Ethernet Port
2. High speed I/O (50 - 100 microsecond range) with configurable filters (program accessible)
3. Native High Speed Counters
4. Stackable I/O
5. I would sacrifice density for higher current outputs with overload protection (just hate it when I blow an output on an 06)
6. Media Card + Host Port USB Module Option
-
I would like to see the next generation of the Do More in a stackable format, so we can add I/O as needed. I like this type so we don't loose panel space unless we need the I/O and we are not restricted to only 4 additional I/O cards. Some onboard I/O would be nice more the better. As far as analog I would like to add this as needed, we use a lot of analog, some systems may use Thermocouple/voltage or RTD, 0/10 volt or 4/20ma inputs and outputs. We have a lot of systems that have 4/20 ma input and 0/10 volt output or the reverse. If we were able to setup the onboard analog as needed (0/10-4/20 in and 0/10-4/20 out in the same unit) it would be nice to have a unit with 4 analog in and 2 analog out. We need built in Ethernet and I really like the USB programming port. I would also hope we will be able to transport the program from platform to platform in the Do More family. I agree with the other post, I am not a fan of the onboard LCD, if operator/user changes are needed use an HMI and for troubleshooting use a PC. I don't use the onboard 24 volt power supply on the 06 (I know some do) if we need 24 vdc for analog of other I/O we always use a separate power supply, for noise reduction and if something fries I would rather replace a separate power supply than the CPU, if an onboard power supply was clean enough and larger than 300 ma I may use it. We will need a range of I/O from ac/dc discrete, thermocouple/MV, RTD, analog 0/10 volt / 4/20ma and relay outputs. Maybe more later.
Thanks, JW
-
Great feedback guys! Thanks!!
I will respond to some of the specifics in some quoted posts following...
-
Or maybe install a domore processor in an 05 and 06 .
Yeah...Host is really not a mechanicals-savvy company, so we would prefer something like this...but there are a number of reasons we probably won't go down this road. Some of those reasons are a bit sensitive, so out of respect for all involved I won't elaborate. It isn't totally dead, but going a different path completely eliminates multiple classes of hurdles and we feel that the resulting product will have less limitations.
-
Actually, while we use the DL06 a lot I hope you don't use that physical platform. The add-on card slot guides and latching system leave a lot to be desired. The small add-on cards are very limited.
Better the central unit, with the triple com ports and varying numbers of embedded I/O (possible some high speed or analog) then add-on cards for other HS counting, analog, comms etc.
-
I almost never use an 05. The low I/O count (8/6 expandable to 30) in combination with lack of expansion is a killer, plus no PNP outputs.
The current thinking is to have 3 or 4 brick sizes, from very small to pretty large. The key here is that Siemens and AB have units down in the 6/4 range, that while not terribly capable, do have a place. In DL, I think DL06 is the highest volume, but DL05/DL105 have sold a fair amount as well. Click is probably eating into the DL05/DL105 business pretty good, but I don't have those numbers. There is certainly a place for low counts though, and ADC is selling a big pile of Click. The key is clearly that low I/O counts need low prices to match.
The I/O count on the 06 (20/16, expandable to 100 + Modbus) handles probably 10 times the fraction of projects an 05 will, so I use a lot more of them, but the size and aspect ratio is weird. Prefer deeper, less panel area, with wiring arms running vertically in normal PLC style. Don't care about having space for an LCD on the front. I've used one of those exactly once.
Vertical is hard with bricks, but natural for expansion. The whole justification of a brick is to save cost by putting as much into the infrastructure as possible...one housing, large PWBs, one power supply. That naturally tends toward horizontal. Modular is flexible, but bricks are cheap. While not always optimal, cheap sells. If the cheap also happens to be good, cheap sells a lot. That's our target.
Personally, I don't like I/O modules that are too dense to have terminals and you have to use a high-density connector and a remote terminal. Once you figure in the added space and cost, you haven't saved anything over having modules with terminals. The exception is when you can use a cable with free leads on the other end and you can connect to loads in the control cabinet. I've used the 32-point 205 modules like that.
I see us using Euro style terminals, primarily due to cost, flexibility, and abundant supply. My personal preference is 5mm, although for 16 point expansion it will probably have to drop to 3.5mm. Not sure about 32 point. It inevitably becomes the answer for somebody, although I doubt the volumes are very high.
Upon choosing single stack Euro style, your X dimension is driven almost exclusively by the required screw heads for the target I/O count. We could probably pack stuff a bit tighter if we went with a custom terminal, but we are trying to minimize custom and maximize value. The result will likely be a package somewhat larger than it needs to be...but...hopefully with a cleaner installation due to more relaxed spacing.
-
A Microbrick format like the DL05 with the expansion style like the Click? Add more on as you need it and not be limited to just the 4 slots?
That is precisely the vision.
-
I would like to see
1. Native Ethernet Port
2. High speed I/O (50 - 100 microsecond range) with configurable filters (program accessible)
3. Native High Speed Counters
4. Stackable I/O
5. I would sacrifice density for higher current outputs with overload protection (just hate it when I blow an output on an 06)
6. Media Card + Host Port USB Module Option
Current picture answers 1 to 5 very well. We would definitely like to do #6 as well, although not sure where in the road map it will fit.
-
How about a motion controller style similar to a trio in size and come out with remote I/O that can hook to it.
-
I would like to see the next generation of the Do More in a stackable format, so we can add I/O as needed. I like this type so we don't loose panel space unless we need the I/O and we are not restricted to only 4 additional I/O cards. Some onboard I/O would be nice more the better.
I agree that stackable is the best choice, and once you choose stackable, you largely eliminate slot limitations.
As far as analog I would like to add this as needed, we use a lot of analog, some systems may use Thermocouple/voltage or RTD, 0/10 volt or 4/20ma inputs and outputs. We have a lot of systems that have 4/20 ma input and 0/10 volt output or the reverse. If we were able to setup the onboard analog as needed (0/10-4/20 in and 0/10-4/20 out in the same unit) it would be nice to have a unit with 4 analog in and 2 analog out.
Good feedback. Not sure about the design implications of voltage and current from the same channel, but configurable voltage channels is no problem.
We need built in Ethernet and I really like the USB programming port.
We are considering a two tiered approach. A stripped model with just USB and no analog, and a higher end model with analog and Ethernet.
I would also hope we will be able to transport the program from platform to platform in the Do More family.
The only limitation would be platform dependent resources. If the new platform were to contain features that other platforms didn't support, the program would obviously need some work. As far as moving between platforms, it would work exactly like it does now...which if you haven't tried it, it's completely automatic to move between the Sim, T1H, and H2.
I don't use the onboard 24 volt power supply on the 06 (I know some do) if we need 24 vdc for analog of other I/O we always use a separate power supply, for noise reduction and if something fries I would rather replace a separate power supply than the CPU, if an onboard power supply was clean enough and larger than 300 ma I may use it.
We would likely try to support a low current supply for the guy who needs a little for a sensor or two, but for cost considerations, I don't see us trying to replace a bulk supply.
We will need a range of I/O from ac/dc discrete, thermocouple/MV, RTD, analog 0/10 volt / 4/20ma and relay outputs. Maybe more later.
We would support all the standards. If not built in, certainly as option modules.
-
How about a motion controller style similar to a trio in size and come out with remote I/O that can hook to it.
Motion controller? We'd like to do something further down the road, but the near term product is just an old-fashioned PLC built around Do-more.
-
Oh Yeah, one more thing. Blue, I like the color blue.
-
What about I/O requirements?
1. Typical discrete counts?
2. Typical analog counts?
3. High speed?
4. Counting/timing/encoder?
5. Pulse outs?
We know folks use a pretty wide range of I/O counts, although due to available platforms, Do-more is currently going further up the food chain. We don't really see ourselves targeting Click type projects, but we would like to effectively cover DL06 and would also like to provide a good answer for the apps that require Do-more power, but may not have large I/O requirements. Part of what I hope to accomplish here it to gain a better understanding of what I/O counts will hit the sweet spot, then design for that. Even for the low-end, my hope is that we can price well enough that folks that like Do-more will use it over other products that might cost less...your time is worth something, right?
-
Oh Yeah, one more thing. Blue, I like the color blue.
Blue-more?
-
I see no need for a small brick the click handles any small jobs for us, ever thing else get a 205 base with a do-more the only limiting thing with the 205 is bipolar analog (2 channels per card 12 bit)no 16 bit, with the T1H I can get more analog if that what I need. The limiting items on the T1H is serial communication as none. I would like to see some added features before a new platform is added.
I think motion control would hold more bang for the buck. That is one thing that not available from AD had the need for simple single axis position control many times. Went I say motion control I talking +/- 10 volt output closing loop from encoders, analog (voltage or current), and serial link (SSI or acsii) from encoder or lasers. Stepper are good but very limited in power! I think this could be build off a CTRIO as the basic motion profile is there just need the analog output and the ability to read the other types of feed back.
Is there a reason the D2-CM and D2-EM will not work with the Do-More? The 8 slot limit is a big limit specially when to start looking 2 channel analog cards. Adding a H2-ERM100 just to get a few more I/O point is a little over kill at that point a second Do-More starts to make more sense.
-
I would say the minimum model to be 16 in / 8 out or better. Anything smaller than that, you can't be too complex and you could probably do it with the CLICK. Unless, you need it only for the communications capability and in that case you don't need any I/O.
-
I see no need for a small brick the click handles any small jobs for us, ever thing else get a 205 base with a do-more the only limiting thing with the 205 is bipolar analog (2 channels per card) with the T1H I can get more analog if that what I need. The limiting items on the T1H is serial communication as none. I would like to see some added features before a new platform is added.
We sell more DL06 targeted modules than 205 or Terminator...by far. Do-more's major growth will come in that space...almost guaranteed. The number one request I hear is this.
As for enhancement to Terminator, we are more than happy to do so...and it isn't hard. It does cost money though, and until Terminator has demonstrated viability as a Do-more platform, we are taking the wait and see approach. If it gets some traction, we will definitely add the SERIO, CTRIO2, and ECOM100. We're selling some, but mostly we're getting tire kickers. We'll know more in six months or so. Just for reference, that was always the plan. We are in no way surprised or disappointed. We knew that Terminator was somewhat niche, and we came in with very low expectations.
I think motion control would hold more bang for the buck. That is one thing that not available from AD had the need for simple single axis position control many times. Went I say motion control I talking +/- 10 volt output closing loop from encoders, analog (voltage or current), and serial link (SSI or acsii) from encoder or lasers. Stepper are good but very limited in power! I think this could be build off a CTRIO as the basic motion profile is there just need the analog output and the ability to read the other types of feed back.
Part of our vision is to build a Do-more centric motion module. Hardware is easy, the control itself isn't so bad, but ADC has a particular business model that governs how we approach products that are deemed support issues. Motion is clearly in that category.
Is there a reason the D2-CM and D2-EM will not work with the Do-More? The 8 slot limit is a big limit specially when to start looking 2 channel analog cards. Adding a H2-ERM100 just to get a few more I/O point is a little over kill at that point a second Do-More starts to make more sense.
Yes...limitations. The EM/CM architecture is performance limited, ADC really does't sell that much of it, and we have a better solution. Please look into the Ethernet I/O Master that has been added to Do-more 1.1. All remote I/O is native, the performance is great, you can mix and match 205, Terminator, and drives, and CTRIO/2s work anywhere in the system. It still costs a bit more than EM/CM, but doesn't require an ERM100, and doesn't have the limitations of either.
-
I would say the minimum model to be 16 in / 8 out or better. Anything smaller than that, you can't be too complex and you could probably do it with the CLICK. Unless, you need it only for the communications capability and in that case you don't need any I/O.
Here's a great question: How much more would you spend for a Do-more CPU than a Click CPU? I'm not trying to compete with Click, but there is a point where the added benefit of Do-more exceeds the additional cost. Is that $50? $100$ $200? Or am I missing it completely...do you view Click as more preferable than Do-more (without regard to price) for the applications it can handle?
-
Part of our vision is to build a Do-more centric motion module. Hardware is easy, the control itself isn't so bad, but ADC has a particular business model that governs how we approach products that are deemed support issues. Motion is clearly in that category.
That's sad sure would like to see AB lose a few customers. Could commands be add the would link the Do-More to third party motion controllers like Gail and stay in this business model?
Yes...limitations. The EM/CM architecture is performance limited, ADC really does't sell that much of it, and we have a better solution. Please look into the Ethernet I/O Master that has been added to Do-more 1.1. All remote I/O is native, the performance is great, you can mix and match 205, Terminator, and drives, and CTRIO/2s work anywhere in the system. It still costs a bit more than EM/CM, but doesn't require an ERM100, and doesn't have the limitations of either.
You still would have to have a H2-EBC100 less than $100 more and you got a second Do-More. Cost wise how about Modbus rtu into a click.
-
That's sad sure would like to see AB lose a few customers. Could commands be add the would link the Do-More to third party motion controllers like Gail and stay in this business model?
The issue is simply in trying to scope a product that ADC can provide a high quality of support for, not a lack of willingness to do so. It has been part of my plan for a while...we will do a true motion module. It just takes time.
You still would have to have a H2-EBC100 less than $100 more and you got a second Do-More. Cost wise how about Modbus rtu into a click.
I think it costs $179 more to use than the EM/CM, and part of the discussion has been to do a cost-reduced version of the EBC100 that strips out some of the general purpose I/O functions. It would probably still cost somewhat more than EM/CM, but has significant advantages over it. Like everything in engineering, it's all about trade-offs. It cost me a nice chunk of NRE just to get products through the required agency approvals before ADC will consider selling it. Those costs have zero relation to sales volume or market price...which sadly, means that many things I would be wiling to do, and even find easy to do, won't generate enough sales to justify the cost.
-
I would like to see the analog cards in a 16 bit version, 4 points with selectable 0/10 or 4/20. Discrete input and outputs with 8 and 16 points and relay output in 8 and 16 point. Maybe a high current output in 4 points,?? (currently I use a relay for high current outputs) 4 high speed inputs on the base unit or a 4 point module. As far as Do more vs Click,, I think there is an added value to be able to write a task or program and transport it across the entire family and scale the system as needed. From a customers point of view the maintenance staff will only need to have one software (free) package to learn and use and from an integrators point of view I can give them the access to the program for troubleshooting system without worry that the program is being changed, over the entire Do More family. I think this is worth something, how much is in the eyes (pocket book) of the customer.
JW
-
But for the next 'Vision' of the Do-More? Why not do something that combines the best of both worlds? A Microbrick format like the DL05 with the expansion style like the Click? Add more on as you need it and not be limited to just the 4 slots?
That was kind of what I was picturing too. The original SLC controllers were brick style, with expansion outside the chassis. You could do something similar, in a smaller form factor, in at least three ways.
You could make it stackable like Click (historically I dislike stackables, but in an application where loss of any single module fails the entire application, which is probably most jobs, then they're no less reliable than chassis/backplane controllers).
You could have an I/O rack/chassis that mechanically plugs and snaps onto the end of the base unit.
You could have a serial or parallel bus extension cable.
I'd be happy with any of those options.
-
Here's a great question: How much more would you spend for a Do-more CPU than a Click CPU? I'm not trying to compete with Click, but there is a point where the added benefit of Do-more exceeds the additional cost. Is that $50? $100$ $200? Or am I missing it completely...do you view Click as more preferable than Do-more (without regard to price) for the applications it can handle?
A question with two, maybe two and a half answers. My initial reaction was to say that I'd never use a Click under any circumstances, but that's not quite true. I realized I have a project on the books at the moment that requires dumb Modbus I/O at minimal cost. Click is actually cheaper at the I/O count I need than products designed specifically to do that. You don't have to do too much software to implement a dumb Modbus I/O rack, so I'll choke down the software long enough to make it work. I can't picture a project where Click and a Do-More brick would both be in consideration, but if there were such a project, I'd probably pay a premium of $125-150 for the base Do-More vs. the Click CPU (So like $199 - 229 for the base unit including some onboard digital I/O. Call it partway between an 05 and an 06 with 12 in 8 out). I don't expect Ethernet at that price, but serial in addition to the assumed USB would be nice if feasible.
-
Siemens has got a very low end version of the S7-1200...6 in/4 out I think, that is under $200, quantity 1, through distribution. I'd like to have a Do-more answer for that. Siemens makes some compromises in their unit, and we would do the same...no expansion at that level, basic discrete I/O only. Not sure about serial...every $ counts at that level. Since Siemens or AB or Koyo sells other products that you will likely buy along with the PLC, they can price to the larger model...subsidizing a super low end PLC...even at $0 profit. We can't do that, since we don't make the other stuff. I can price a limited low end aggressively, but it still has to make a reasonable profit.
The larger bricks would not have the limitations of the bottom model, but would obviously cost a bit more. When you consider that we are talking about putting the exact same CPU we are currently selling for $299 and $399 (and more for Terminator) into an expandable brick that can be a reasonable alternative to existing low end DL CPUs, we're already stretching. But price sells and we realize that the closer we can get, the more we will sell.
The question about Click was just as a reference point. I know that we cannot compete with a sub $100 unit, but my hope is that some subset of the lowest end customers would be willing to spend a bit more to get a full Do-more CPU, and I think that is a reasonable assumption that some will...but only if they perceive Do-more as valued. I will readily concede that there are likely some that deem Click's limits to be an advantage...simple is good.
I just don't have a good sense of what the market's perception Do-more really is. Initial Do-more response has been good. Nothing in automation ever happens as fast as you would like, but it's close to what I expected given we launched on a very mature platform. How that scales into a fresh new low cost platform is a big unknown.
-
Vertical is hard with bricks, but natural for expansion. The whole justification of a brick is to save cost by putting as much into the infrastructure as possible...one housing, large PWBs, one power supply. That naturally tends toward horizontal. Modular is flexible, but bricks are cheap. While not always optimal, cheap sells. If the cheap also happens to be good, cheap sells a lot. That's our target.
Unless you go full stackable mode (Click/Panasonic/LG/Idec, etc.) In that case even the CPU/base unit is typically bookshelf orientation with vertical terminals.
Omron had an interesting product a while back. Never used one myself and don't know if they sold well or if they're even still available. Network ONLY, no onboard I/O, no local bus I/O, serial remote I/O only. Not asking for one, have no idea if it would even target any Host goals, just thought it was interesting and it's not the sort of idea that would occur on its own.
-
Oh Yeah, one more thing. Blue, I like the color blue.
Blue's cool, just no white or beige, thanks!
-
The larger bricks would not have the limitations of the bottom model, but would obviously cost a bit more. When you consider that we are talking about putting the exact same CPU we are currently selling for $299 and $399 (and more for Terminator) into an expandable brick that can be a reasonable alternative to existing low end DL CPUs, we're already stretching. But price sells and we realize that the closer we can get, the more we will sell.
If the non-E version of the 205 Do-More is $299 (IOW competitive with classic non-E 205's and $100 more than an 06) where do you see the price range for the line of small Do-Mores? The entire range, as well as the smallest expandable model?
In fact, is there room for as many distinct models as you're envisioning, especially since most of them are expandable?
-
If the non-E version of the 205 Do-More is $299 (IOW competitive with classic non-E 205's and $100 more than an 06) where do you see the price range for the line of small Do-Mores? The entire range, as well as the smallest expandable model?
In fact, is there room for as many distinct models as you're envisioning, especially since most of them are expandable?
Too early to talk pricing, too many unknowns.
The second question is a good one and part of why we are having this discussion. Anything that can be included in the brick itself will be lower cost than expansion. The thought was to pick the brick size closest to your basic I/O requirements, then add modules as needed to complete the system. In truth, the simplest answer is fully modular...no brick I/O...but that isn't the most cost effective to the user.
-
Here's a great question: How much more would you spend for a Do-more CPU than a Click CPU? I'm not trying to compete with Click, but there is a point where the added benefit of Do-more exceeds the additional cost. Is that $50? $100$ $200? Or am I missing it completely...do you view Click as more preferable than Do-more (without regard to price) for the applications it can handle?
That's a complex question. For small jobs (2013 was the year for small jobs, quoting jobs this year was like being at a country village bazzaar) This is when size is really important. The CLICK CPU is only 2 inches wide with no PS, which most of the time, I run it off one PS for everything. I like a smaller enclosure because it costs less all around, parts and labor. Customers like a smaller enclosure because they can find a place for it on an extremely compact machine on an already cramped factory floor. When you're dealing with less than 8/8, that's the case. When the program is only 10 lines or less, DoMore is overkill. $100 for a CPU is acceptable. When you start getting into 16 or more inputs and the operation is a little more complex, Yes, I would pay $100 - $200 more for a better instruction set and Ethernet. Better yet, the customer is willing to pay more. You have to pick the right pair of shoes for the job.
-
Great feedback all!! It's very helpful!
So what about encoder inputs and pulse outputs...how critical are they in the brick itself, as opposed to an option module?
Assuming they are useful built-in, how many channels would you have?
What speed in and out to be useful?
-
For the projects we have done if we need encoder input or pulse out we will use an option card, our needs for this have been very low to have it built in. I think built in analog would be more useful (voltage/current selectable like others have) 2 in 1 out or 4 in 2 out. (To beat the dead horse a little more) A motion control card would be nice, we use a stand alone motion controller for these type of projects now. (I know I saw the other posts, but now I feel better) ;D I agree with ATU, we have to use what is the best fit for each project (if the customer does not require a brand). There is always a little salesmanship, education, cost vs performance vs labor (programming and maintenance) and must haves in every project.
Have a Great New Year!
JW
-
We use a high speed counter input in almost all of our applications. The HS input on the DL06 comes in perfect.
-
For the projects we have done if we need encoder input or pulse out we will use a card, our needs for this have been very low to have it built in. I think built in analog would be more useful (voltage/current selectable like others have) 2 in 1 out or 4 in 2 out. (To beat the dead horse a little more) A motion control card would be nice, we use a stand alone motion controller for these type of projects now. (I know I saw the other posts, but now I feel better) ;D Have a Great New Year!
JW
I don't see any reason that we couldn't build in an 'analog out/encoder in' motion axis feature. I would need to be educated on what that looks like in practice (who's the best example? AB? Siemens? Other?), and we would likely chose to keep it pretty simple to minimize the hit to ADC support staff, but I am certainly not opposed to it. I doubt that we would consider coordination or scripting, but I would think simple closed loop positioning and velocity would be very manageable.
I keep seeing the request for analog voltage/current to be select-able. Most of ADC's existing modules are one or the other, but not both. Is that a common thing, or just the preference if possible?
-
We use a high speed counter input in almost all of our applications. The HS input on the DL06 comes in perfect.
It's pretty slow, isn't it Bernie? Speed isn't an issue?
-
I don't see any reason that we couldn't build in an 'analog out/encoder in' motion axis feature. I would need to be educated on what that looks like in practice (who's the best example? AB? Siemens? Other?), and we would likely chose to keep it pretty simple to minimize the hit to ADC support staff, but I am certainly not opposed to it. I doubt that we would consider coordination or scripting, but I would think simple closed loop positioning and velocity would be very manageable.
We currently use ABB/Baldor, Yaskawa and AB for motion. It would be nice to be able to handle 2 axis closed loop.
[/quote]
I keep seeing the request for analog voltage/current to be select-able. Most of ADC's existing modules are one or the other, but not both. Is that a common thing, or just the preference if possible?
[/quote]
Siemens, Omron, GE and AB (there may be others) all have selectable analog cards 0-10, -10-+10, 0-20ma, 4-20ma. It makes it very nice to not have to stock all the different types of cards in the shop and on every service truck. I wont say it is a must have but it would be great.
JW
-
The high speed counting we are doing is an encoder attached to a chain transferring product through the machine. It's only about 200-500 hz. Not very fast but too much for capturing in a scan. OK - 'medium speed counter'. But it's nice to have.
-
The 06 is limited to 7khz. It wouldn't hurt to bump that up a bit, maybe 25kHz - 50KHz. Some features I like on the 06 are the preset data tables for the HS counters and the interrupts. Easy to setup , easy to use. Don't try to do too much and make it more complicated to configure. Plug and Play. Reserve high end stuff for separate motion modules. I just want to hook up my encoder (Quad or dual counters) and see my counts and presets in your memory map, like you did with the DL HS modules. Analog in and Out would be great. Single channel PID control with optional pulse output in one box. I would like to see configurable Analog, but if I had a choice between that or a better price I would settle for 0-10V. Enough to control a drive, temp control or add a Pot. Anything more demanding, buy the add on Analog module or use a converter.
-
For me, analog would more often be useful than high speed inputs and outputs.
My suspicion, though, is that the differential cost to make a few of the general purpose I/O's high speed / interrupt capable like the 06 is pretty low, probably lower than analog. If it's cheap, why NOT do it? If you do the high speed discrete, it would be convenient to be able to do both high speed inputs and pulse outputs at the same time, if feasible. I don't think you can do that on the 0x.
Like b_carlton, I sometimes get into that gray area where I need to count something faster than generic I/O but not super high speed. Maybe a few hundred Hz to a kHz or two.
It's not going to be a huge deal to me if neither analog nor high speed I/O is included directly on the CPU, so long as there are expansion modules available.
Are all sizes planned to have the same memory size as the 205 DM? A controller with that much memory can do some interesting things, even if it doesn't have to interface to a lot of I/O. Even if somewhat less than the H2-DM, that's still a heck of a lot of memory for a micro PLC.
Oh, and if you do a motion module coupled to an analog output, please make sure the output can be configured as a torque reference, not just velocity.
-
For me, analog would more often be useful that high speed inputs and outputs.
My suspicion, though, is that the differential cost to make a few of the general purpose I/O's high speed / interrupt capable like the 06 is pretty low, probably lower than analog. If it's cheap, why NOT do it? If you do the high speed discrete, it would be convenient to be able to do both at the same time, if feasible. I don't think you can do that on the 0x.
Like b_carlton, I sometimes get into that gray area where I need to count something faster than generic I/O but not super high speed. Maybe a few hundred Hz to a kHz or two.
We plan on making all inputs use software based filtering, so the only difference between 'normal' and 'high-speed' is the speed of the opto-isolator. Faster optos do cost more, and enough to be relevant in a low-end machine like this, but I'm sure we'll make some of them fast.
Are all sizes planned to have the same memory size as the 205 DM? A controller with that much memory can do some interesting things, even if it doesn't have to interface to a lot of I/O. Even if somewhat less than the H2-DM, that's still a heck of a lot of memory for a micro PLC.
We'll be using the DM1 CPU...same specs as existing units.
-
For the projects we have done if we need encoder input or pulse out we will use a card, our needs for this have been very low to have it built in. I think built in analog would be more useful (voltage/current selectable like others have) 2 in 1 out or 4 in 2 out. (To beat the dead horse a little more) A motion control card would be nice, we use a stand alone motion controller for these type of projects now. (I know I saw the other posts, but now I feel better) ;D Have a Great New Year!
JW
I don't see any reason that we couldn't build in an 'analog out/encoder in' motion axis feature. I would need to be educated on what that looks like in practice (who's the best example? AB? Siemens? Other?), and we would likely chose to keep it pretty simple to minimize the hit to ADC support staff, but I am certainly not opposed to it. I doubt that we would consider coordination or scripting, but I would think simple closed loop positioning and velocity would be very manageable.
I keep seeing the request for analog voltage/current to be select-able. Most of ADC's existing modules are one or the other, but not both. Is that a common thing, or just the preference if possible?
Hallelujah! I am one hundred percent in favor of fully-closed-loop analog motion control.
For us, this would entail eliminating a Trio motion controller. The specs to do this would mean an isolated +/- 10 VDC analog output for speed or torque control of the drive, 10MHz - capacity encoder feedback (Trio can do 7 MHz, but hey, shoot for the moon), and inputs for positive over-travel, negative over-travel and home limit switches.
Termination-wise, all of this could be managed on a single card - 2 for analog, 6 for encoder (a, /a, b, /b, z, /z) and three switch inputs, so grand total of 11.
Altetrnatively for motion, you could embrace protocols - ether-CAT, CanOpen 402, even Devicenet or Mechatrolink.
An SSI or EnDat encoder option is also good.
Seriously, the lack of integrated motion control in PLCs today is pretty mystifying to me. I use motion controllers all over the place. I don't need interpolated motion, I'm not laser-etching in cursive, I just need reliable movement, point-to-point, and the ease of use of a PLC of switches and outputs. Somehow, many companies seem reluctant to touch this.
As a latter note - having done a large project in do-more, I am personally unhappy with the stage-method. My wish list would include an option to program in IEC 61131 with full UDFBs. You could even charge a markup for it (like several companies do) and I would pay it.
Thanks!
TM
-
For us, this would entail eliminating a Trio motion controller. The specs to do this would mean an isolated +/- 10 VDC analog output for speed or torque control of the drive, 10MHz - capacity encoder feedback (Trio can do 7 MHz, but hey, shoot for the moon), and inputs for positive over-travel, negative over-travel and home limit switches.
Termination-wise, all of this could be managed on a single card - 2 for analog, 6 for encoder (a, /a, b, /b, z, /z) and three switch inputs, so grand total of 11.
What you are describing would have to be an option card. What I was committing to look into for inclusion on the brick wouldn't be line driver and wouldn't be anywhere near that fast.
Seriously, the lack of integrated motion control in PLCs today is pretty mystifying to me. I use motion controllers all over the place. I don't need interpolated motion, I'm not laser-etching in cursive, I just need reliable movement, point-to-point, and the ease of use of a PLC of switches and outputs. Somehow, many companies seem reluctant to touch this.
I can't speak to other PLC companies, but I have some sense of ADC. It's largely two things: 1) they know their customers, and 2) they know what it takes to support them. While I'm sure some of our customers do the kinds of things you are describing, in my experience they are 3 sigma...or more. ADC reminds me pretty often that the folks I deal with here on this forum are a generally savvy subset of their overall customer base. I have been using the Do-more development effort to push the envelop a bit, and I really hope to broaden the base, but ADC's business model tends to cater to a certain type of customer so there is a bit of inertia to overcome. We'll see how a true encoder in/analog out motion axis goes over. If the sky doesn't fall, I'll push harder.
As a latter note - having done a large project in do-more, I am personally unhappy with the stage-method. My wish list would include an option to program in IEC 61131 with full UDFBs. You could even charge a markup for it (like several companies do) and I would pay it.
I'm sorry you don't like stage. I personally love it, but you are certainly not alone. I have kicked around the idea of offering a 61131 product, but that goes back to my point about support requirements. ADC has been very reluctant to consider such products. I have no doubt that licensing a product and porting their engine would be a very manageable effort, but I gotta have ADC's buy-in before we would do it.
-
Another thing to take into account, tmoulder, is that some guys LIKE to distribute responsibility with standalone motion controllers and so on.
I like to be able to offload the realtime processing of motion loop closure to a device dedicated to doing that. Now if the expansion module has its own CPU and is in effect what I just described, just with better comms to the PLC and better mechanical integration, then great, but a lot of times I'm not going to want the CPU to try to close loops, especially multiple loops, on a microsecond basis like a dedicated standalone controller can do.
That's not to say the guys who want it integrated shouldn't get that as an option, but might be part of the reason mfgrs don't automatically do it onboard.
-
Are you all going to replace the I/O cards with your own. This way the cards are a base 10. The D2-12TR cards are a good place to start 0-5 skipping 6&7 then 8-13 and skipping 14&15. I really like where the stage has gone with the Domore and would love to see an improvement in the I/O for the 205 series or see a 305 size rack system.
Thanks
Chris
-
Are you all going to replace the I/O cards with your own. This way the cards are a base 10. The D2-12TR cards are a good place to start 0-5 skipping 6&7 then 8-13 and skipping 14&15. I really like where the stage has gone with the Domore and would love to see an improvement in the I/O for the 205 series or see a 305 size rack system.
Thanks
Chris
The primary motivation for creating I/O cards on 8 point boundaries is actually due to the electronics themselves and data accessing. Koyo's decision to make their I/O memory octal was due to the modules being inherently octal, not the other way around. To change I/O modules to groups of 10 would increase the cost of the module and would actually result in a slight performance penalty in the I/O driver.
What do you see as the advantage of the 305 over the 205, that it's slightly larger and beefier?
-
I like the size of the cards and the terminal screws. The smaller Mitsubishi A series, old slick 500 series, and the 305.s were really a nice size to work with and around in an electrical cabinet. The last input card I bought for a Do more 205 project one of the screws stripped out. It is tough to find a small enough screw driver for the job and not to mention the size of the wire to fit into terminal. I really have liked the Do more like I said before and have changed over several machines already but the weak spot to me is with the cards other than that I like the product.
-
I like the size of the cards and the terminal screws. The smaller Mitsubishi A series, old slick 500 series, and the 305.s were really a nice size to work with and around in an electrical cabinet. The last input card I bought for a Do more 205 project one of the screws stripped out. It is tough to find a small enough screw driver for the job and not to mention the size of the wire to fit into terminal. I really have liked the Do more like I said before and have changed over several machines already but the weak spot to me is with the cards other than that I like the product.
Have you used Terminator before? If so, what are your thoughts on the 5mm terminals on it?
-
no I haven't used the terminator other than at training about 3-4 years ago I don't remember the size of the terminals. I did check them out today after my first post. Looked like the terminator would raise my price of a plc system. I compared everything that I have in my current project and compared it to what I would need from the terminator. Looked ok from what I could tell will have to try one and see. Are the terminal screws bigger? How about the construction is the terminator robust?
-
no I haven't used the terminator other than at training about 3-4 years ago I don't remember the size of the terminals. I did check them out today after my first post. Looked like the terminator would raise my price of a plc system. I compared everything that I have in my current project and compared it to what I would need from the terminator. Looked ok from what I could tell will have to try one and see. Are the terminal screws bigger? How about the construction is the terminator robust?
Terminator is definitely a bit more costly relative to the 205, but generally eliminates the need for external terminations that are often used with 205. I just mentioned it because it uses a terminal that is essentially the same as what we are proposing for the new platform. It is a 5mm euro style, not a barrier strip like the 305. I am not a big fan of the 205's high density terminal, but the low density one isn't bad...it just won't accommodate anything more than 8 points.
We like the euro style because the user will be able to choose screw or spring clamp. Spring clamps aren't as common in the US, but are very common in Europe and as I understand it, hold as well or better than screws. We like the idea of offering both.
-
It takes a little more engineering to plan out your wiring, but I prefer to use the spring clamps wherever I can.
-
I have used several of the spring clamps, most of our equipment is from Europe. I do like them the best.
-
I am not a big fan of the 205's high density terminal, but the low density one isn't bad...
Has anyone else had an issue where the plug for the high density terminals on the front of the I/O cards gets one of the contacts bent up and then doesn't make a connection?
Now, I will say after working with European equipment, I've taken a liking to the spring clamps. Most of our equipment is German or Austrian design and as much as Siemens is overpriced (IMHO), they do have some rather nice features.
I saw on here a suggestion for external memory like SD or USB, I have to second this. With data collection now becoming a bigger part of process control, this is a must.
And some feedback on analog, after using analog on the DL250-1 Cpu, I can honestly say that the Do-More's analog features blow this thing out of the water. We use the Do-More to control two DC drives to draw wire down from half inch to ordered size at 1200 ft a minute and with analog feedback, the machine can now detect when a die opens and shut the line downs, just by monitoring a minor 1% change in load, something that we couldn't do on the DL-250-1.
-
Has anyone else had an issue where the plug for the high density terminals on the front of the I/O cards gets one of the contacts bent up and then doesn't make a connection?
I think I did have that issue one time, but I've used a LOT of 205's. That one's hard to diagnose, easy to fix.
Not sure why they'd get that way in the first place. I'd stock extra connectors so we could immediately start wiring as soon as design was done on a new project, when we might still not have the modules, then when the modules arrived, the wiring arms were already done, and you take the connector that comes with the module and it replaces the ones from spares. So the extras were received loose and were stored in a bin. Maybe something poked the contact while it was in the bin or maybe it was just a manufacturing defect, who knows. Anyway, like I said, hard to diagnose, easy to fix.
-
I saw on here a suggestion for external memory like SD or USB, I have to second this. With data collection now becoming a bigger part of process control, this is a must.
Plug-able is a bit harder when you run a bare metal processor (no OS) like we do on the DM1. If at some point in the future we go to some form of embedded OS (possible) it becomes much easier to support plug-able media.
The DM1 does have extra flash set aside for a small file system of 8 or 10MB. Not huge, but fine for logs and recipes. The file system itself has already been developed, but the instructions and DmD support was going to take more time than we were willing to spend prior to Rel 1. I've heard enough interest that I think we will get that into 2.0. It won't be as large or as convenient as an external card, but will be well integrated and we'll make a nice DmD utility for managing the content.
-
I also prefer spring clamps. I do not like the 16 point cards on the 205, I have had the same problems with the clamp that makes contact on the card edge bending if not plugged on properly. I had to travel 1200 miles to work on a system because the customer unplugged the cards trying to troubleshoot the system and did not get them plugged back in right. (8 hours downtime and a large bill) They are also a pain to wire even with small wire, and harder with larger wire. (some of my customers require 16ga MTW as the min wire size) I like the screw connectors on the 05/06 option cards OK the Terminator better and the Terminator spring clamp best. Don't forget selectable analog.
Thanks,
JW
-
I also prefer spring clamps. I do not like the 16 point cards on the 205, I have had the same problems with the clamp that makes contact on the card edge bending if not plugged on properly. I had to travel 1200 miles to work on a system because the customer unplugged the cards trying to troubleshoot the system and did not get them plugged back in right. (8 hours downtime and a large bill) They are also a pain to wire even with small wire, and harder with larger wire. (some of my customers require 16ga MTW as the min wire size) I like the screw connectors on the 05/06 option cards OK the Terminator better and the Terminator spring clamp best.
It looks like 5mm removable euro style will be what we use on the brick and on 8 point modules. For 16 point, we will have to go to 3.5mm, which is what is used on DL05/06 option cards and Click. I'm pretty sure that spring clamp versions are available for both the 5mm and 3.5mm sockets. Not sure how ADC will handle it, but current thought is to let customer specify which they want at purchase time, although they may just sell the terminals separate as a 'goes with' type part.
Don't forget selectable analog.
So am I understanding you correctly JW, you want 'selectable analog', right? ;)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
YES! I Do!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It is my understanding that we were already moving that direction to eliminate part numbers. But if we needed confirmation, I've heard one or two customers stress the importance of selectable analog... ;D
-
Can we look forward to some 16 bit stuff?
-
Can we look forward to some 16 bit stuff?
Analog? Current thinking is only 16 bit or better, at 1 ms update rate or better.
-
It looks like 5mm removable euro style will be what we use on the brick and on 8 point modules. For 16 point, we will have to go to 3.5mm, which is what is used on DL05/06 option cards and Click. I'm pretty sure that spring clamp versions are available for both the 5mm and 3.5mm sockets. Not sure how ADC will handle it, but current thought is to let customer specify which they want at purchase time, although they may just sell the terminals separate as a 'goes with' type part.
Those are fine. Even the 3.5mm like on the 0x 10-pt modules is preferable to the 16-pt 205 connector to me. I'm not real fond of that one either.
AB and Siemens both ship modules connectorless and you have to order the screw or spring clamp terminal separate, since they've offered both types (in AB's case with the advent of the Control Logix). That bit me the first time I did a CLX job because the SLC arms are screw-only and come with the modules. I just ordered the CLX modules and didn't realize they didn't come with connectors, so they they showed up and we couldn't start wiring. So that's a potential minor issue.
One approach would be to have an module order numbers "D1-16ND1-1S" and "D1-16ND1-1C", and still only stock one module and both connectors. The customer gets in his order the D1-16ND1-1 module and the appropriate connector stocked separately but only one virtual part number. That would avoid the "Oh, I forgot to order the connectors" issue, the longer part list, without committing 50% of the shelf stock to one style or the other and rendering it unavailable to the people who like the other style.
-
No, really, don't hold back, JW....tell us how you feel! ;D
-
Analog? Current thinking is only 16 bit or better, at 1 ms update rate or better.
Wow! 8)
Not much point in going more than 16-bit with standard industrial automation wiring practices.
-
Analog? Current thinking is only 16 bit or better, at 1 ms update rate or better.
Wow! 8)
Not much point in going more than 16-bit with standard industrial automation wiring practices.
And we probably won't. The thing is that technology has moved analog forward enough that it isn't a big deal to do what I'm proposing, we'll see though. Current thinking is just that...current, and subject to change at a whim.
-
I'd probably be happy with anything that's at least 14-bit. Probably 15 for bipolar. Love the high speed, though.
-
All sounds great. 16 bit and 1 ms is great. I am assuming you mean 1 ms per channel? Will the analog have 0 to 5 and bipolar for the voltage? If not 16 bit 0-10 is still better the 12 bit 0-5. Not that I am pushing or anything but ;),, what do you see as the time line for the new product? (3 months, 6 months, a year, don't know yet?) You had to know someone would ask, may as well be me! ;D
JW
-
All sounds great. 16 bit and 1 ms is great. I am assuming you mean 1 ms per channel? Will the analog have 0 to 5 and bipolar for the voltage? If not 16 bit 0-10 is still better the 12 bit 0-5. Not that I am pushing or anything but ;),, what do you see as the time line for the new product? (3 months, 6 months, a year, don't know yet?) You had to know someone would ask, may as well be me! ;D
JW
Don't have all of the analog details yet, but the goal is to never be frustrated with either the resolution or update rate. We'll see what that translates to. One thought has been to allow you to configure precision vs update rate...faster with less bits or slower with more. As we get into it, we'll have a better idea of how practical it is.
In terms of time to market, I'd say at least a year, and likely more...but we aren't committing to anything specific. Much of it will come together quickly, but a typical UL certification time and ADC's typical launch time create a critical path of 8 to 10 months...and it won't be going to UL for a while. So sadly it won't be happening soon. My goal for this thread was to get feedback (now and hopefully ongoing) and get it into folks' mind that Do-more will be available in many forms. This is not a one and done by any stretch, Do-more is the future of Host.
-
My hope was for sooner but I understand. I was a Plant Engineer for a couple of manufacturing companies before starting this adventure on our own. I know UL can take a lot of time and $$$, and they work on their schedule not yours.
I think speed or resolution approach on the (selectable ;)) analog card would work for us. Do you foresee a CTRIO option card?
Thanks JW
-
My hope was for sooner but I understand. I was a Plant Engineer for a couple of manufacturing companies before starting this adventure on our own. I know UL can take a lot of time and $$$, and they work on their schedule not yours.
Much of what we expect to set the eventual launch is out of our control. Even if I thought we could be done much sooner (we won't) it would still be longer due to these issues. Been doing this at Host for nearly 22 years and the only constant is that engineering always takes longer than you think and hope. I would rather not set schedules and give folks false hopes.
Do you foresee a CTRIO option card?
Definitely. Although we will probably phase the release, bricks first, then option cards.
-
I've added another thread talking about interrupts and fast response modules in the new platform, as well as possibly adding to existing platforms. Please comment over in the other thread: http://forum.hosteng.com/index.php/topic,1287.0.html (http://forum.hosteng.com/index.php/topic,1287.0.html)
-
How big of a brick are we thinking an 05 size or an 06 size or something inbetween?
-
How big of a brick are we thinking an 05 size or an 06 size or something inbetween?
We're currently planning several different sizes.
-
Thanks
-
More details...we are leaning toward 3 sizes, as follows...
| *Model* | *Discrete In* | *Discrete Out* | *Analog In* | *Analog Out* | *High speed in* | *High speed out* | *Ethernet* | *Serial* | *Expansion* | *Power Supply* |
| A | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 6@100KHz | 4@50Khz | None | ?? | None | DC |
| A++ | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 6@100KHz | 4@50Khz | None | ?? | None | DC |
| B | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8@100KHz | 6@50Khz | None | Yes | 8 cards | AC, DC |
| B++ | 10 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 8@250KHz | 6@50Khz | Yes | Yes | 8 cards | AC, DC |
| C | 20 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 8@100KHz | 6@50Khz | None | Yes | 8 cards | AC, DC |
| C++ | 20 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 8@250KHz | 6@50Khz | Yes | Yes | 8 cards | AC, DC |
Each model would have several P/S and I/O options as appropriate, like DC/DC/DC, DC/DC/Relay, AC/AC/Triac, AC/AC/Relay, AC/DC/DC, AC/DC/Relay, etc.
The high speed inputs and outputs would operate similarly to DL06's, but more flexibly and Do-more-ish. Current thinking is 4 high speed counting/timing channels similar to the CTRIO/2, but with inputs assignable from any of the onboard DIs, and outputs assignable to any onboard DOs...not fixed like CTRIO or DL06...and hopefully fully hardware with virtually no latency between an input change and out output firing. Also leaning toward all inputs being capable of firing interrupts, and some number of fast hardware timers that could fire interrupts. Motion would be akin to the CTRIO2's Axis mode, with perhaps 4 define-able axis blocks (which are only as useful as your available I/O and speed) that would be controlled via an instruction set derived from the CTRIO2's axis instructions.
Again...super preliminary...brainstorming...*will* change. In fact y'all can help change it. :hint,hint:
-
B++ 10 8 2 0 8@250KHz 6@50Khz Yes Yes 8 cards AC, DC
| C++ | 20 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 8@250KHz | 6@50Khz | Yes | Yes | 8 cards | AC, DC |
Also leaning toward all inputs being capable of firing interrupts, and some number of fast hardware timers that could fire interrupts. Motion would be akin to the CTRIO2's Axis mode, with perhaps 4 define-able axis blocks (which are only as useful as your available I/O and speed) that would be controlled via an instruction set derived from the CTRIO2's axis instructions.
Again...super preliminary...brainstorming...*will* change. In fact y'all can help change it. :hint,hint:
Add the analog out to the B++ the C++ would be more I/o than need. Use the Ctrio2 software as a motion profile generator, add some basic motion commands and a flexible Serial communication module for communication with things like laser distance measurement and you would have a low cost motion controller that would cover 99% of the stuff I have to deal with. Use Peerlink to communicate with a master PLC I would be in good shape. Let input interrupts handle over travel and thing like that. Let the hardware interrupts give you a steady time base to calculate position correction on say 1 ms. the analog out give you a command signal(velocity or torque) High speed inputs for encoder and analog inputs for position back options like LTV, laser, ultra sonic, ETC.
-
Add the analog out to the B++ the C++ would be more I/o than need. Use the Ctrio2 software as a motion profile generator, add some basic motion commands and a flexible Serial communication module for communication with things like laser distance measurement and you would have a low cost motion controller that would cover 99% of the stuff I have to deal with. Use Peerlink to communicate with a master PLC I would be in good shape. Let input interrupts handle over travel and thing like that. Let the hardware interrupts give you a steady time base to calculate position correction on say 1 ms. the analog out give you a command signal(velocity or torque) High speed inputs for encoder and analog inputs for position back options like LTV, laser, ultra sonic, ETC.
We'd probably have to give up some other I/O to add an analog output. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but we can evaluate it. If we were able to, it would likely only be one channel.
-
We'd probably have to give up some other I/O to add an analog output. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but we can evaluate it. If we were able to, it would likely only be one channel.
8 inputs and 6 out would be a workable combo with a single analog out would have to be bipolar +\- 10 volts as most drives take that. a single axis would be fine as long as you could do a following on quad input and a second quad for encoder feed back. you would not want it handle a large amount of I\O any way.
-
I think we could make it work by dropping 1 DI and 1 DO...for 9/7/2/1. We'll kick it around.
-
On the lower I/O count models, consider making the analog inputs capable of withstanding 24V. Then the software can be made to use it as either a DI or an AI. I've seen several brands do this. Should be able to be done with outputs as well. (I've actually done this in a cheesy way when I needed one more DI, and had spare AI's but not DI's, but let's not go there!)
One approach, since you have so much more resolution than before, would be to make it actually a 0-24V analog input. Or, you could just read analog to 10 or 12V, but be able to take 24V. You don't necessarily have to be able to differentiate it beyond "over 12V" if you're never going to use that level except as a DI.
-
I hate to resurrect a dead post, but has there been any updates on this?
-
has there been any updates on this?
I received a survey from A-D a week ago, where they were asking for customer input on the new platform. But they obviously are not giving any time frames yet.
-
This is mostly certainly moving forward. I don't want to oversell it, but it seems like every time we jump into some aspect of Do-more, we find ourselves doing far more than we thought we could in ways we never imagined. I don't want to give details, but an example is interrupts. When we did the H2-DM1E, we took the approach that it was fast enough that we didn't need them. We changed our minds and decided that we wanted them for the next platform, and ended up going way beyond the conventional approach. Again, no details, but envision two tiers of execution with tight I/O and motion integration and you'd be close. We've said it time and again, but it is absolutely true: Do-more is just getting warmed up.
The survey is just to make sure we're addressing the needs before we get so far into the design that things can't be changed. If you have specific care-abouts, we are definitely listening.