Host Engineering Forum
General Category => Do-more CPUs and Do-more Designer Software => Topic started by: franji1 on September 17, 2012, 04:09:28 PM
-
Do-more is a retargetable control-engine. It has been developed initially for the DirectLOGIC 205 line, and as a Windows Simulator. Some customers have already asked about Do-more on 05, 06, and 405 lines. Although not all lines are as easily implemented, we would like to see the relative preferences of the various PLC systems.
Feel free to post comments, opinions, ideas, etc.
-
Soft logic engine for the PC. Possibly to run on Linux.
-
You have Click as one of the options to vote on. Can that really be done?
-
You have Click as one of the options to vote on. Can that really be done?
I don't see why not. It's just a different I/O system. We could do 305 if we wanted to, but I did not make it an option 'cuz I don't want to ;D.
-
I had to think about that. Click is developed by Koyo like the DL series? So they would not mind if you did? You think they would care if it hurt the click sales? I get Koyo and AD mixed up in the sense who owns who.
-
This poll is most certainly *not* a commentary on what can happen technically or politically. Our question is simply 'what do you want'? The technical considerations are (or should be) secondary to wants, and the politics shouldn't be a consideration at all. The reality is that both play a role. For now, however, we just wanna know what you want. If the poll makes it clear what needs to happen, then we analyze it technically and if we can find a way technically, we'll fight the political battles.
Too often we start with our opinions, do the tech work, then fight the politics...all to later realize we built something no-one wants. ::)
-
I had to think about that. Click is developed by Koyo like the DL series? So they would not mind if you did? You think they would care if it hurt the click sales? I get Koyo and AD mixed up in the sense who owns who.
The question is about what YOU want. Imagine if you could have ANY PLC PLATFORM (heck, put down TI PM550 for "something bigger than a 205" ;D)
-
I had to think about that. Click is developed by Koyo like the DL series? So they would not mind if you did? You think they would care if it hurt the click sales? I get Koyo and AD mixed up in the sense who owns who.
They'd probably care, but what are they going to do about it? Start selling good PLC's?
-
The question is about what YOU want. Imagine if you could have ANY PLC PLATFORM (heck, put down TI PM550 for "something bigger than a 205" ;D)
Aaaaaaah!! (runs screaming)
-
Click with a Do-More? Until the Click gets better analog support, I don't really see the point. If you need the power of the new CPU, then you defiantly need more hardware than the Click can provide.
Don't get me wrong, the click is awesome for small, mostly digital projects and the commands it comes with give you a lot of bang for the buck. For our fast and cheap projects we love the click, but anything else is now getting the Do-More.
However the 05 and 06 would be perfect place to harness this kind of power. Small and expandable, and with the PEERLINK command, this could do wonders to the 06 line.
-
One feature that you can take from the click is it's modular stack-ability. I like that style. No wasted space. A DoMore CPU with higher speed I/O, Motion, Analog and Communication modules in packaging similar to the Click plastic.
-
A Do-more version of the 05 would certainly be handy in some of the applications I currently put an 05 in. I have a couple of projects in the works for the H2-DM1E, but an 05 version would mean the ability to significantly improve about 30 animatronic units. ;D
Chris
-
Yeah, the 06 form factor has always felt odd to me. Probably either evolved because they were designing an expando-brick, so you get the brick part (left) and then the expando part (right), or else because they were reserving the space on the front for the LCD. It feels like a weird aspect ratio, too big in area and too shallow for the I/O count.
(OTOH, I have a Toshiba EX28 on a board on the wall behind me that's probably 10"x10" and only about 1.5" deep for just 28 I/O, so I guess everything's relative. OTOOH [that makes like three hands now if you're keeping track at home], that thing's 25 years old, so not necessarily the best example to emulate! ;D)
-
I voted for "larger than a 205" so here's the explanatory comment.
I like the 405/P3000/SLC-500ish form factor, so I'd like a DM in that size range (real American open-top barrier terminals on a module with a reasonable I/O count, decent size relays, etc.)
But....I suspect the 405 I/O modules and bus design are getting kinda obsolete (what are they, like 20 years old or something?), so I guess I'm voting for a new from-scratch platform in about that size.
Or....howzabout a good CPU for P3000? Is their bus design such that it would be feasible? Easier than doing a new one from scratch? Would an unacceptable number of heads explode at ADC?
Please not silver, white, or beige whatever you do.
-
I coouldn't agree more on the 06. I've put a few (less than 5) to use. Everything else (30+) either has an 05 or 205. The 06 is a decent controller but I don't like wiring the controller at the top. Space is a major factor with most of my applications.
Chris
-
I'll cast a "Larger than 205" vote for the red-headed stepchild, the 305 series. ;)
I like them - too bad more people don't.
-
I am surprised you guys like the size of the 405 and 305 series. The only reason we used the 405 series was the modules could handle a larger current for outputs. Since most air valves and such use less wattage these days, I have been sticking with the 205. I love the 205 series for size and flexibility. The bricks not so much, if an output goes in the brick you have to replace the whole unit. Adding I/O is hard to do for the stack-able especially if you did not leave space to add. The 205 rack is there and you can add I/O if needed. Now for really small machines then the bricks or click type units are fine.
-
Hey -- don't be lumping me in there with that 305 lover! :D
As far as why I like the 405 size, I'm a big guy with big hands. Plus I like old-fashioned open barrier wiring arms where I can see the wire go under the saddle, but I don't want to have to use low density modules to get them.
And I'm not saying I DON'T like the 205. I once did a study on alternatives to use as Modbus remote I/O (to a SLC no less), and compared the candidates on the basis of points per unit panel area, points per unit volume, cost per point, and points per module. I chose the 205 as the best fit for that design (against everything from 405's to Wago style terminal block I/O). But in larger machines where space isn't so much of an issue, I think something in the 405/P3K/SLC form factor is sometimes the best answer.
Remember, "SLC" already stands for SMALL logic controller, down from the form factor of PLC-2/3/5's, TI5x0 and 5x5's, 984's, S5-115's, Omron C500's etc, and those were all like a foot tall!
-
Sorry Controls Guy, did not mean to make you lumpy. The 205 is very cost effective indeed. It seems technology can make things smaller and smaller, but where do you stop. Too small and it is hard to wire or even read the labels. Good example is the cell phones, how small can you go until they are useless. I need the bigger screen. So I do not see cell phones getting to small where they become a pain to read the screen. Thinner yes, smaller no. Technology is also allowing more features in these smaller PLC's. In our smaller machines we still use the 205. Lots of air flow!
-
It's cool, I wasn't really offended! :D
The 205's a good machine, no doubt about it. I use a lot of them. But as an example of the point you were making -- I won't go below about 18AWG in some cases or 22AWG in others even though the wire is grossly oversized current-wise, just because it becomes a pain to work with and to label.
A development I find amusing (and I realize this isn't what YOU were saying, you just reminded me about it) is when they want to sell you something, a servo or a PLC, let's say. They say "Yay, it's so much smaller and cheaper than the old version! Think of all the money and panel space you'll save!" and you look at it and say, "Yeah, but where do the wires go? All I see is this bazillion-pin Fujitsu connector with pins the size of human hair?" "Oh, well you have to buy this remote wiring block and cable." You: "Hmmm....won't that leave me paying MORE and using MORE panel space than originally plus adding in connection points that didn't used to be there?" Them: "Look over there!" or "What are you, some kind of guy that hates puppies and grandmas?"
-
I like and am partial to the 05-06 line right now, only because I have yet to use anything else. The DO-More, from I have seen other than simulator, which I wish you had for EVERYTHING, seems pretty much the same as the DS5 coding and that I could adapt to pretty easy. The DO-More CPU, drop in replacement for any 05-205 CPU, or it's more like the 06 and you add I/O's as needed, I thnk I missed that from the presintasion.
-
Now that the click has analog support, I'm adding that back into the vote i'd make.
-
Now that the click has analog support, I'm adding that back into the vote i'd make.
We are definitely pursuing a platform similar to Click. Click itself has far too low backplane performance for a high performance engine like Do-more, but we definitely see the need for a low cost expandable brick platform. Stay tuned.
-
Here something off-the-shelf!
Why not expand the DMD Simulator to actually run I/O as an option. Let say to run Field I/O devices through ethernet or plug-in PC based I/O boards, say from National Instruments which provides a large number of I/O products.
-
Here something off-the-shelf!
Why not expand the DMD Simulator to actually run I/O as an option. Let say to run Field I/O devices through ethernet or plug-in PC based I/O boards, say from National Instruments which provides a large number of I/O products.
It is not our intention that the sim be used for actual processes, and it is time limited specifically top prevent that. That said, you can already talk to our I/O through the Ethernet port, using either the Ethernet I/O master or Modbus/TCP.
-
Have a test lab full of 405s w/ 450 CPUs that I would gradually convert over to the do-more if available. Please build the Do-more for a 405 chassis!?!?
-
If the Do-more and this http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Overview/Catalog/Field_I-z-O/Protos_X_I-z-O (http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Overview/Catalog/Field_I-z-O/Protos_X_I-z-O) had a baby, id buy it.
Honestly this would be a dream, small form factor, simple wiring. (Not jam packed like the 205) and easy to work with. We have a Beckhoff PC and they use what looks to be identical to the ProtosX and they are easy to wire and diagnose.
-
They need to add an EIP version.
-
Use a Do-More to control Protos X I/O, deep6ixed. Not as clean as all in one piece, but it gives you a lot of what you want.
-
They need to add an EIP version.
Hear, hear.
-
Use a Do-More to control Protos X I/O, deep6ixed. Not as clean as all in one piece, but it gives you a lot of what you want.
Yeah, I could do it that way. The Protos X form factor is what shines for me. Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of of the DL205 connection blocks (at least the 16point I / O) or even the Click input terminals. I have huge hands, and trying to wire in some of these PLC's are a chore.
I guess for me anymore expandability is a key point, I work at a shop where the higher ups change their design plans on a monthly basis. I had one project that started as 3 relays that I ended up putting a Click into because I got tired of rewiring every few days as the "specifications" changed.
-
I would love to see the DoMore be able to use PRO3000 racks as remote I/O somehow (via Modbus?).
I would replace everything EXCEPT 405 and 305 with DoMore 'clones': '05, '06 and Click as well. (I like the Click but it has limitations I find awkward to work around)
HOST go it right when they developed the DoMore. I would do nothing BUT DoMore given the choice!
-
I vote for the 5TI!
Just took one out of service and have a bunch of parts laying around.
On a less joking note, any plans to move to another platform? Getting ready to plan for next years improvements, and the Do-More worked out well in our last round of upgrades, it looking to use it again.
Every year maintenance and production sits down and draws up a wish list of what we would like to fix or improve and with AD prices being what they are, we can stretch our budget with electrical upgrades.
-
I would replace everything EXCEPT 405 and 305 with DoMore 'clones': '05, '06 and Click as well. (I like the Click but it has limitations I find awkward to work around)
Curious why you wouldn't change 405's and 305's. They're both really showing their age, especially the 305.
-
I vote for the 5TI!
Just took one out of service and have a bunch of parts laying around.
On a less joking note, any plans to move to another platform? Getting ready to plan for next years improvements, and the Do-More worked out well in our last round of upgrades, it looking to use it again.
Every year maintenance and production sits down and draws up a wish list of what we would like to fix or improve and with AD prices being what they are, we can stretch our budget with electrical upgrades.
5TI? Still in service? Wow.
We are definitely developing a new platform!
-
Yup, still worked like a champ too, we changed it out due to the lack of any spare parts, we had a spare T/CAM, and I/O modules but no sequencer or IO controller and the odds of finding them were next to impossible, plus I wasn't about to key in the entire program with a hand held...
-
Yup, still worked like a champ too, we changed it out due to the lack of any spare parts, we had a spare T/CAM, and I/O modules but no sequencer or IO controller and the odds of finding them were next to impossible, plus I wasn't about to key in the entire program with a hand held...
When I was a tech guy at TI, circa 1990, I serviced many of these. They were pretty old even then...
-
I would replace everything EXCEPT 405 and 305 with DoMore 'clones': '05, '06 and Click as well. (I like the Click but it has limitations I find awkward to work around)
Curious why you wouldn't change 405's and 305's. They're both really showing their age, especially the 305.
I suspect he doesn't see the value in the effort. I agree.
-
I vote for the 5TI!
I cut my teeth on PM550 back in '83. The rest, as they say, is history: TISOFT, STEP7, DirectSOFT, Do-more Designer, ...
-
Heh heh, I almost added PM550 to the thread myself! ;D
-
I suspect he doesn't see the value in the effort. I agree.
I misparsed his comment. I thought he meant 405's and 305's weren't worth tearing out and replacing with Do-Mores, but he's talking about new platforms worth Do-More-ifying. Alright, I've caught up to the train now. Carry on.
-
Maybe we could bring back the VPU? [runs away ducking]
(and that TI PC-based product I almost but can't quite remember the name of)
-
(and that TI PC-based product I almost but can't quite remember the name of)
TISOFT (the one I mentioned earlier). It ran on
VPU200 (TI-9900 uProcessor-based)
IBM-PC (x86)
TI-PC (x86 IBM PC clone)
VAX/VMS (DEC mainframe)
TISOFT Rel 1.x and 2.x source-code base could compile and run on all 4 systems using different C compilers. The TISOFT project files were inter-changeable, even though the endian-ness of the processors varied. Yes, you could take a disk with TISOFT projects from the VPU and load it on a PC (yes, the VPU200 understood FAT16 file system).
-
No, I remember TISOFT well (think I still have a PC-version copy). This was an actual control product if I remember correctly, possibly with an integrated HMI, but may not have been for actual DOS PC's. Might have been a UNIX thing -- should have said "computer" rather than PC. I think it was oriented to process industries.
-
I think you are thinking of Genesis.
-
(and that TI PC-based product I almost but can't quite remember the name of)
Take 2:
CVU5000 was an HMI product that ran on the TI PC.
Control Vision Unit 5000
-
I think you are thinking of Genesis.
Nope, remember that one too. Used it in fact. Was that originally an Iconics product or did it come from TI? This other thing I'm thinking of may not have been a TI product, but it wasn't Genesis, at least not under that name.
-
(and that TI PC-based product I almost but can't quite remember the name of)
Take 2:
CVU5000 was an HMI product that ran on the TI PC.
Control Vision Unit 5000
Ding ding ding! THAT was it -- CVU!
-
How about GE, AB, Schneider, etc... LOL! ;D
-
How about the P2000 or P3000.
I like the DO-More's Task and Program structure better. The ability to have control of the programs and task to end sooner then the end of code. The use of stages to skip code or execute code within a task or program. I just like the DO-more's overall program's control.
-
Or how about a Do-More app for your android cell-phone like the one Koyo came out for the DL series plcs.
-
Or how about a Do-More app for your android cell-phone like the one Koyo came out for the DL series plcs.
I'm not familiar with Koyo's app. We do have plans to add an integrated monitoring system with clients for Android and iOS.
-
BRX does a very nice job of taking over for DL06 applications as the shape and size is very similar and therefore can inhabit the same footprint. Great job guys!! :D
-
Soft logic engine for the PC. Possibly to run on Linux.
I use Domore as a teaching aide, the simulator is awesome, students can download software for free, etc...
But, I agree a Soft Logic engine for the PC would be amazing. Running on Linux and Raspberry PI would be awesome. Especially, If the pricing was right.
Look how successful CoDeSys has become doing just this.
-
I have two customers with relatively large 405 systems. One of them is going to need some program changes very soon in order to add two more remote (radio based) RTU systems. In order to do this and end up with a clean and organized result I am going to have to shuffle a bunch of things around in the code. It would be awesome to be able to migrate the CPU to a Do-More and let the migration wizard handle a lot of that work for me.
Someone mentioned the SLC platform We have dozens and dozens of SLC systems we support. The I/O is getting expensive and the CPU pricing has become downright criminal. Also, the full (Standard) version of RSLogix 500 required to program that series has jumped from $2380 to around $3500. We frequently pick up new customers with SLCs and one thing we always offer is setting them up with their own software license (and we never mark up the costs of software).
If there was a CPU we could plug into a SLC rack that could take over the existing extensive I/O and work with free software, you would probably need to double your manufacturing before you announced its availability. Many of the old SLCs we come across are 5/04 CPUs with a DH+ port connected to an obsolete PanelView Standard. When they want us to update the failing HMI it is almost always $5k just for parts to get started so we can swap to a refurb. 5/05 (Ethernet). A brand new 1747-L551 SLC 5/05 CPU with 16K of memory lists at $9,839.21 right now from my supplier (who doesn't give us very good price breaks for Rockwell gear because we are a small fish in his big pond).
That is about 4 times what they cost a couple of years ago.
I am already pretty much convinced that your existing products will replace our go to controller: Micrologix 1400. We use a lot of them on small systems with serial and ethernet radio modems. If your firmware were updated to include a DF1 Radio Modem protocol for the serial port and/or Ethernet DF1/PCCC, I would switch right now because I could integrate them into existing systems and make the radio masters think they were talking to other SLCs or Micrologix. This would save money and panel space as well as provide for a much more flexible and capable end product.
-
I recently had to reprogram an old waste water treatment plant SLC because we installed a new type of membrane filtration. I gave up on reprogramming the panel view. I just took it out and installed the 7" C-more from AD. Better resolution, and way friendlier operation and a ton cheaper. All the AB PLCs I did at my last job used C-mores. Getting ready to replace the ML1400 in a grinder system because the vendor wants $6000 to make a program change that it should have been delivered with! A BRX will cost less than $500 and this program is about as stupid simple as they come, which is why I want to change it!