• May 14, 2021, 11:35:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
C-More is a Koyo Electronics product. The forum and AD support will be your best bet. C-More help files are marginal at best.
If i was going to start over I would use BRX everything, we still have a few dl260's out there. I use the bx-DMIO for all my remote bases because i use Do more for everything now and that is cheaper then the ebc100 and does what i want it to.

 I also have had some trouble with with the Terminator I/O 120v input cards but we didn't have coil suppression on the coils but the rating of the bx over the t1h is a big difference. even without suppression i haven;t lost a bx input yet. The best part of the T1H stuff is you just have to keep adding a power supply and you can go on forever, i just don't find it as robust as the bx.
Does Host have anything to do with the CMore? I'm looking for an option to the intolerable new AD "Community" forum design for information about CMore lag time issues. Any other good sources of in depth Cmore knowledge besides internet forums? We're working with AD tech support on one issue, but they haven't been responsive on the all the issues.  Like can anyone explain why when the client panel is in screen saver mode the server panel lag time increases, sometimes up to four additional seconds! We definitely need to clean up our programs, but would like to know where to apply our efforts for the most improvement.

I use a positive differential contact with "program_name.running". There are probably other ways but this will work.
I am trying to create a bit in a Program that causes something to trigger on the first pass through the program, and then not be triggered again until it EXITs and RUNs again later.  I'm striking out on finding such a bit.  .FirstRun, .FirstScan, .ScanCounter = 0, all don't quite do what I need.  I don't think Delta .RunCounter would do it either.  What can I use? 
Fair, if I "needed" to mix them, are there any performance differences?

That's more of a function of the Master than the Slave.  If the Master is doing Modbus/TCP on an BX-EBC100 vs. a Do-more doing Do-more Ethernet I/O to a BX-DMIO, the Do-more is optimized - it also knows about the scaling, ranges, etc.  You would have to do any scaling by hand w/Modbus/TCP.

If both Masters are Do-more Ethernet I/O, then BX-EBC100 and BX-DMIO should be identical.
Fair, if I "needed" to mix them, are there any performance differences?
BX-EBC100 can be a slave to anything that talks EBC100 or Modbus/TCP, in addition to Do-more, e.g. H2-ERM100 with a DL 260 CPU can master a BX-EBC100.  a Modbus/TCP Master can master a BX-EBC100 w/a bunch of BX I/O.  And, of course, it can be a Do-more Ethernet I/O slave to any Do-more Ethernet CPU (H2-DM1E, T1H-DM1E, or BX-DM1E, even the Simulator running on your PC).

BX-DMIO is JUST for Do-more.  It does NOT do Modbus/TCP.  It does NOT do EBC100 protocol.  Hence, it can only be a slave to BX-DM1E, H2-DM1E, T1H-DM1E, or the Simulator.

They both support the same set of I/O modules (like you stated).  Just BX-EBC100 has more possibilities to work with other Master types.  If you are looking to have different type systems, some with H2-ERM100, and some with Do-more Ethernet I/O, but you want to standardize all your Ethernet I/O as BRX, you may want to choose the BX-EBC100 since it could work with either type Master.  However, if you are going straight Do-more Ethernet I/O Master, use the BX-DMIO.
Well that's kind of my question too, because the BX-EBC100 also uses BRX I/O as well.

I mean, what's the real difference here?
Why not use BX-DMIO and keep the whole thing BRX?   Going to be a lot cheaper than Terminator or DirectLogic for expansion.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10