IEC 61131

[ChemE]

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.

For what it's worth, I'd like to throw in my two cents on IEC 61131 languages - specifically function block diagram programming.  I'm a Chemical Engineer at a small food and fragrance production facility with almost entirely batch manufacturing equipment.  We run a large DCS for overall process control that is exclusively programmed in FBD, but I often find myself working on small automation projects to support a development lab or production.  As a very part time programmer, the visual "flow" of FBD is much easier for me to work with even though it isn't efficient. 

On these smaller projects, I prefer working with Automation Direct rather than a distribution channel.  I can just get what I need shipped quick.  If you offered limited IEC 61131 language support (i.e. no SFC or IL) on inexpensive PLCs, I would be more than willing to pay an add on to the software price to access it.

[BobO]

For what it's worth, I'd like to throw in my two cents on IEC 61131 languages - specifically function block diagram programming.  I'm a Chemical Engineer at a small food and fragrance production facility with almost entirely batch manufacturing equipment.  We run a large DCS for overall process control that is exclusively programmed in FBD, but I often find myself working on small automation projects to support a development lab or production.  As a very part time programmer, the visual "flow" of FBD is much easier for me to work with even though it isn't efficient. 

On these smaller projects, I prefer working with Automation Direct rather than a distribution channel.  I can just get what I need shipped quick.  If you offered limited IEC 61131 language support (i.e. no SFC or IL) on inexpensive PLCs, I would be more than willing to pay an add on to the software price to access it.

So hypothetically...for all out there that would prefer something like IEC 61131, which of the brands do you like best, with particular emphasis on the ones that are third party and license-able?

I haven't looked into it lately, but when we first developed the WinPLC, my vision was to have several available engines for it, and one or two were 61131. I am still very much in favor of doing that, and to the extent that there are license-able programming environments and engines available, it is pretty low hanging fruit from an engineering perspective. The WinPLC did teach me to never ship a piece of hardware that I didn't personally have an engine available for...hence Do-more was created...but, I still see a huge value in allowing customers to choose their weapons according to the battles they fight. Host would make no more or no less if our PLC hardware was running a third party engine programmed by a third party package...but we may we gain business we would have otherwise not without it.

[ChemE]

So hypothetically...for all out there that would prefer something like IEC 61131, which of the brands do you like best, with particular emphasis on the ones that are third party and license-able?

I have used the Honeywell HC900 controller for mid sized projects in the past and the designer software for it is great in small, stand alone process automation projects.  It is solely programmed in FBD.  Unfortunately the hardware is expensive.

Also, I saw that AB's Connected Components Workbench for the Micro 800 line has three IEC 61131 languages (LD, ST, & FBD).  I've not used this hardware myself.

I have no idea about licensing these applications, sorry.

[Controls Guy]

The only IEC packages I've used recently are all CoDeSys-based, and I'm not that impressed with it.   It's OK, not terrible.

They make the engine in ABB, Festo, Wago, Cutler-Hammer's current offering, and IIRC quite a few others.  Unfortunately, that's actually the only licensable engine I'm aware of.    Maybe you guys need to develop "HoDeSys 61131" and license that to the everyone ELSE!

[BobO]

CoDeSys, ISaGRAF, and KW were some I was aware of. Haven't looked into it for years, but I'd say they are still there. If we were to do this, it would not be something I was willing to invest a huge effort into...it would need to be easy.

I would rather add ST, SFC, and FBD to Do-more...without adding the clutter of 61131...and keep it for my customers.

[Controls Guy]

Oh yeah, IsaGRAF.  Forgot about those guys.  Never heard of KW.

ST, SFC, and (since people seem to want it) FBD are all you'd want from 61131 anyway.

[jwbaker3]

ISaGRAF is owned by Rockwell Automation.

CoDeSys is what I see the most in the market.

KW is owned by Phoenix Contact.

I have used ISaGRAF and CoDeSys, OK, not a big fan, but if it can be added without changing the DoMore core package why not there may be times when using FBD would the best choice. It will give us another tool in the box to use.

As far as the analog, I agree if you have 2 in we need 1 out. (selectable of course  ) I would give up other I/O to have it.

JW

[BobO]

So these 3rd party companies have been snatched up by larger companies? Not surprised. While everybody wants to claim that they have a 61131 solution, many do not want to invest the engineering effort. Also tells me there wasn't as much money in the software side as you would hope...more confirmation that you don't want to invest the money.

It has always been part of the Do-more plan to add more languages, but in a 'Do-more way'. First two would be ST and SFC, not sure of priority. The SFC would really just be a skin for Stage, since Stage is essentially just the ladder instructions needed to implement SFC. Don't have a strong opinion about FBD, but that seems to be the higher priority from customers. My hope is that in time we can give customers all of the benefits of 61131, but without certain 61131 complexities.

As to whether we would license a full 61131 and offer it...it would need to be easy to license and easy to implement. I looked into ISaGRAF back when we did the WinPLC, and it didn't seem too hard to port. I wasn't terribly jazzed by the package though and didn't pursue it.

Good discussion, but we should probably should move all of the 61131 talk into another thread...

[jwbaker3]

I asked our team about other packages that are 61131 and they told me about two more so I though I would pass them along. Beremiz (beremiz.org) open source, and LogicLab. (axelsw.it) I have not used ether one. I agree that if you are going to do the FBD programing you don't have to follow all of the 61131 standards. With the DoMore's programs and tasks handling I think ladder logic is still the best for me. (Old dog, but I can "if I have too" learn new tricks) I think it would be interesting to see what the "FBDoMore" would look like.

JW

[PLCGuy]

I use CoDeSys quite a bit for a servo system we use. Like said above it is okay. Clunky at best. The big thrill with this type of programming is visually you can see the flow and 2nd the Function Blocks. Everyone is so hipped on the Function Blocks. What makes them so popular is that you can put all your programming into one re-useable block that you paste in other programs without having to rewrite. The code in the function block is clunky and not very intuitive sometimes. What you can do in Do-more takes rungs and rungs of CoDeSys programming. So, if Do-More could possible duplicate the idea of putting all the ladder into one Function Block, that might satisfy customers. The only draw back it would not be compatible with other programming software. I am not sure FB's from CoDeSys can be used in other software packages. Maybe someone else can answer that. If not, the Do-More would work just fine. Bobo get your self a copy of CoDeSys, it is free, I could give you a website to download it. Check it out.

[Controls Guy]

And then to further complicate matters, PLCGuy, there's some ambiguous terms.  I think you're talking about people being able to write their own functions that they can call as a single box, hopefully with parameters, which I'd like to see myself.  But "function block" is also the name of a programming language that's an alternative to ladder, monics, ST/Basic/C, etc., and I think that's what the other guys are asking for.  CoDeSys has it, it's the stuff where you place a bunch of boxes and wire them together, like this:

[Controls Guy]

So these 3rd party companies have been snatched up by larger companies? Not surprised. While everybody wants to claim that they have a 61131 solution, many do not want to invest the engineering effort. Also tells me there wasn't as much money in the software side as you would hope...more confirmation that you don't want to invest the money.

Good point.

It has always been part of the Do-more plan to add more languages, but in a 'Do-more way'. First two would be ST and SFC, not sure of priority.

I'm gonna shoot myself in the foot here and say that while I'd lean toward SFC first, I think the market at large is probably more eager to see ST (and I'd love to see that too, of course).