Please tell us what your experience has been with Do-more...

[BobO]

Do-more has been shipping for 5 months and many of you have now tried it. Please help us improve it. Rate it, and then add a message giving us a sense of how you see yourself using it, or not using it, in the future. If there are specific areas that are standing in the way of using it in the future, please explain how we can do a better job. We are actively working on new platforms, we plan to be selling this for a long time, and we genuinely want your comments...good, bad, or otherwise.

[JMB]

Just happened to be working in the Do-More Designer on my first Do-More project when the announcement e-mail popped up so this is very timely. 

I would have to say that I am overall very impressed with the system - there is a learning curve as with any new system but I'm finding a number of things that are awkward or hard to do with a DL205 (indexing into a table of values comes to mind) much easier to configure and work with.  I love the easy modularity of the programs/tasks though I'm afraid my project will end up being a huge collection of small bits glued together with RUN/ENTASK commands.  I worry about maintainability of this, particularly if I have to pass the project on to a colleague but it's still not very large so we'll see how the search / navigation features operate once it gets a bit bigger.

Getting it to talk to a C-More screen wasn't as seamless as doing so with a DirectLogic (when trying to use K-Sequence) but the transparent Modbus slave setup is really nice so I've switched to that. 

I will definitely use these in place of DL205s going forward.  There's really no downside to having a more powerful PLC with a built in Ethernet port.

As far as a wishlist, if you can get this controller in a DL06 form factor with an Ethernet port, I would never buy a DirectLogic PLC ever again.  The only other thing that I've found myself wanting is if the built-in Ethernet port could act as an ERM.

So far, a very positive experience.

Jacob

[BobO]

I would have to say that I am overall very impressed with the system - there is a learning curve as with any new system but I'm finding a number of things that are awkward or hard to do with a DL205 (indexing into a table of values comes to mind) much easier to configure and work with.  I love the easy modularity of the programs/tasks though I'm afraid my project will end up being a huge collection of small bits glued together with RUN/ENTASK commands.  I worry about maintainability of this, particularly if I have to pass the project on to a colleague but it's still not very large so we'll see how the search / navigation features operate once it gets a bit bigger.

Are your tasks and programs standalone behaviors, or are you sequencing them? If you are using them for sequence, I would look at using stages. If they are standalone, and you find it cumbersome to manage, it would be great to brainstorm some improvements to the project manager. We are definitely open to improvements.

Getting it to talk to a C-More screen wasn't as seamless as doing so with a DirectLogic (when trying to use K-Sequence) but the transparent Modbus slave setup is really nice so I've switched to that. 

I understand the issue. Wish there were a better answer, but hopefully as ADC gets Do-more native support across the line it will get easier.

I will definitely use these in place of DL205s going forward.  There's really no downside to having a more powerful PLC with a built in Ethernet port.

That's what we hope to hear more of!

As far as a wishlist, if you can get this controller in a DL06 form factor with an Ethernet port, I would never buy a DirectLogic PLC ever again.

I think you will like what we have coming down the pipe. Can't give details yet, but we are definitely answering the need.

The only other thing that I've found myself wanting is if the built-in Ethernet port could act as an ERM.

That feature will be DmD 1.1. It's already running in the lab, and is very nice. Not just an ERM, but fully native Ethernet remote I/O.

[Glennlee]

I LOVE IT!!!!!  I have completed one major project with it and, even with the learning-curve, I was able to translate a massive 260-based program to the DoMore fairly easily and it came up functional quite well.  I especially love the flexibility with the Modbus communications:  I had to talk to two Sure servos AND five recitifiers, out two different ports!  I actually had to simplify my implementation as I no longer needed the time-sharing code I had written sequence port access for the 260.

I would write for the DoMore exclusively but it doesn't always apply.  CLICKs are perfect for the simpler jobs, like an 05, but the 05 can have a CTRIO.  I don't miss the CTRIO in a CLICK at all.  It DOES need a bit more analog though.

The 06 would be the only other platform I would port the DoMore to.  BUT, before porting it, add ERM capability to the DoMore in the 205 series, or give me back the CM/EM.

I wanted to use the DoMore for a proposed project I am working on now, but the DoMore doesn't have the memory or data-logging to a USB memory stick, so I will use the PRO3000.  (Which is NOT a step down!  The PRO3000 is awsome too!)

The 305 is a dinosaur and the 405 SHOULD be a dinosaur.   I will not be sorry to see them fade away into a much desrved retirment.  They held their own but it is time for smaller and faster!

[Controls Guy]

That feature will be DmD 1.1. It's already running in the lab, and is very nice. Not just an ERM, but fully native Ethernet remote I/O.

Could you explain how you're differentiating between the two?  I thought ERM/EBC WAS the native Ethernet RIO system for DL PLC's.

[BobO]

That feature will be DmD 1.1. It's already running in the lab, and is very nice. Not just an ERM, but fully native Ethernet remote I/O.

Could you explain how you're differentiating between the two?  I thought ERM/EBC WAS the native Ethernet RIO system for DL PLC's.

ERM just paints memory and currently offers no Do-more based configuration, visibility into base contents, or support for modules like CTRIO. The onboard function is essentially indistinguishable from local I/O, is configured via the system config, and has complete native support for all CTRIO structures and instructions.

[BobO]

Ok...over 40 views, but only 3 votes in my poll. If you have used Do-more, don't be afraid to vote!

[Controls Guy]

ERM just paints memory and currently offers no Do-more based configuration, visibility into base contents, or support for modules like CTRIO. The onboard function is essentially indistinguishable from local I/O, is configured via the system config, and has complete native support for all CTRIO structures and instructions.

Ah OK, so by "native" you mean "Do-More native", not "ADC native".  Sound like some awesome capability!  So how will the new capability be delivered?  New EBC firmware?  A new EBC specifically for use with DM CPU's?

I haven't had a project in almost a year where I got to pick the controller but have a couple machine-builder customers I've told I want to use Do-More as the standard controller from now on, and they're OK with that, but haven't built any new equipment or THEY have had the controller specced to them.  Shouldn't be too much longer though -- so I keep telling myself!

[Controls Guy]

Oh, and I've also never liked the options for what to do on an EBC base on loss of comms.

Last state is risky, but all-off won't work with a lot of continuous processes.  You lose comms for a second, everything turns off, crashes the process, then the comms come back, but it's too late.  You can't even do online edits, because it interrupts comms long enough to burp the remote racks.  (I realize the specific issue of online edits should be alleviated in Do-More due to the hot cutover runtime edits).

I vote for a third setting that keeps last state for some user definable time, like say 5 seconds, followed by all off if comms aren't restored during the delay.

[Rastus81]

I love my do-more plc!

I chose it (and other AD products) for my long term home automation project mainly based on cost.
I am connected with the designer software from a virtual machine on my mac via ethernet.

The project has some digital and analogue io, and hmi and remote access. So the do more is perfect.

The resources and help files are far superior to Mitsubishi Q series. In fact the whole learning curve has been more enjoyable than Mitsi.

Id like a keyboard shortcut for toggling a force on/off. ie Mitsi has shift + enter.

Well done! it is comparable to much more expensive systems.

[BobO]

Ah OK, so by "native" you mean "Do-More native", not "ADC native".  Sound like some awesome capability!  So how will the new capability be delivered?  New EBC firmware?  A new EBC specifically for use with DM CPU's?

There is new EBC100 firmware, but the key is the Do-more CPU itself. We've tweaked a few things in the EBC, but mostly to make the CPU's job easier...no real changes in EBC100 functionality. It's already seamless enough that I can update CTRIO firmware while it is installed in the remote base...no small feat. I think folks will like it.

[Controls Guy]

There is new EBC100 firmware, but the key is the Do-more CPU itself. We've tweaked a few things in the EBC, but mostly to make the CPU's job easier...no real changes in EBC100 functionality. It's already seamless enough that I can update CTRIO firmware while it is installed in the remote base...no small feat. I think folks will like it.

No small feat at all.  Very impressive!   

[BobO]

Oh, and I've also never liked the options for what to do on an EBC base on loss of comms.

Last state is risky, but all-off won't work with a lot of continuous processes.  You lose comms for a second, everything turns off, crashes the process, then the comms come back, but it's too late.  You can't even do online edits, because it interrupts comms long enough to burp the remote racks.  (I realize the specific issue of online edits should be alleviated in Do-More due to the hot cutover runtime edits).

I vote for a third setting that keeps last state for some user definable time, like say 5 seconds, followed by all off if comms aren't restored during the delay.

Hmmm...lots to ponder. We are treating a remote failure with the same respect as a local failure...meaning: fatal. The key would be in how we define failure. I think we could create the situation you are describing with the current implementation. The EBC's link monitor time can be set to whatever you choose...so how long we go missing before it shuts down is one question. The other question is how long things must fail before the CPU logs him out and goes fatal...this too is configurable. Between timeouts and/or retries at both ends, I think you can do what you are wanting.

[BobO]

I love my do-more plc!

I chose it (and other AD products) for my long term home automation project mainly based on cost.
I am connected with the designer software from a virtual machine on my mac via ethernet.

The project has some digital and analogue io, and hmi and remote access. So the do more is perfect.

The resources and help files are far superior to Mitsubishi Q series. In fact the whole learning curve has been more enjoyable than Mitsi.

Id like a keyboard shortcut for toggling a force on/off. ie Mitsi has shift + enter.

Well done! it is comparable to much more expensive systems.

Thanks for the feedback, and very glad to hear that Do-more is working well for you! We've had the request for the hot-keyed toggle before. Other than paranoid concerns about safety, I don't see a problem with it. I think that you see features like this in Japanese brands more often because they have a significantly less litigious environment than we do. Unfortunately, the reality of doing business in the US is that you are far better off to annoy people while covering your tail.

[Controls Guy]

I think that you see features like this in Japanese brands more often because they have a significantly less litigious environment than we do. Unfortunately, the reality of doing business in the US is that you are far better off to annoy people while covering your tail.

Actually, the cleanest implementation I've seen is AB, at least for bits.  Right click on a contact, and Force On, Force Off, and Remove Force are in the context menu.  Love it.  It's been there for decades and they haven't got sued for it that I know of.  Course AB's legal department may be slightly larger than Hosts!