Help us design our next Do-more platform!!

[ATU]

Oh Yeah, one more thing. Blue, I like the color blue.

[BobO]

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?

[BobO]

Oh Yeah, one more thing. Blue, I like the color blue.

Blue-more?

[DLTimmons]

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.  

[ATU]

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.

[BobO]

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.

[BobO]

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?

[DLTimmons]

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.

[BobO]

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.

[jwbaker3]

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

[Controls Guy]

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.

[Controls Guy]

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.

[BobO]

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.

[Controls Guy]

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.

[Controls Guy]

Oh Yeah, one more thing. Blue, I like the color blue.

Blue's cool, just no white or beige, thanks!