stage numbering

[DLTimmons]

I love stages but I can never get them right on the first run so I wind up with the numbers all mixed up. Is there a way to resequences a program so that all the stage number are in sequences? It's a lot easier to look back at a program if the stage number are in order.

Donnie

[BobO]

That is in our list of features to add. We would like to have a full featured manager to renumber (with gaps), reorder, etc. Not sure if it will make it into 2.0, but we understand the need and agree.

[DLTimmons]

Look forward to that feature, mean while the replace and swap feature work on stages at a time.

[BobO]

I tend to prefer names to numbers, so I nickname all of my stages. I usually leave element names turned off, so I never actually see the stage numbers.

[franji1]

I tend to prefer names to numbers, so I nickname all of my stages. I usually leave element names turned off, so I never actually see the stage numbers.

Ditto.  Attached is a screen shot of the Project Browser view of a TelNet example program I wrote.  The Stage names show the descriptive state (vs. S0/S1/S10, etc.).  Note that the Project Browser also appends the first line of the rung comment for the SG instruction rung.

[plcnut]

I'm horrible at documentation... but...
The way I normally write stages, is (depending on the overall program block complexity) I will assign stage numbers by 2's, 5's, or 10's, so that as I find things/steps that need to be added, I can come back and start fitting them in between, this way none of my JMP's are 'backwards'.
I also normally use SG100 as the default error handling stage, so that I can easily assign the 'JMP on error' to comm's or other built-in boxes without going back to look.

Somehow, I have not managed to make my mind use the 'nicknames only'/Bob mode... maybe someday I'll be able to better train myself.

[BobO]

Somehow, I have not managed to make my mind use the 'nicknames only'/Bob mode... maybe someday I'll be able to better train myself.

For me, it's two things: 1) In all my years of high-level language programming, I have never cared about the physical address of memory...only its name...so why start caring in the PLC world, and 2) screen real estate..."Bob mode" is more compressed and allows me to see more of the program at once. Clearly it is an acquired taste, but it's the only way I roll.

[DLTimmons]

Must have pulled one to many phones off on my head as a toddler. It's easier to deal with numbers than names. I like knowing the I/O address that one of the things I dislike about AD's P3000 PLC's once you assign a name there no way to find the physical address makes it a real pain to wire up and trouble shoot.

I do like the way you show a nickname and the element at the same time!

[Controls Guy]

one of the things I dislike about AD's P3000 PLC's once you assign a name there no way to find the physical address makes it a real pain to wire up and trouble shoot.

Seriously??  Eww.  Even if I were comfortable in Bob Mode most of the time, I'd still want to be able to see the physical addresses at times, like you.

Guess I can cancel my plans for that P3K project, oh wait.....

EDIT:  BobO, I've never really been able to respond to you wondering why PLC guys seem to be so obsessed about memory addresses, and maybe this is the reason.  Physical I/O is the surface of the black box, so it needs to be defined and maybe we just carry the same thinking over into the internal addresses, except in cases where you actually need to know, like recipe loading/saving and HMI-accessible registers in an address-based controller.  Also, for those of us who are used to having tabular Memory Views, which tend to be more efficient than data views in tag-based controllers, having related data located contiguously lets you see stuff at the same time that relates to each other.

[BobO]

I fully understand the need/want to see physical I/O point addresses. I don't understand the need/want for the 10x more internal variables. C1326? R382? .S42? Really? But to each his own...I'm certainly not offended and will do all I reasonably can to meet your needs. I reserve the right to mock you though.

[Controls Guy]

Mocking will be semi-graciously accepted! 

[plcnut]

If you don't want your little feelings hurt... then don't have little feelings, Eh?

[BobO]

All in good fun. Humility isn't an attribute that comes easy to an engineer, but we can certainly have a good time being arrogant jerks, no?

[Controls Guy]

Yup!  We like to talk some trash!   

[jwbaker3]

I agree, other engineers and tech's get it but HR does not. So sad for them.