New features wanted!! Apply here!

[BobO]

Nope, and it will.

[stepheneltze]

A quick, and hopefully painless question....

Do we have a ball-park delivery date yet?
If so, please enlighten us?

Thanks!!

[franji1]

We're not even to Beta yet, so it's gonna be quite a while, but sometime next year.

[jimispeed]

Here are some things I haven't seen mentioned, unless I overlooked something.
1. Iboxes for the internal CTRIO in the PLC. Last year I got so confused with trying to use the internal I/O in ladder, I just bought two CTRIO modules to control the X/Y table. It sure was easier!
2. Analog inputs/outputs standard on the PLC. Many other PLC's (including cheapies) have two channels available for either analog or digital measureent and control.
3. The PLC be controllable as a slave from Labview, either through a USB port or the ethernet.
4. Ethernet a standard feature.
Thanks for listening (reading?).

[Shimmy]

If I missed this in the previous 11 pages, consider it a second to the vote.

The ability to do log functions in the PLC.

[Controls Guy]

The ability to do log functions in the PLC.

Be a man.  Use the polynomial expansion.   

[BobO]

Logarithms? Or data/event logging? Both are needed of course, just wondered which you meant...

[Shimmy]

Oops...I meant logarithms.

[Controls Guy]

Here's one:  Ability to verify instruction and address range compatibility with a given CPU offline.

I once had a project where I was using a semi-standard program framework that had been developed for an 06, but the I/O requirements of this particular project was a better fit for an 05.  I simply made the program changes and changed the offline PLC config to an 05, and DSoft saved it without complaint, so I thought everything was fine and had been verified to be so.  Then when I went to download it (now on the critical path for completion), it wouldn't download because I used instructions not supported in the 05.  So I called tech support and the guy insisted that this was natural and unavoidable given that the DSoft doesn't have a "simulator".  To me a "simulator" is for verification that your application does what you want it to, not for verifying that it will run on the target CPU.  Many other brands of programming software that don't have a simulator (by the definition I just gave) will still warn you if you've done something that won't run on the CPU you've indicated.

If there's no verification done, what is the point of making the programmer tell DSoft what the CPU is?  Seems like it would just be busy work for which he doesn't get anything in exchange.

Now memory range verification is quite a bit easier to do manually, expecially on long programs, because you can just do a usage view and compare with the PLC memory map accessible from the menu.  But at least instruction verification would be nice.

[franji1]

We want to implement something similar to what could be called an "offline syntax check", for lack of a better term.  It won't fix anything, but just list every issue that would be determined at download time, similar to what you found with the 06 program in an 05.  It could probably also determine many fatal errors that could occur when going from program to run.

[Vernon Leeper]

HAAAA! been a while, a lot has gone on here at the site, and a lot has gone on here for me as well. As for adding new stuff, Don't really do any heavy programming to ask for anything. I would like to see a copy and paste feature as I read someone had posted, that would be nice, for now. What do have for stepper motors on 05's and 06's?  Or can that be done?

[Controls Guy]

We want to implement something similar to what could be called an "offline syntax check", for lack of a better term.  It won't fix anything, but just list every issue that would be determined at download time, similar to what you found with the 06 program in an 05.  It could probably also determine many fatal errors that could occur when going from program to run.

Here's a cool implementation idea for that.  Allow the programmer to run it on a given program, and let the syntax checker show a list of all CPU's with compatible ones highlighted.  This isn't the option a person would generally use, but if you have the syntax checker done, shouldn't take too much more to run it against all available CPU's and show which ones are compatible.

Probably with separate Go/No Go indications for code compatibility and address range compatibility, if addresses are checked.

[Controls Guy]

Oh, and another thing!      I always liked how in versions before 5.x if you did a DirectSOFT install with an upgrade product key, after verifying the presence of the upgradable version, the install would give you a product key for a full install.  Then you don't need to keep track of all your old versions with product keys (or at least the newest full install you have) so you can install the version you don't want so you can install the version you do want.  Or, something like that.

[keycoldstorage]

Feature maybe, bug fix to my mind! Please extend the find functionality into the iBoxes. I haven't taken the time to verify all of the different possibilities, but it is clear that find does not find within the MATHBCD box...

edit to include:
I definitely would put logging within the PLC to use, the more easily integrated with touch panels the better! I know it's been mentioned above, and I wholeheartedly endorse it as well as simplifying the installation/licensing process.

Finally, built-in testing/simulating functionality would be incredible!

edgar

[BobO]

I think you will like what we are working on now. I think that in one way or the other, we're doing all of what you asked for!