RSLogix 500 Activation Moving

C
Hi Michael

Whoa there! Michael :^)

I was playing the Devil's advocate and saying I could _almost_ see it. Autocad and their allegiance to the Dark Lord of Redmond have been an enormous impediment to many things I have tried to accomplish. It is the sole application binding many operations to the monopoly and a
jagged rock in the stream of change. And yes, it is grossly overpriced and one might wonder if the economics of volume totally escape them. And they _have_ adopted the monopolistic tactics of their heroes. But there is one thing I give them credit for. That is that, at least it
isn't a grossly inferior product supported by such artifice and treachery. Bouyed _only_ by their proprietary formats. If they could come to understand that and lower their prices, open their formats and support the fact that an awful lot of workstations users have no interest in MS crashware for simulations, etc. that may run for weeks at a stretch, I think they could stand on merit. But, they've hitched their wagons to a falling star and will probably
sink with them. I'd be interested in hearing from this group, who has the right stuff to replace them on the premise of being more Open and more useful. Are there serious contenders out there? I haven't seen too many.

Regards

cww
 
C
Hi Larry

On February 17, 2004, ScienceOfficer wrote:
> Curt---
>
> We already went over your points in the longrunning thread, Why do you pay
> for PLC programming software?, at
> http://www.control.com/1026150562/index_html <

Well no, actually we didn't. Lots of excuses were made for the upgrade mill, and lots of shouting about how people hafta get paid. But little rational discussion occurred about how the costs should be distributed. Or if there was actually any corelation between costs and price.

> However, since this thread is actually about activations, note that the
> automation industry experience with support for software without copy
> protection is hideous. When an untrained end user purchases a second-hand
> machine and wants support on the PLC, it's got to be paid for somehow.
> Charging for the activation and renewals is the channel for that payment. <

OK, Include the software with the processor and charge for support. That way people like me, who've given up on phone support long ago wouldn't carry the burden for those "untrained end users who purchase second hand machines and want support". It doesn't wash! Let's just agree that they
want a continuous residual revenue stream that can be retapped with a few bug fixes and a little file format mischief. I'm fairly sure in aggregate, we've paid for quite an education for everyone who's mildly interested.

> Rockwell and the other majors have been giving away full-featured
> evaluation copies of their programming software via CDs and download for
> years. To actually use the stuff, you have to pay some money. And, as I
> keep bringing up, why is the trivial cost of PLC programming software any
> kind of an issue in a successful plant? <

In today's economy, with the pressure on manufacturing, the "trivial" cost of light bulbs is examined closely. If four figures for a slip of paper saying you can have another person use software that you've already bought and paid for was, in fact, "trivial" we would all have a lot more licenses to work with. I'd like to take a poll on how many readers believe they could ask for and get all the licenses needed to make working really convenient. I suppose looking down from way above these things are of no great import, but from down here, getting "my own" license is like the Holy Grail. And the industry wide practice of
using ancient versions as long as they'll somewhat function points out how "trivial" upgrade costs are at budget time. Everyone who has the latest and greatest raise their hand!......... That's what I thought :^) Down from the mount, on the dirty side of the wall, that's the way it really is. Looking down it's trivial. Looking up it's a major PITA. Unless I'm missing something. Perhaps if we had the bean counters trade places with us for a week.......

I suspect it'll be pretty hard to marginalize my view on this one. No matter how you slice it, walking a quarter of a mile to get to a licensed copy kinda ticks me off. I'll bet I'm not alone :^) I suppose most folks are just used to this kinda BS. I've seen life without it.

Regards

cww
 
D

Dave Ferguson

Curt, Curt, Curt:

Some of us have companies who are forward thinking enough to give us the tools we need to do our job, they pay the annual support and we have all of the licenses we need.

We have a control network and we have 2 servers that have the licenses on them and also a bunch of laptop (portables) with their own and we serve out the licenses to the roughly 50 Maintenance terminals around the plant and have NEVER not had a license available.

If the company you work for will not give you the tools to do your job, don't do it, and if you have to walk a half mile to use the tool, charge for the time, or if you are hourly who cares, not your problem, your problem is to do the best you can with the tools you have. If they don't give you the tools and it bothers you this much, ....leave.

Once again, do not go and assume EVERYONE is one way or the other, you cannot generalize your opinion into everyone elses.

My company is forward thinking enough to recognize the investment and the payback to doing so and not so cheap as to realize the waste of paying you to keep walking back and forth......apparently yours isn't.

We also pay the support (chump change in the big picture) so YES we always have the latest and greatest..............

Just another OPINION ......

Your Pal:

Dave
 
M

Michael Griffin

With regards to Stephen Luft's reply, I find it rather interesting that you mention accounting practice as one of the reasons why software is often charged for separately from the hardware. Earlier in this discussion, I had been framing a reply along these lines, but never sent it.

Many very large companies have the illusion that detailed accounting can be a substitute for understanding the business and the market. The idea is that if you can count everything, you don't need to understand it. This was what was behind the fad for splitting large companies into tiny "business units" - making the accounting easier even if it increased operating costs. Unfortunately the world isn't that simple.

We had a related discussion a few weeks ago "Re: PLCS: Why do you pay for PLC programming software?" where I compared PLC software to the video game console market. That is, the cost of entry (for PLC programming software or game consoles) can be lowered to gain new customers who will generate additional revenue later. Since the customer is required to make an up front investment in either case, the seller can reduce the risk of that investment by assuming some of the investment cost and recouping it on items with repeat sales potential.

Low entry costs make sense for a company which wants to grow by increasing market share. High entry cost is for companies who simply want to extract maximum revenue from existing market share.


On February 18, 2004 17:59, Stephen Luft wrote: <clip>
> From a manufacturer's point of view (for which we are one of PLCs) it has
> always been our belief that you cannot have a PLC without a method to
> program it, therefore the software is included with the controller.
<clip>
> The common thinking among other manufacturers is that if it has an
> associated cost, it must have an offsetting revenue. Hence, this is why
> you have companies charging for their software. To get into the paying for
> support issue would be a whole other thread itself.
>
> You have companies being run by accountants, and even worse the stock
> market. You always have to beat the whisper number, or else the company
> stock will tank...lol.
> This is why many of the manufacturers have lost touch with their customers.
<clip>

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
M

Michael Griffin

On February 18, 2004 18:20, Curt Wuollet wrote (re Autocad): <clip>
> But there is one thing I give them credit for. That is that, at least it
> isn't a grossly inferior product supported by such artifice and
> treachery. Bouyed _only_ by their proprietary formats.


I would have to disagree with you completely on this point, and say that this is in fact a very accurate description of their product. The only people I know of who are still using AutoCAD are using it for electrical schematics. It used to be widely used for mechanical drafting, but I don't know of anyone who is still using it for this. Competitors such as Solidworks are considered by most people to be vastly superior to anything AutoCAD has to offer.

> If they could
> come to understand that and lower their prices, open their formats and
> support the fact that an awful lot of workstations users have no
> interest in MS crashware for simulations, etc. that may run for weeks
> at a stretch, I think they could stand on merit.
<clip>

AutoCAD simply isn't good enough for large scale simulations, besides which those types of applications run on Unix/Linux clusters, not Windows desktops. If you are doing this sort of work, you probably have two computers. You have your Linux workstation for CAD work, and your Windows computer for e-mail and memos (because the IT department says so).

AutoCAD is a middle of the road CAD package which has nothing going for it other than a lot of people already know (or used to know) how to use it and there are lots of existing drawings in DWG format. It is probably still widely used in architectural jobs where the main criteria for selecting it is that there are lots of low priced AutoCAD chimpanzees available for short term contracts. The main criteria for replacing AutoCAD for electrical controls work would be to have a fairly simple package that can deal with DWG files reliably. There may be some decent candidates available now, I just haven't been motivated enough to look at any for a few years.

> I'd be interested in hearing from this group, who has
> the right stuff to replace them on the premise of being more Open and
> more useful. Are there serious contenders out there? I haven't seen too
> many.
<clip>

I can't make a recommendation at this time. However, I thought perhaps I may mention an opinion on what I think would be a very nice feature that I haven't seen yet. It would be very handy if the CAD software and programming (e.g. PLC and other) software could share a common symbol list. That is, when you add a device to a PLC output on an electrical schematic, it would show up automatically in the PLC program symbol list, and visa versa (or some convenient way of synchronising the two). A convoluted import/export function doesn't really accomplish the same thing, as it doesn't accomodate design changes mid way through a project very well. For this to work well though, the CAD and PLC software vendors would have to be willing to swallow the idea of open data formats, and I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
M

Michael Griffin

With regards to the discussion on software costs between Curt Wuollet and "ScienceOfficer", I have a modest proposal. Perhaps Mr. ScienceOfficer would care to give Mr. Wuollet a few dozen free copies of the software, and everyone should then be happy all round. After all, if the cost is "trivial", why bother charging for it?

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
My $79 copy of TurboCAD works just fine for reading and changing electrical wiring diagrams created by the overpriced AutoCAD.
 
S

ScienceOfficer

Curt---

OK, then everything that needed to be said was said in the previous thread, and it didn't convince you. Moreover, you continue to believe that companies making hundreds of millions of dollars in this market are wrong, and you are right. This represents a tremendous entrepreneurial opportunity!

Take those insights and build a PLC company to service the market niche you find so valuable. No expensive support staff will be necessary because your market by definition won't use it. Now, take a look at the business
plan: Your target market is plants that won't pay a trivial $499 each for
the basic licenses of RSLogix500 (9324-RL0100ENE) needed for maintenance to be more effective. That will be a problem when you talk to the venture capitalists, so I guess this won't work. How can you make any money from clients that are defined by their firm decision to not spend any real money?

Yes, we have seen how plants, even successful ones, are looking at every penny these days. We've even noted a death spiral phenomenon: Giving bonuses to maintenance managers based solely upon year to year cost reduction. Sorry, we have no way to prevent the death of these clients. Is your company one of these?

Curt, you mistake your own niche for something wider. You actually read the manuals, and draw on a wide experience to solve the problems you face daily. Meanwhile, we get support calls daily that start like this: "I got the box, and it has some manuals and a CD. What do I do now?" Worse than that, we get calls that start like this: "My widget machine stopped. It's got one of your products in it. Fix it."

Charging for software and support is what the market currently supports as a way for successful vendors and customers to interact. This can change, but it's what's out there now.

If this is a problem, then it's an opportunity. Put me out of business or quit whining. I can cheerfully live with either outcome.

Can we get back to technical problems now?

Larry Lawver Rexel / Central Florida
 
C
And some of us work in the beleagured manufacturing industries, at least for the moment. Where forward thinking may not be the issue. But I'm happy for you and your data point has been registered.

Regards

cww
 
C
Hi Michael

That last part is something that I had been thinking about for a while. Since we (for the most part) work with a symbolic language, how is a ladder editor that much different from CAD? Why should you have to draw your system twice? Once the proprietary barriers come down, the benefits from integration could be amazing. You don't offend me at all with your dislike for propped up monopolies. I would be lying to say that I would be upset if their greed destroyed them. But, I'm hoping that there are converts to a better way of doing software. After all, if IBM can become a strong force for OSS, surely there's hope that some will join the wave rather than being washed away.

Regards

cww
 
M

Michael Griffin

To Curt Wuollet (re CAD):

You might consider QCAD. Look on your computer; you might already have it as it is a fairly common package. If not, you can download it if you have a high speed connection.

It uses DXF format rather than DWG, so if you need to read existing DWG files then you'll either need a translator program, or have someone convert them for you. If you are producing new drawings in DXF format, then someone who has
AutoCAD who wants to work with them should be able to open them directly.

I haven't tried QCAD out, so I can't offer a personal opinion on it. I have used TurboCAD, and found that for anything I wanted to do it was equally capable as AutoCAD, and more user friendly. However, I did find that in some
cases TurboCAD would interpret a DWG drawing file slightly differently from AutoCAD, introducing minor errors. The problem with exchanging data files between any two CAD programs is that differences in semantics and context have subtle effects on the data. This makes the task difficult even when two vendors are trying to interoperate.

I don't however wish to over emphasize file compatability problems. For electrical schematics minor CAD format errors are normally not important. I receive drawings in DXF format from several companies we deal with (they use
special electrical schematics software) and the problems have been comparatively minor.

One final note on QCAD. There are two different QCAD programs from two different sources. One is a 2D mechanical drafting program, which is the one I am referring to. The other is a package for electronic schematics, and as far as I am aware is completely unrelated to the first one. You need to be careful of this if you are doing an internet search.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
C
Hi Larry

On February 22, 2004, ScienceOfficer wrote:
> Curt---
>
> OK, then everything that needed to be said was said in the previous
> thread, and it didn't convince you. Moreover, you continue to
> believe that companies making hundreds of millions of dollars in this
> market are wrong, and you are right. This represents a tremendous
> entrepreneurial opportunity!
>
> Take those insights and build a PLC company to service the market
> niche you find so valuable. No expensive support staff will be
> necessary because your market by definition won't use it. Now, take
> a look at the business plan: Your target market is plants that won't
> pay a trivial $499 each for the basic licenses of RSLogix500
> (9324-RL0100ENE) needed for maintenance to be more effective. That
> will be a problem when you talk to the venture capitalists, so I
> guess this won't work. How can you make any money from clients that
> are defined by their firm decision to not spend any real money? <

Your target market is apparently quite upscale. I haven't worked anyplace that cheerfully dashes off a large check for more software.

I would be quite satisfied with _only_ those that think extra seats are a bit spendy and non-trivial.

> Yes, we have seen how plants, even successful ones, are looking at
> every penny these days. We've even noted a death spiral phenomenon:
> Giving bonuses to maintenance managers based solely upon year to year
> cost reduction. Sorry, we have no way to prevent the death of these
> clients. Is your company one of these? <

No, it's the same old market conditions, the price of scrap steel and foreign competition. The kind of things that spelled the end of most manufacturing jobs in the USA.

> Curt, you mistake your own niche for something wider. You actually
> read the manuals, and draw on a wide experience to solve the problems
> you face daily. Meanwhile, we get support calls daily that start
> like this: "I got the box, and it has some manuals and a CD. What
> do I do now?" Worse than that, we get calls that start like this:
> "My widget machine stopped. It's got one of your products in it.
> Fix it." <

Perhaps this is because you purposefully sell the software with the line that "any idiot can use it". You shouldn't be surprised when they call. And the niche I'm in seems to be rather broad, including a large proportion of the readers. You might hope that I'm atypical, but the only thing different about me is that I know how well the alternatives work.

> Charging for software and support is what the market currently
> supports as a way for successful vendors and customers to interact.
> This can change, but it's what's out there now. <

Since they have little choice in a shrinkwrap world, I think that they support it is a bit strong. The majority of the comments I read here indicate that getting the answers you need _without_ calling support might become fairly popular. Of course, they do support it in a fiscal
sense.

> If this is a problem, then it's an opportunity. Put me out of
> business or quit whining. I can cheerfully live with either outcome. <

I'm not whining, I'm reacting. And I don't seek to put anyone out of business, merely change the way it's done to something better for the user.

Read one of your software licenses. Then imagine that asymmetry applied to anything you own besides software. Imagine buying other consumer goods under those terms. How happy would you be? Would it be even acceptable?

> Can we get back to technical problems now? <

This is a technical problem for me and perhaps others as well. But I can understand your reluctance to discuss it.

Regards

cww
 
I also work in the "beleagured manufacturing industries" just a little smarter one... not that far north of you in Northern Minnesota.

Dave
 
C
Hi Michael

On February 23, 2004, Michael Griffin wrote:
> You might consider QCAD. Look on your computer; you might already have it as
> it is a fairly common package. If not, you can download it if you have a high
> speed connection. <

I did have QCAD until they switched versions and I had to obtain newer QT libraries. I don't have a fast link anymore and I haven't had the time to deal with TrollTech and get all the newest stuff. It was one of the more promising Open offerings.

> It uses DXF format rather than DWG, so if you need to read existing DWG files
> then you'll either need a translator program, or have someone convert them
> for you. If you are producing new drawings in DXF format, then someone who has
> AutoCAD who wants to work with them should be able to open them directly.
>
> I haven't tried QCAD out, so I can't offer a personal opinion on it. I have
> used TurboCAD, and found that for anything I wanted to do it was equally
> capable as AutoCAD, and more user friendly. However, I did find that in some
> cases TurboCAD would interpret a DWG drawing file slightly differently from
> AutoCAD, introducing minor errors. The problem with exchanging data files
> between any two CAD programs is that differences in semantics and context
> have subtle effects on the data. This makes the task difficult even when two
> vendors are trying to interoperate.
>
> I don't however wish to over emphasize file compatability problems. For
> electrical schematics minor CAD format errors are normally not important. I
> receive drawings in DXF format from several companies we deal with (they use
> special electrical schematics software) and the problems have been
> comparatively minor.
>
>
> One final note on QCAD. There are two different QCAD programs from two
> different sources. One is a 2D mechanical drafting program, which is the one
> I am referring to. The other is a package for electronic schematics, and as
> far as I am aware is completely unrelated to the first one. You need to be
> careful of this if you are doing an internet search. <

This becomes a sequential thing, when I have time and desire to upgrade my Linux box, I'll probably get QCAD running again. Xcircuit has been meeting all my needs in the meantime.

Regards

cww
 
M

Michael Griffin

Re: Discussion with Curt Wuollet over integrating CAD and PLC software:

I think that to integrate CAD and PLC programming software, you need to have a common set of semantics for what a device is. For the CAD software, these would be "blocks" with attributes. For the PLC software these would be definitions of addressable I/O. This would include networked I/O (or other addressable content) as well as conventional local I/O.

If you did your project in the ideal order, you would finish the drawings before you started the PLC program. In this case, the PLC programming software would read the definition files and see that these addresses were already defined. The PLC symbol names and comments would be those defined from the drawing. In other words, you wouldn't be entering this information twice.

If the project involved some back and forth, that is changing the drawing after the PLC program was started, then the information would need to flow both ways. If you addressed a new I/O point for an existing card in your PLC program, this would need to show up on the schematics. If the PLC software defined the device type, then this could appear directly on the drawing. If it was undefined, then this would appear as an undefined symbol in your drawings, and you would need to use the CAD software to complete the information. If you were to add a new I/O card or block, then either the CAD software would have to automatically insert a new page, or it would have to go into some sort of CAD limbo until you could deal with it properly. Perhaps both methods may be appropriate depending upon the type of device and how you want to handle things for that project.

To get to the practicalities of the data exchange, I can think of two ways of dealing with it. In most cases a set of symbol files in XML (or other) format could be used to define the CAD and PLC data. The PLC use for this seems quite obvious - symbol name and comments. The CAD software would need to include information relating to drawing location, connections, etc. This would also connect the schematic representation to the physical location (e.g. panel layout, or device layout in the machine). If the definition included product data (e.g. part number), this could be used to generate a bill of material (as some CAD systems can do now). If the PLC software had the device data available to it, it could tell you not just the symbol name, but also what is actually connected to it - which would be an aid to troubleshooting.

The XML file seems like the obvious and simple choice, but may have limitations for large projects involving multiple people. The problem would be in keeping the different versions in sync if more than one person can edit them. In these cases you might "push" changes from CAD to PLC only, or you might use a database instead of a simple XML file.

Another means might be to have a third application which is used for creating and editting symbol files, from which both the CAD and PLC programs import their data. This might in fact be the better way of doing things as it would allow you to create programs which automatically populate the I/O schematics and PLC symbols, perhaps even pulling design information from the mechanical drawings.

Some or even all of the above may not be entirely new. It does seem rather obvious to anyone who has worked in this field. I have seen products which do pieces of it. I haven't however actually seen anything which does all of this. I suspect that the reason for this is the lack of open standard data formats which would enable the exchange of data between software written by different parties. In the present market situation it would be possible to create an import/export mechanism between pairs of proprietary products, but not a free flow of data between any combination of products.

Perhaps someone will have an example of software which actually implements something like this. What I find surprising though, is that this isn't the standard way of doing things.

--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************
 
B
I haven't been following this thread too closely, but if you need Autocad capability for a fraction of the cost try
Intellicad. It provides full 360-degree compatibility with .dwg files. http://www.intellicad.org Originally an Autocad clone (V14) by Visio, it was dropped when Microsoft bought Visio. I think you can find a package for less than $100 if you shop around. There are many
providers. Check the members tab.

Bruce Axtell
 
B
I recently received a Powerpoint presentation regarding AB's new licensing scheme. I did not look at it real close, but it apparrently involves the use of a USB dongle.

Bob Peterson
 
S

ScienceOfficer

Bob---

There will be three new activation systems for customers to choose from over the next year or so, and the USB dongle version is only likely (IMO) to be used by people that absolutely cannot attach their computer to a network. The other two versions will replace the floppy and networked activation systems that exist today with new Internet and LAN based systems for moving activations.

There is a demand for the dongle option, but I think Rockwell Software wants to stick as much as possible to systems that permit tech support to get a customer up and running as fast as possible after any computer disaster. The current system works as long as the Master floppy is intact; the new network-based systems won't require any physical media to be handled at all.

Hope this helps!

Larry Lawver
Rexel / Central Florida
 
Top