Why do you pay for PLC programming software?

J

James Ingraham

"I am curious why you think that would be a disaster, well, except for the Step 7 case."

Answered your own question. :)

Seriously, one ANYTHING is usually bad. Look how Internet Explorer stagnated until Firefox forced Microsoft's hand. Now there's a JavaScript engine speed war going on, with everyone fighting for "fastest JavaScript!" Competition is good.

Even with all the competition in browsers and Web standards, most websites work just fine in IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

I can't stand the "European" style that Step 7 and other IEC 61131 programming software uses. I imagine that someone who uses nothing but Step 7 can't stand the "American" style that Rockwell uses.

So I don't want a "one solution," like we have with Office.

-James Ingraham
Sage Automation, Inc.
 
J

James Ingraham

"A standard format won't do you much good without standard content."

True. Wanting an interoperable PLC standard is a bit like wanting a unicorn.

"Open formats only work when different parties are willing to work together towards a common goal."

Well, sort of. We have a lot of competing standards for the Web. It's really a mess out there. But it works, if at times painfully. And the organizations involved are DEFINITELY not all working toward a common goal. There's just enough commonality to make it function.

"So, the question has to be why would any of the major vendors want to be compatible with anyone else?"

True. We're back to my unicorn wish.


-James Ingraham
Sage Automation, Inc.
 
In reply to James Ingraham: I'm not sure what web problems you are talking about, but I have written a web based HMI system (https://sourceforge.net/projects/mblogic/) and I have been very impressed with how compatible everything is. Only one browser is any real problem, and that is MS IE.

Yes, Microsoft does play dog in the manger in the W3C committee because they want to block any progress for their own commercial reasons. However, the others work around MS informally and are bringing in new features and making sure they are compatible with each other. If any of the PLC vendors wanted to be compatible with each other they could work together in the same way even if one or two major vendors were being deliberately obstructionist.

Here's the browsers that I've worked with: Firefox, Epiphany, Midori, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. I've done some pretty esoteric CSS, XHTML, SVG, Javacript, and HTML DOM manipulation, and it works the same in all of them, except for some minor font size and padding issues (which are easy to accommodate). If the differences between PLCs were of the same order as the differences between web browsers, I think we would have very little to complain about.
 
J

Jeremy Pollard

Like Ford and GM same results different methods, and content... but standard content could be construed that a timer is a timer, and as an object it behaves the same as all other timers, but it may look different.

Presets are Presets etc...

Importing programs has been beaten to death, and if you work in ST then it could be possible... but Rockwell vs Siemens forget it..

There there is no common format or content..

There is the bridge that needs to be crossed - kinda like the difference between different development environments, but the same runtime (*.exe files)

Time for a another beer:)

Cheers from : Jeremy Pollard, CET The Caring Canuckian!
http://www[.]tsuonline.com
Control Design www.controldesignmag.com
Manufacturing Automation www[.]automationmag.com
3 Red Pine Court, RR# 2 Shanty Bay, Ontario L0L 2L0
705.739.7155 Cell # 705.725.3579
 
In general, the free or near-free stuff tends to not be quite as good, or anywhere as near as good as the higher-priced stuff. As a programmer, I always secretly hope the client mandates the use of A-B and RSLogix, because I prefer programming in it. (I'm just waiting to find that client that also does NOT require A-B HMI using panelbuilder or RSView (shudder).) Even after using Beckhoff (Codesys) development, I'd rather use A-B. Beckhoff TwinCAT PLC dev is actually not free, itself, so I don't know what is free that is also usable. Sure, you can write simple ladder in dos-based freebies, but for our projects, those days are long gone, EVEN IF a client would tolerate that.

To me, the A-B/Rockwell paradigm in general (regional vendor monopolies, national sweet-heart contracts to nationwide corps, under-the-table kick-backs and gifts to decision makers and buyers - I received a set of custom cavity-back golf-clubs with A-B logo, and I've heard of a bass-boat being given - etc.) is 18th century, but given the quality of RSLogix, and the degree to which it has been improved from the old dos days, and the first RS version, it shouldn't be free. I don't understand how anyone could think it could be free. Let's just say an entry level PC, a netbook for example, due to advances in technology, could be made and given out for virtually free. Does that mean that a dual quad-core PC with quad-GPU, 4 TB RAM, 128 TB HDD, 128-bit OS, etc. should also be free? Or that all hardware & OS upgrades for the life of the user should then be free as well?

But Rockwell is the opposite, in that they are quite underhanded and oily, and engaging in business activities that are reprehensible, resulting in small companies like mine having to pay ridiculous prices for stuff that is mostly non-US produced, rebranded product. For that reason, I am glad to use any hardware alternative with half-baked programming environment, despite my preference for RSLogix.

Yeah, Beckhoff/Codesys dev env is half-baked, IMO. I think there has been no effective change in programming environment in Codesys in the time frame that RS went from ladder-only to ST/SFC/Ladder, and if I'm not mistaken, RS has taken Codesys to school on how to write a development environment. That's what all those subscription fees paid for.

Meh. My 0.0 cents. You get what you pay for.
 
Its very bad that companies charging for their own software. There are Companies like Baldor will be giving all their software free of cost and anybody can download it from net. To my knowledge Baldor also doing developments in their software and also they are able to give it free of cost.
 
After working with Mitsubishi PLC's for the past 15 years and now working with Allen Bradley I find there programming software to be absolutely terrible. For the self learner it is very difficult. I think a few years the programming software will become more of a deciding factor. I like the AB products but I think if things do not change Rockwell Automation software will lead to their demise.
 
D

David Ferguson

I always love this debate............I on the other hand have used AB software forever and find anything else I use hard to use. As to Rockwell Software's demise, I would not bet on that as they have an over 30 year history (I have been programming AB with AB/RS Software since 1980.

It always amazes me how people cannot adapt to change. I always laugh and say that the Foxboro 760 stand alone controller is the best stand alone controller on earth, why because it is the first electronic one I used and therefore if I invested that time in learning it, I must be right.

Step away from the keyboard with an open mind and as I have a cartoon hanging in my office of a Triceratops dinosaur skeleton that has a caption "Adapt or Die"

Dave Ferguson
Control Systems Engineer
 
W

William Sturm

You said: "I like the AB products but I think if things do not change Rockwell Automation software will lead to their demise."

Unfortunately, the market leaders do not seem to be the ones with the technically greatest products. It is all about marketing and big business deals and overpriced products that are just good enough. I truly wish that product excellence would generate market leaders, but that is rarely the case in our industry.

Bill Sturm
 
T
Interesting comments, there is definitely software out there that is worse than Rockwell, and some that is better. I have used AB stuff for 20+ and didn't think much initially but as things progressed, I have found RSLogix to be a quite good package. I think it is all about familiarity with the package you're using that will influence or bias your opinions of software.

The only issue I would have is the costs of the software, it is a little more expensive.
 
I've used AB for some time now and find it to be the better package. but saying that I believe they are expensive. their software can be a bit flaky as well...and as for their online tech support to date I have received valid help from them once. What get me most if you supply something and its not working correctly, they charge you. I've sat many a days with there RSlinx playing funny games and device net just crashing for no apparent reason and then it just works? And as for there scada stuff. I think I lost more hair in a week than a life time.....

I find most of the PLC have little quirks and it more about learning theses little quirks than actually doing the code. but saying that AB is the better package, which does not say a lot about the rest of them
 
F

Frustrated end user

I don't know how it was accomplished, but the auto manufacturers all got together (kind of) and came up with OBDII. I think there are still two or three different protocols but at least now shops and individuals can buy one tester and plug into their vehicle computers. Automation manufacturers could do the same (Where's IEEE?). They could in theory develop a standard programming interface and supply modules or drivers for the standardized software for any proprietary features. The software could be written by (God Forbid) Microsoft or anyone who wanted to compete. I've often wondered why something like that wouldn't work. BTW AB is not that great. Their DeviceNet sucks (try installing an older PowerFlex drive on to a devicenet system), and like many previous posters, we've had to hire AB techs to come in and restore our Factory Talk server after 2 or 3 days get an answer like a setting was corrupted. Our solution was to "Ghost" the drive and purchase 4 identical boxes in the event of failure.
 
This has already happened. IEC 61131 details controls systems programming and is intended to be an standard for industrial control, PLC, PAC, whatever you want to call it. The problem with it, in my opinion, is that the bar was set too low. The specification does not even cover task execution. One vendor can have a full hard realtime multitasking OS, and another could implement everything in one [traditional PLC] scan loop. Basically the players drafting the spec (PLC vendors mainly) geared it mostly so that it will run on their existing hardware with high level compilers that pre-process and compile down to their native instructions. While this sounds good in theory, you are stuck with what you can do with the crude PLC instruction set and no real operating system services. AB is one exception, as I understand the Contrologix product was designed up front for the different languages they support, but in implementation they seem about the same (maybe a little cleaner than some). So far as I can tell, none of the PLC vendors have offered a true high level programming language/environment with multithreaded hard realtime. In this sense you will be programming a lot like ladder even if you use a text language.

I guess what I'm getting at is if we want someone to propel the industry into the next century I'm not sure we want the spec drafted by PLC vendors that aim to give us a standard whose goal is to present us with "new" languages that are more primitive than Pascal or C (which has been available for decades). What about an easy to use but powerful language similar to C++/C# that runs on a hard realtime system with all the normal PLC peripherals? Some Robot control systems are light years ahead of PLC systems, and I cringe when I hear someone say that they've come out with a new motion controller or robot that "now runs entirely in ladder logic". I've used both, and let me tell you a robot system with multitasking and high level text programming (with callable functions and parameter passing) is far more safe and efficient than ladder if you know what you are doing.

So I ask, do you REALLY want these people dictating the standard?

KEJR
 
I believe that one can relate the purchase of PLC programming software to the purchase of ladder logic to operate an assembly machine or process. Would you, as an integrator bid and charge your customer only for the mechanical portion of a job? If you did how much more would you need to charge for the mechanical portion so that you could stay in business. It comes down to getting paid for work done, or the need to hide costs "elsewhere". How many times have you not thought or heard, you do not get something for nothing. The better that "something" is the more it usually costs.
 
C
The automakers "accomplished" this because they had no choice, it was mandated. It would take the same sort of inescapable edict to get the big automation vendors to standardize on anything and then they would likely still break the standard in subtle ways as they have learned from their partner and mentor Microsoft. The only way to accomplish standardization will be if an informed customer base stops paying for the Tower of Babel. For that to happen requires that there be Open and interoperable choices, so the standoff continues. What may eventually happen is one entity will decide to make their way Open and elicit support from one or more others. That is the way Ethernet became an Open Standard, and look at what happened.

Regards,
cww
 
Hi All,

Just browsing and I read the entire post. It took several hours! I studied PLC's in school but could not get a job using them due to a lack on experience. Most companies in my area wanted people who were familiar with one specific type and around five years experience. After reading this post, I see why. It looks like the software is rather large investment. But that is the nature of software.

If the cost of the software is that much of a problem, learn to program them in another language. Try the open source stuff that was posted like a dozen times. Seek out new technology and cheaper vendors. Develop your own technology. Ranting about the problem does make one feel better, but it does little to solve the problem.
 
W

William Sturm

criders said:

"If the cost of the software is that much of a problem, learn to program them in another language. Try the open source stuff that was posted like a dozen times. Seek out new technology and cheaper vendors. Develop your own technology."

The main problem with doing what you said is that it is not marketable. Very few companies are willing to take any risk in their day to day operations on open source software or low cost hardware. The major concern seems to be lack of support, both internally and externally. Maybe someday that will change and enough people will understand software and electronics well enough to support open systems, but that has not happened yet. What you suggested is a valuable learning experience, however.

Bill Sturm
 
Thar's a fascinating story if ever...

Here I am, studying Ladder logic, PLC's etc at college & checking out the Linux state of play re PLC programming...

I notice that the academics seem to think that there's a certain virtue in maintaining a dual-boot system, Unix to write modify applications and monitor user data, verifying on the watchdog principle; and windows to run the application with advanced GUI features.

(see article about the Advanced Photon Source, Arbonne University Illinois)

Allen Bradley also state in one of their user guides - a pdf file i scan-read whilst trying to see if there was a 'free' version of RS500 to play, that the Windows environment confers particular advantages in this kind of (industrial) applicaion.... but then, they would!

Interesting juncture in the OS debate.

Does anyone have the word on this?
 
Top