M
Mark Hutton
My aim, in my logic engine, is to support all 1131 constructs and concepts. That however is way off in the future. And in any case the use of those constructs does not necessarily answer the original question, which was about how the logic engine would solve those constructs once compiled.
I do intend to support these constructs with a native, built in sub-system. In the mean time coding the SFC steps and transitions using the standard instruction set is easy, it is portable (I have personally implemented SFC graphs in AB SLC 5/03, Siemens S5, Omron and Mitsubishi Fx using virtually the same code). The step..end_step construct is NOT compatible with legacy systems.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Willy Smith
>
> Why don't you use the IL special constructs for SFC? These include:
>
> STEP...END_STEP
> TRANSITION...END_TRANSITION
_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
I do intend to support these constructs with a native, built in sub-system. In the mean time coding the SFC steps and transitions using the standard instruction set is easy, it is portable (I have personally implemented SFC graphs in AB SLC 5/03, Siemens S5, Omron and Mitsubishi Fx using virtually the same code). The step..end_step construct is NOT compatible with legacy systems.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Willy Smith
>
> Why don't you use the IL special constructs for SFC? These include:
>
> STEP...END_STEP
> TRANSITION...END_TRANSITION
_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc