I keep hearing how great this new Archestra stuff from Wonderware/Foxborough/etc.. is. All I keep hearing is sales hype and no real technical information. We use Wonderware (among others) and will be going through an evaluation to decide wether to move to this new platform or somthing else. Has anybody implemented a Archestra based system yet? What's the good/bad/ugly of upgrading? We've had difficulties upgrading (WW and others) in the past and want some insight in what we're really getting into.

Thanks

Jen

 

Well, from what I know of it, it is the Wonderware Front End married to Foxboro I/A hardware. It is supposed to replace the older display manager they had on the NT and sun platforms from what I know. I believe it is all Windows based. (An ex Foxboro guy)

Frank.
[email protected]

 

Why don't you go to the Invensys web site and order a demo CD?

Donald P

 

Hi Jen,

Archestra is a new platform. it does not replace the current product(s) -- specifically InTouch, but is a new architechture by which you build a 'galaxy' of objects. Each object then can be easily replicated through the galaxy. Whenever the parent object changes -- all of the children get the changes. This description does it little justice, but it is all very cool.

Not sure what part of the world you are in, but try to attend a Wonderworld (going on now) as they are doing technical sessions on archestra and the related Wonderware products -- application Server. I just got back from our local Wonderworld and thought pretty highly of the Archestra/Application server product.

Best Wishes,

JP

 

Frank is correct when you are talking about Archestra as it relates to Foxboro. On the Wonderware side it is a new product called Application Server. Realise, Jen, that Archestra is a technology... you cannot BUY Archestra. Foxboro has a product built on Archestra, Wonderware has a product built on Archestra, and in time to come, you will probably see Rockwell and GE move to Archestra to help stabilize their platforms. <<< JUST KIDDING >>>

Seriously -- call in your Wonderware or Foxboro person to see their PRODUCTS that are built on this new and exciting architecture called Archestra.

Wonderware has several sites running with/on Application Server (Archestra). Call them for more details.

 

You can get info on ArchestrA at:

http://www.invensys.com/divisions/Archestra.html

If you want some more tech info send me an e-mail [email protected]

Tom
Invensys

 

I work for a software integrator. My background is old DCS (Fisher Provox & Honeywell TDC3000) and then InTouch 7.1. We're doing our 3rd Archestra project. I really like the approach but it is hard to wrap your mind around what they're selling unless you dig in to it for a few hours (at least that's what I found).

I think it's a solid product - way ahead of Rockwell's FactoryTalk at this time and provides a great, open, scalable, solution.

No, I don't work for WW or anything but I experienced some pain when leaving my DCS work and moving to the InTouch solution because there wasn't any stable place beside the PLC to do control or any upper level programming. The Archestra IAS server (they're selling software not hardware so you can buy your PC server anywhere you want - Dell, HP or build your own) - provides a place outside the HMI and outside the PLC to do that.

We've got several chunks of code (in addition to regular IO server operations) happening at the Galaxy level. One is a custom formula manager with data stored in SQL. We could have put the functionality in the HMI but the SQL access calls are heavy and do not provide good error handling. The galaxy uses .NET and provides for a tighter, cleaner integration to SQL. We're also doing custom interface to Rockwell's RSBatch because customer didn't like the RSBatchView interface that comes with it. The work is being done in Galaxy objects and the HMI is just an HMI.

I like it so far!

 

Wow, this is the most helpful thing i have read about Archestra and Intouch. I am jumping back into an InTouch system for a customer after having not used it for several years. Archestra seems like it MIGHT be neat if I understood it, but so far to me it is a big complex pile of goo just to get some of the more advanced graphics when all I need is a basic HMI. Couldn't they just have given InTouch some better graphics without requiring the whole Area, AppEngine, ViewEngine, Intouchviewapp object, Platform, FieldReference, OPclient, etc etc etc ad nauseum? I still haven't even come close to figuring out how it all fits together. There are online tutorials that show you how to import objects to get started, but guess what, i don't have the objects to import and the tutorials don't tell you how to create from scratch. I've been doing HMI's for 20 years and this one still baffles me.

> I work for a software integrator. My background is old DCS (Fisher Provox & Honeywell TDC3000) and then InTouch 7.1.
> We're doing our 3rd Archestra project. I really like the approach but it is hard to wrap your mind around what
> they're selling unless you dig in to it for a few hours (at least that's what I found).

> I think it's a solid product - way ahead of Rockwell's FactoryTalk at this time and provides a great, open, scalable, solution.

> No, I don't work for WW or anything but I experienced some pain when leaving my DCS work and moving to the InTouch
> solution because there wasn't any stable place beside the PLC to do control or any upper level programming. The
> Archestra IAS server (they're selling software not hardware so you can buy your PC server anywhere you want - Dell,
> HP or build your own) - provides a place outside the HMI and outside the PLC to do that.

> We've got several chunks of code (in addition to regular IO server operations) happening at the Galaxy
> level. One is a custom formula manager with data stored in SQL. We could have put the functionality in the HMI but the
> SQL access calls are heavy and do not provide good error handling. The galaxy uses .NET and provides for a tighter,
> cleaner integration to SQL. We're also doing custom interface to Rockwell's RSBatch because customer didn't like the
> RSBatchView interface that comes with it. The work is being done in Galaxy objects and the HMI is just an HMI.