Is there anyone familiar with both Emerson Delta V and Foxboro I/A that could differentiate them at a high level ? (For instance Foxboro uses Wonderware as the operator interface but Delta V uses iFix.) I'm very familiar with Delta V, but have just been introduced to I/A.

 

My opinions only, not those of my employer:


Foxboro I/A is much more costly, and runs on UNIX (unless they've got their new WonderWare interface up). I/A is not a tightly integrated as Delta V. Delta V is MUCH easier to configure, maintain, understand, etc. I/A is much more mature, and the hardware is a bit more robust. (The earlier infant mortality problems have long since been surmounted.) If you were looking at thousands of I/O, redundant communications networks, product support (detailed product support) from the vendor, lots of engineering provided by the vendor, then the I/A might be a good choice. If not, DeltaV is cheaper, faster, and easier. Also, the trends in the market (my flawed crystal ball again...) point toward DeltaV and similar products. I/A is not a hybrid, but a true DCS.

(Apologies to all the Emerson folks who don't call DeltaV a hybrid)

Shields up, awaiting flame storm....

George G. Robertson, P.E.
Manager of Engineering
Saulsbury E & C
[email protected]
(915) 366-4252

 

> Foxboro I/A is much more costly, and runs on UNIX (unless they've got
> their new WonderWare interface up).

The operator interface runs on Unix or NT. The sales seems to push NT. The support people and users like me prefer Unix.

> I/A is not a tightly integrated as Delta V. Delta V is MUCH easier to
> configure, maintain, understand, etc.

I haven't run a Delta V, but the demos that I've seen do not look like it is easier to configure or maintain. It might be easier to understand and make pretty graphics. But then I'm still using the old interface.

> I/A is much more mature, and the hardware is a bit more robust.
> (The earlier infant mortality problems have long since been
> surmounted.)
> If you were looking at thousands of I/O, redundant communications
> networks, product support (detailed product support) from the vendor,
> lots of engineering provided by the vendor, then the I/A might be a good
> choice. If not, DeltaV is cheaper, faster, and easier. Also, the trends
> in the market (my flawed crystal ball again...) point toward DeltaV and
> similar products. I/A is not a hybrid, but a true DCS.

I tend to agree. For a big system go with Foxboro. For a medium sized system Foxboro will be more reliable, and easier to upgrade, but also more expensive.

Mark Blunier
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.

 

My hunch is that the sales force pitches the best margin for the company, which may or may not be the best solution for the end user. But maybe I'm just cynical.

 

At the risk of attracting adverse comments from enthusiasts of both system, I'd say it was a no-brainer, on strategic grounds. I/A was (too?) advanced when it appeared in the late 1980s, but is long in the tooth now. It is still just a
2nd generation system with lots of proprietary stuff. Invensys are in serious financial difficulty and cannot fund the R&D needed to keep up with the leaders in a brutal business. Read analyst/commentator Jim Pinto ( "http://www.JimPinto.com":http://www.JimPinto.com ) on this.

DeltaV is far from flawless, but it has had $100 millions R&D spent on it, and it shows. Emerson has played hard for the "Microsoft" position (unassailable leader) in process automation - and has won. I've been involved in a very large DeltaV job (20,000+ I/O) and: like the system, respect Emerson highly, prefer not to comment on the old Fisher organisation (at least here in the UK).

Neil Brown

(These opinions are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer.)