It's snowing and gloomy and I needed a comedic moment to lift my countenance.

Imagine my surprise when I found these humorous (to a nerdy Modbus guy) comments in a Modbus sales brochure.

The marketing guy with the talent to 'spin' Modbus this well missed his calling as a politician.

Quotes from the glossy Modbus sales overview brochure
(my comments in brackets):

"no complications from device description files or special tools needed to setup a Modbus system"
(leaving us field guys at the mercy of whatever the manufacturer decides to call 'Modbus')

"Cabling requires 2 wires only per channel provided the ground potentials are equal"
(The chutzpah to tackle the "2 wire 485 really takes 3 wires" issue right up front and not even as an * with its note buried elsewhere in size 6 font and in a sales brochure, to boot)

"Simple connectivity, easy configuration"
(as this forum proves . . .)

"The PLC and DCS drivers are all simple and easy to use"
(hey, it's a sales brochure, what do you expect them to say?)

"The inherent flexibility of the Modbus RTU protocol . . .
(uh huh)

Don't get me wrong, the documentation is first rate, probably one of the best I've encountered. There's more hard info in the sales brochure than most implementation guides offer. I just found some of the claims are 'amusing' and thought I'd pass them along.

 

If you think that's humorous, you should bust a gut on every page of the trade magazines. Even the "non-advertising content" is loaded with glowing commentary on the equipment and software. Reads like a comic book if you've used the stuff.

Regards,
cww

 

I have to agree.

But where do you think we would be without Modbus, what would have been used in it's place?

Happy New Year
Roy

 

The hypothetical no-Modbus world would have been filled with either another truly open, no licensing protocol or the plethora of the numerous ASCII protocols that have been published over the years.

Worse, I suspect that the lack of Modbus would've made OPC less attractive, because of all that many more server drivers needed.

But, hey, I love the 'variety' of Modbus and its 'simplicity'. I provides me billing hours.

 

OK Curt I write for 2 of those trade mags... thems fighting words

And to truly understand your posture, can you point me to a product that you have used that was featured somewhere?? And no I am not trying to be funny. I take the stuff I do seriously!!

Thx in advance Curt!!

Cheers from :
Jeremy Pollard, CET The Caring Canuckian!
www[.]tsuonline[.]com
Control Design www[.]controldesignmag[.]com
Manufacturing Automation www[.]automationmag[.]com
3 Red Pine Court, RR# 2 Shanty Bay, Ontario L0L 2L0

 

Well, Jerry

I'm afraid I'm at a loss to cite recent, or even non-recent, examples. Unlike EDN, which will follow me to the grave, the automation trade mags lapsed at least one job ago, and I was not motivated to resubscribe. And I certainly wouldn't want to rely on memory, one should never misquote an author. And they aren't likely to be at the local library. Since you have me at a disadvantage, I am willing to concede that your articles may well be appropriately critical and objective. Or better yet, perhaps some disinterested third parties would like to comment. given that I have some freely admitted biases against very expensive, shrinkwrap software with one sided, draconian licensing. And $400.00 serial cards as well.

What say you, readers? Do the automation magazine ads and articles jive with your experience with the product? Are they to be taken seriously? That's probably more important than my user centric views anyway. We _should_ change the Modbus title, the Modbus folks have done exemplary service to the public, OP ad copy notwithstanding.

Regards,
cww

 

In reply to Curt Wuollet: I'm not sure what you're expecting from the automation magazines. As for ads (and sales brochures), if I was going to criticize them for anything, it would be for some of them being so vague that I can't figure out what they are selling. Saying something like "we enable global enterprises to achieve their potential" is saying nothing at all and is just a waste of ad space and of my time.

What I expect from an ad is to tell me the salient points about their product and how to get more information (preferably a URL to the relevant page on their web site) if I am interested. Part of the job when you are in the automation business is knowing what's on the market that you might be able to use to build, repair, or improve equipment. I expect ads to give me that information in a concise and useful form. If an ad doesn't do that, then it has failed and I skip on to the next one.

The quality of the articles is also variable. Some are very good, and some are "industry overviews" which are just thinly disguised ads where the writer promotes the product he is selling and slags off all his competitors. I expect ads to be ads, but I expect articles to present an objective view within the scope of what they are trying to address.

As for the post that started this thread, you could provide the same or similar criticisms about any other protocol, or indeed any other product. Just go through the archives and you will find plenty of people asking about problems with Profibus GSD files, or why their AB Controllogix can't seem to talk to their AB PLC5 even though they both supposedly use the same AB protocol. And if the documentation is really "first rate" as you say, then that puts them well ahead of almost everyone else in the industry these days.