plc5 status ? >> and more

OK, I managed to compile it and make the demo run, a couple of comments:

- the chaser seems to chase without any delays
- chasing right works, but chasing left goes to the first one and then stops (obviously there's a mistake in the leftward wrap-around)
- it really wasn't pretty until I added some scan_period declarations.
Unless there are objections, I'll probably go add them to all the demos... (except perhaps the synch one)
Kbd:scan_period=0.05
plc5:scan_period=0.05
vitrine:scan_period=0.05
(or 0.01, or whatever; but since this doesn't have delays, 0.05 is at
least still visible)

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sourceforge.net

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
 
Hi,

Please give me some time to look over the docs and source code - a couple of days would work. In the mean time you can have a look at my specs at;

http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/lpcd/lpc.0.0.7.4/docs/io_spec.doc
The basic architecture is a central process oader that loads modules as dynamically linked libraries. Each library is linked to a common set of routines that handle execution. They can exchange data and messages through the loader. The loader is very lightweight. This is by design so that it can be replaced easily to switch between pthreads, rtlinux, or roll your own OS.

Hugh




_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
 
Hi,

Sorry I have been so silent, the summer (up north) is my busy time. Currently I am in the process of wrapping up courses in PLC based
controls, and integrated manufacturing (this year using Linux). I have two items to put forward below.....

PLC-5: The PLC-5 emulator has evolved significantly, although I haven't given the changes to Mario to add to the CVS tree yet. The emulator has been changed to significantly increase the execution speed. This includes moving away from the archaic PLC-5 memory structure, although it can still be kludged.

QUESTION: I have noticed that the PPLC/MAT effort has been progressing, but slowing down. I also find my efforts are starting to slow as the
number of details to tend to grow. We have all been short of programming volunteers to make things happen. I think it might be time to merge the two projects. From my perspective there is little overlap at this point, and most modules would fit together to complete the distribution. The real question is ----- is this worth discussing more? At present I have many modules including
- devicenet control (SST and Synergetics cards)
- ladder logic engine
- telnet access server
- java clients (monitor, HMI and ladder programming) that access via telnet server
- das-08 board control (8255, analog and counter)
- an email client
- serial port drivers
- a central server that does dynamic module loading and management

Hugh


>Jiri wrote:
>
>what's the status of the PLC 5 language emulator in the LinuxPLC?
>
>If it's OK, I should add it to the manual...
(doc/manual/logic/plc5.html)


_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
 
Hugh:
> PLC-5: The PLC-5 emulator has evolved significantly, although I haven't
> given the changes to Mario to add to the CVS tree yet.

Sounds excellent!

> QUESTION: I have noticed that the PPLC/MAT effort has been progressing,
> but slowing down. I also find my efforts are starting to slow as the
> number of details to tend to grow. We have all been short of programming
> volunteers to make things happen. I think it might be time to merge the
> two projects.

That sounds good - the question is, how well will the cores / architectures merge?

Do you have a document somewhere on the net that'd describe the architecture of your project?

Ours is a bit out of date, but you can read it at
http://mat.sourceforge.net/structure.txt
and, as far as the data map is concerned, the two files in
http://mat.sourceforge.net/smm


What it doesn't say - the MAT LinuxPLC core is a shared library. There isn't actually any central process running (though obviously there has to
be something that starts up all the modules and then takes them down).

> From my perspective there is little overlap at this point, and most
> modules would fit together to complete the distribution.

That they would. If the cores can be merged cleanly, it would be excellent because the combined project would then have enough modules to really start getting somewhere.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jiribvisit the MAT LinuxPLC project at http://mat.sourceforge.net

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
 
M

Mario de Sousa

I seem to have got it working partially. There seems to be a bug related to timers.

Since I did it, the original code seems to have evolved. At least the general framework in which it is inserted, changed quite a bit. Probably the plc5 code itself didn't change much.

We need to redo this from scratch. Anyway, it was a first hack just to see if I could get something to work. It still needed a bit of work. For example, points need to be declared in two configuration files.

I believe we shouldn't count on it for now. But we should still try and use the original code to make a working plc5 emulator. Especially considering that the new version of the code seems to be organized in more isolated blocks of code, which should make the porting easier.


Cheers,

Mario.


P.S. Is there anybody that would like to take on this project?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario J. R. de Sousa
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The box said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
 
M

Mario de Sousa

Jiri Baum wrote:
>
(...)
> Unless there are objections, I'll probably go add them to all the
> demos... (except perhaps the synch one)
> Kbd:scan_period=0.05
> plc5:scan_period=0.05
> vitrine:scan_period=0.05
> (or 0.01, or whatever; but since this doesn't have delays, 0.05 is at
> least still visible)
>

Yes, I suppose it makes sense to add them to the other demos as well. Including the synch.

If the modules are running synchronised, please just add it to *one* of the modules!

Cheers,

Mario.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario J. R. de Sousa
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The box said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux

_______________________________________________
LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc
 
Top