Hello forum participants,

Some time ago I have heard following claims:
Even so the 1131-3 standard defines some standard
languages for PLC programming it still not prevent
the customer from tying herself to one and only
produceser of the controllers. Claim is backed
by following statement: Standard does not define
the standard for binary files produced from
programms, written in one of the 1131-3 languages,
so it is impossible to transfer one programm, given its binary form from controller, made by one
producer to controller made by other one.
My question:
How many truth is in this claim? Is it true
indeed that even using 1131-3 languages without
proprietray extensions one is still tied to one
and only one producer?

Yours sincerely
Ariel Burbaickij

 

On February 27, 2003 23:07, Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
<clip>
> Some time ago I have heard following claims:
> Even so the 1131-3 standard defines some standard
> languages for PLC programming it still not prevent
> the customer from tying herself to one and only
> produceser of the controllers. Claim is backed
> by following statement: Standard does not define
> the standard for binary files produced from
> programms, written in one of the 1131-3 languages,
> so it is impossible to transfer one programm, given its binary form from
> controller, made by one producer to controller made by other one.
> My question:
> How many truth is in this claim? Is it true
> indeed that even using 1131-3 languages without
> proprietray extensions one is still tied to one
> and only one producer?
<clip>

The "standard" did little to standardise PLC languages. Not just the binary forms are incompatible, the source code forms are incompatible. Two different models of PLC may both be IEC 61131-3 (the current standard numbering system adds a "6" to the old numbers) compatible, but the ladder or instruction list sources may have little or no resemblence to each other. This may be true even for two different product lines from the same manufacturer.


--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

plcopen.org - you will find some dialog on addressing this issue. In short - transportability was a pipe dream in the beginning, and some even said it could happen. Concept - modicon's IEC editor does not support any other hardware. So your statement is true, BUT

IEC is a common environment loosely speaking. There are many common hooks in all systems, so the learning curve is smaller.

Having said that, cross reusability and XML will become a reality in the future and being driven by PLCopen.

Join and have your input and say into what gets done.

Cheers from: Jeremy Pollard, CET The Crazy Canuckian! Integration and Automation Training, Consulting, and Software

Control Design Column http://www.linkpath.com/index2gisufrm.php3?tempCode=CON&onlineIssue=true&mem _sess=d8734688500ceb501ce5610f4a530004&speed=high

On The Web - http://www.tsuonline.com

PLCopen North America - [email protected] http://www.PLCopen.org

Please note Address Change..............

3 Red Pine Court, RR# 2 Shanty Bay, Ontario L0L 2L0 705.739.7155 Cell # 705.725.3579

 

Hello,

61131-3 intended to standardize the visual aspect of the languages (how the source is presented on screen / paper) - for the benefit of the programmers (uniformity). The attempt to standardize the binary apparently (IMHO) fizzled.

Meir Saggie