I work with Survallent and believe me it’s quite fast. Every thing is dynamic in map. It is obvious out of box you can’t don’t application like that in ignition. But my question is anyone here can accomplish this type of large data application with his custom modules?
Remember when I told you to stay tuned? 
10 Likes
To the OP. No. (laughing out loud)
1 Like
Differentiating Factors. https://inductiveautomation.com/integrators/learning/differentiating-factors
0:12:15 - 0:13:40
You could compare any SDADA using that criteria . To make the comparison more candid you may add some strengths from documentation or marketinng materials of other SCADA.
Regards,
FWIW the modern versions of CIMPLICITY allow you to script in C# instead of CimBasic. I recently scripted the same functionality in both languages and the C# version was half the line count. The downside being that in order to use any advanced .Net functionality you have to go through a very non-obvious process to add library references to the project. This was a deal breaker for me as there was no way a FE could simply restore a project to a server and have it all work. So I went with the CimBasic version.
1 Like
VTSCADA Prove me wrong?
What are 3 things that make VTSCADA better than Ignition?
Nothing. For the end result most SCADA packages are good and really depends on the engineer design of the system. But for the design and engineering part nothing near ignition solution. And with this speed of development they soon get 100 % of market.
There are only some area for small project which ignition price is high in that area.
Unfortunately they even increase the price for perspective lately. When the 8.1 release there is option for single web access $1600 but now $2350.
I already knew the answer, was curious on what he would come up with.
Look at https://tatsoft.com/
it changed a lot for the last time I saw it. It can compete with ignition with its feature(Python 3, Java Script, .Net, mobile Client,… and the price is much lower than it. May be this cause we see better pricing in market.
Ignition initial development will cost time and money, you’ll want to get new hardware and run the new SCADA in parallel to prove functionality, and you basically have to redo all your graphics, but if you are using any SVG’s with iFix you should be able to locate them in the file structure and use them in ignition. You probably don’t need nearly as many tags in the Ignition server depending on how you plan to do your structure. Creation of tag groups by using UDT’s is much simpler than iFix, you don’t even necessarily need a different one for Integer vs Real AI’s. All of the functionality you had to build on iFix you have to make for yourself on Ignition to get it. The huge difference in maintenance cost is a no-brainer, but that’s if they’re paying for the maintenance. The other option is to not get the maintenance, which just means you’re stuck without being able to use new firmware versions. The other thing is you’re not locked into using Thinmanager or iHistorian with Ignition. Most of our clients just haven’t been ready to transition when they have thousands of hours in iFix development.
Ignoring that (from my limited experience) iFix is rather limited, what functionality are you talking about?
4 Likes
We have a few customers that are still locked into iFix. They already have full support and all their systems are integrated, so they don’t want the up-front switchover cost. We made a screen for creating tag groups and such, and I usually use Excel to generate new tags when we add new components. The custom functionality is the same as what you can build into your Ignition templates: PID’s, AI’s, parameterized pop-ups, etc. Ignition does all of it, but not exactly the same.
Obviously, the functionality that you have in whatever SCADA you’re using is limited to the time and funding invested in implementing it to begin with. Nothing comes OTS how any customer wants it.
I’ve been in industrial automation for 15+ years. I’ve worked extensively in several SCADAS and overall worked on lot of others here and there.
I haven’t encountered a better SCADA than Ignition.
5 Likes
I work with cranes that generally have 1 HMI Server/1 Operator Display station with 10 or 15 screens (and normally on the same computer). The only push back against Ignition that I have seen for this is that Inductive’s unlimited model of paying per server with no additional per operator station costs can be seen as un-economical in this particular situation. So “better” isn’t always an absolute.
Why? You only have to buy one license and then you can charge the customer whatever? Per station, if that works.
When you’re bidding Ignition you can pick the option for “Build Your Own Package”. In there you can specify “limited” instead of unlimited to buy a smaller client count version of the vision license.
Check it out. It should allow you to bid much more competitive pricing.
Oops … I totally missed that Limited option. That makes things a lot more competitive.
Don’t mind me while I slink off to a corner and hide my shame 