Thank you for your advice. I noticed that matter at my first time using ignition. I thoughted they know that…
Yeah,I started at 8.1.1. Ignition will be perfact, but not now.
One thing for sure, comparing ignition to old scada package is pointless. They are all nothing to ignition.
We must see the new and modern solution and compare ignition with them and ask dev team to make platform better and better.
Right now any pure web scada solution which use node.js or .net platfrom is much faster than perspective. Also extending features are much easier for integrators.
1 Like
Proof, try their demo, click “Try Live Demo” on this page:
Just tried and it’s down, doesn’t say much. However, I did go through it months ago and it isn’t close to vision or perspective. Very clunky. I do like integration of .NET, but that could be a turn off for some
http://ec2-54-67-7-147.us-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/ITEH81/index.html?guestuser=1&screen=startup.sg
Oh that is indusoft which is totally joke. They did like old vision mobile module.
They sell product to Schneider (AVEA)
The main product is wonderware onTouch OMI.
2 Likes
I think this is comical from Aveva. Just shows how out of touch they are internally. As someone who is Gold Certified in Ignition and 2020 Aveva Certified (Historian, Intouch for Sys Platform, and Sys Platform) it is funny they are comparing Intouch Edge to Ignition. They should be comparing Sys Platform to Ignition as IA blows them out of the water in all aspects. They need to compare Intouch Edge 300 tag to Ignition Vision Limited 1 Client with Limited SQL bridge and it wouldn’t even be close.
The big one I took out of the Aveva document saying Ignition is scripting heavy. Well they can’t even do a simple SQL insert without using 2 scripts. Using raw .NET code to do SQL integration is a nightmare and unreliable, using their best practice of aaDBIntegration code requires TWO scripts for every insert, update or delete. Everything else is heavily scripting in the Aveva IDE as well. And knowing both .NET and Python fairly well, Python wins hands down.
Support costs can cost up to 25K-30K a year for Aveva. That’s why our big customer is ripping out all Aveva and going to ignition. It is cheaper for them to pay us labor to convert then it is to keep Aveva support going per year.
For everyone complaining about the IDE in Ignition. Spend 10 years messing with the IDE in Aveva. You will waste more time deploying, checking in objects than you do programming. At least in Ignition, all changes propagate instantly. Especially deploying to a client and getting the orange coma of death. Where you have to spin 4 times and keep deploying to get a client to deploy correctly. Try tying to a single tag in a PLC using the “Auto-Bind” feature, everything needs to be in a UDT for Sys platform to bind well, or you have to script the binding, but Aveva doesn’t need scripting. 
6 Likes
It's now Aveva. I see no difference, however, you can't license Indusoft with Aveva and vice versa, but the software looks the same to me, just rebranded. The document referenced earlier was Aveva Edge (Indusoft), not InTouch.
I can't put down Aveva Edge too much, I think it's better than FactoryTrash, but it isn't my favorite by any means.
I’m fond of FactoryTalk Spew
Well
5 Likes
Factory trash edition/emission
2 Likes
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned ICONICS Gen64.
Pros:
- Scripting knowledge is not required. Out of the box functionality is really good.
- The graphics component GraphWorX64 is amazing for making high quality graphics. I don’t think Vision is really there yet.
- Most Graphics components are HTML5 compatible and can be opened with any browser.
- MobileHMI uses the exact same components/methods as your regular screens.
- Can configure Assets very quickly using their Bulk AssetWorX configurator.
Cons:
- I’ve had issues with some of the other modules from time to time like Historian, their BACnet driver and of course MMX (notoriously unreliable) - which they recently replaced with something called CFXWorX.
- No knowledge base until last year except for a few pdf’s. They basically ripped off IU now.
- Support isn’t really that great even if you’re paying them.
- High costs. They are based on tag count and other modules.
- Historian and Alarm tags had to be configured separately until recently. A nightmare in huge projects.
Also in a recent update I found that you don’t have to configure Historian and Alarm tags separately. Wonder where they got that idea from 
1 Like
From their site:
"GENESIS64™ is an advanced HMI SCADA solution suite designed for Microsoft operating systems"
I'm sure @pturmel is all over that, he's a Windows lover. 
5 Likes
That icon though.. 
The iconics part is ok, not sure about the colours, but that play button? I don't know, I think a lot can be told about a product from its logo and its website. I've found generally if these aren't up to par, then most of the time neither is their software, and their website is pretty average as well.
Doesn't look like they make it easy to get started either 
Haha, they haven’t updated some of their webpages as well. You should see the ICONICS Web Licensing here. It looks really old but they have revamped a lot of their stuff in the last 3 years. Like I said, I don’t think any SCADA software can come close to their Symbol Library and GraphWorX - it’s very powerful. I’ve created high quality realistic 3D looking objects quickly in it. Some customers dig that stuff.
Yeah, it’s not straight forward to get a trial. I think you have to be an SI to download a copy, not sure if they have changed the procedure now. They seem to be following in IA’s footsteps lately. The software trial period previously was 12 hours, now it’s 2 like Ignition. Since it’s a Windows service, I just use a batch file and schedule it to run automatically. 
Sounds like they’re the new Ignition, except old… 
Iconics is even better than wonderware or Ignition vision for normal HMI application and not for html5 web base solutions. Specially their feature for using 3d objects directly in the HMI.
“MobileHMI uses the exact same components/methods as your regular screens.”
This is something that limit you. Many old scada software use that approach so they don’t need to create every thing from scratch. With this method the page can’t be responsive and your knowledge of web development is is useless. (Like using css)
As you can see ignition create perspective as whole new package and sacrifice Vision for that. But the result is create.
If there is a SCADA package out there that use node.js as backend and use same strategy as perspective for frontend with exception of using js instead of python, in that case you can say something better than ignition came out.
1 Like
Funny you should mention this Nader...
Why?
When I test those software the performance is really greate. You should test it yourself to agree with me. And the option to custom the platfrom feature is really easy.
For example perspective use leaflet for map which is greate but we have to wait until IA dev team add all available feature or plugins available for that. In the other hand on those platfrom you can do it yourself very easily( just some basic knowledge of us). I know we can make module but it is hard for most people.
2 Likes
This has been very helpful and my first exposure to this forum!
The overall consensus is that Ignition is on top but I wonder how much of that is due to this post being on a IA forum? Thoughts?
I would say that most of us like me have come from other platforms and have either been previously blissfully unaware of a better solution.
1 Like