Go to PLCs.net, do a survey there. See for yourself. Post the results here.
It functions like it looks. But, it is one of the better sites for PLCs. I visit just for entertainment. I'd much rather post on this site.
That's concerning, however I guess PLC guys aren't interested in fancy GUI
I found a ton of wealth on that site. I do not care how it looks as long as it works. There are exceptionally good people posting on it.
Sometimes I find info I need on really old sites in text formatting type and I praise divinity they do exist.
Why would I care how it looks??
1 Like
That site (looks very resourceful for PLC users, despite its looks) is all about PLCs, where does it compare SCADA’s ?
It’s not just PLCs. There are many posts for scada and hmi.
Here’s one example, Ignition or FactoryTalk - PLCS.net - Interactive Q & A
Hey I like that site. They've answered a lot of questions for me in the past.
But the biggest thing that amuses me about that site is that you can't use the:
Google Enhanced Search Function
unless you are a paid member. It's as if they have never heard of appending "site:plc.net" to your google searches.
1 Like
PLCS.net is one of the best PLC sites out there. alot of old school experts that have seen it all.
I like ignition a lot and keep learning it. The forum, trainings and customer support are great but the question was about the competitors so:
I heard from my colleague that Ignition has got only 1 endpoint limitation - not sure exactly what it means 
i thinks it refers to OPC communication but in his opinion it was a major disadvantage to other SCADAs.
Has this already been fixed or improved?
The other issue is that ignition does not allow export of the project to the flat file to make it totally searchable. So i somebody buried deep in the code something which should be fixed it might be a real trouble for the other person to find it. Do you agree?
I think what is being referred to here on the endpoint limitation is around device connectivity (OPC UA Drivers essentially). Some PLC systems can function with redundancy, and in those cases, may contain 2 unique IP addresses. If one fails, the other will resume control, but communication should failover as well. Some PLC vendors handle this by using a “MAIN” IP address that each PLC can assume when it’s the primary, but some do not because the protocol can handle it well. In this case, Ignition does not have a “failover” assignment in the configuration. I think some other SCADA systems have this (albeit, much more costly solutions from my understanding). To achieve the same thing in Ignition, you’d have to create 2 devices, and figure out some way to failover the tags based on device status (dynamically change the device they poll from). The other option would be to dynamically change the Device configuration (the IP address) when such an event occurs. Maybe someone has figured out a recommended solution in this case.
If it’s not around the OPC Driver connection to a device, then it may be referring to how Ignition allows OPC UA Clients to connect to the server. Even if you had a redundant Ignition Gateway, Ignition clients may have leveraged some internal failover capabilities rather than the OPC UA one. I think in the latest version just released, they finally added the OPC UA native method for handling failover for third party OPC UA clients that can leverage it. In this manner, you configure the connection to the primary gateway, and the OPC UA server/client communicate the failover system without additional setup. At least that’s how I understand it.
In Ignition 8, the project and all its resources are just files stored in the installation folder. While it’s not a single file, it would completely be searchable. I will say, however, the Find/Replace tool is pretty impressive in my opinion. I don’t know that I’ve not been able to find something with the tool, and making mass changes across a project is fairly simple too. Much better than several of the other systems I’ve used. In Ignition 7, there is a way to export the Windows to an XML file that is searchable, as well as many other things in the project.
You can do this as well in v8 with shift+right click on a window and select copy XML. Then you can paste back with the paste XML option
Time changes things, and usually not for the better. This has been true with every industrial tech supplier I have ever utilized, time will tell.
AT my current customer, everything plc/hmi based are version controllet over bitbucket… And this aint gonna happen with ignition, so it would be a hard to sell system here, even tho several others looked into it for both hmi and other office/R&D related stuff with machine statuses and log alarm frequencies.
“Make same size” does not exist in ignition that i know of, that has been existing since the 90’s in Visual Basic 4 or something like that.
I guess its the “normalize” part you mean?
There is no way anyone would guess that means “makes all the selected objects the same width and height”.
Huh. I inferred it, as it was different from ‘Align as Row’. 
Align row does not make EACH object THE SAME size as all the other, where one is the “model” for the size…
Align row makes all selected objects evently spaced out in a row, which i dont want when i want make same object sizes…
EDIT: here 3 image examples, this is what I mean when i say make the objects the same size:
Which is why ‘Align Row and Normalize’ is different from ‘Align Row’.
1 Like
I see what you’re getting at. That seems to be more of an edge case though. Could just be be me, I’ll admit to that too. 