How to justify Ignition to decision makers who are not familiar with the SCADA space

EDIT:
Are you saying you would recommend swapping Rockwell displays to Automation Direct C-More displays?
Or like you tried it, and it was a mistake?
I saw the tag import video, looks simple.


I started with mobile controllers IP69 instead of IP65.
Parker IQAN, typically XA2 and MD4. (IQAN programming with CAN)
Eaton HFX and VFX. (Codesys programming with CAN)
I used Schneider VFDs with them.
Plugs, sockets/pins, Deutsch connectors, and harnesses instead of messy cabinets.
Those were the days. *for me, few years ago
Every plc is overly complicated to me by contrast.

I used these industrial plcs and displays, and they were complicated to me:
Eaton industrial XC, XP, and XV units too.
ABB, automation direct, Siemens, and Rockwell stuff.
I like being able to monitor the plcs remotely.
I don't like when a plc can just write bits to another plc, and there is no line of code for receiving the message, they just write to the data file.
I still don't get how the page numbering works in Factory Talk either.
Don't like Cursor tracking either.

I am saying I would recommend switching from Rockwell displays to C-More displays...whole-heartedly and without reservation. One incredible ability of the C-Mores is a remote connection feature. You hit the C-More with a browser, you download an executable, run the executable and now you see what is happening on the EOI live. And you can set security up so that you can even control it. Have you ever deployed a brand new EOI and the operators couldn't find the information they wanted on it? Now you just connect to it and show them how to navigate to it remotely (and then fix the navigation so it is even more intuitive). My office is a couple hundred yards from our mill and I have to don PPE to even go into the mill. Now I can just help them over the radio from my office. Huge time saver.

However, the one feature that will cause me to choose them over Rockwell every time is that the application is a single file that you can save on the server and anyone with the software can use it. I, or anyone else who develops can make changes to the file and the next person who opens it has those changes.

One of the OT people in my organization is a former Rockwell engineer. I get the most ridicule from him for using Automation Direct. It's amazing to hear him describe how "easy" it is for multiple people to work on an EOI project with a Rockwell solution.

The one argument you will always get from a Rockwell person is quality/ruggedness. The price of a C-More along with its development software (free) is so little that I can buy several of them for the cost of a comparable Rockwell solution so I wouldn't care if they didn't last as long, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are not as durable as a PanelView anyway. And if an EOI gets taken out by a pike pole, it's not going to matter whose it is.

2 Likes

You know, that makes absolute sense. @samuraimarc even had an Ignition server running on some flavor of Linux here for a while. He would do back flips to be allowed to do that. However, in our case, that would just contribute to the "Ignition is weird" argument and I'm sure IT department would be opposed to it solely on the basis it didn't cost enough and crash enough.

5 Likes

Just to play devil's advocate, you can do the same thing with FT View Studio ME and a PanelView by testing the runtime application. As long as your communication path is setup and pointed at the PanelView.

Again, devil's advocate, it really doesn't take too long to create a runtime file that can be restored on someone else's computer. You can also take a backup of the application which serves the same purpose.

Full disclosure though, I haven't programmed a C-More so I don't necessarily have an opinion on which is better. One really nice thing about PanelView for me, is the ability to save the file as a previous version. You can develop in v13 but save the runtime file as v11 and it will work on a v11 PanelView.

To be fair, PanelViews come with VNC which you can use for this purpose of remote control as well

For a price. Most end users are not willing to shell out extra for SE. And to be sure you're commonizing RSLinx Enterprise configurations and tying it together into the domain. And this, and that, and the other...

You could build an Igition Panel for approximately the same price (One used to be able to do it cheaper, but hardware prices are coming into parity). No runtimes to build. Any changes are there as soon as you save the project.

On the other hand, many features that could be used on a PV+ -- or Ignition for that matter-- never get used in an HMI application. Similar to the C-Mores, I can get 4 Maple Systems HMIs for the price of one similary sized PV+ and have cross PLC platform connectivity out of the box.

EDIT: I was going to mention startup times for PV+, but I won't do it. I just won't. :hear_no_evil: :see_no_evil: :speak_no_evil:

2 Likes

Don't forget project transfer/restart times... :sob:

5 Likes

Edited this post, probably too far off topic.

There are LOTS of people who can develop in Ignition and it is fairly easy to figure out how a project works in most situations.

An exception would be if you're using custom modules and stuff like that. Regardless, lots of people know how to develop in it and it's easy to learn.

There fixed that for you. Just about my biggest gripe.

4 Likes

Speaking of PanelView issues, I spent several weeks trying to get one set up with a fileshare to get recipes from a centralized location instead of a bunch of flash drives like they were using when I showed up. Finally gave up after I could get it to see the file share, but it would forget the credentials it needed to access it on every reboot, despite me saving them in the settings menu.

I think I hate Windows CE now. Even regular Windows can at least be kicked into something resembling usefulness.

4 Likes

I don't know if you've received a satisfactory response or found help elsewhere, but at the risk of exposing my clumsy python skills, I'll share some code I wrote to create some tags. This same code can also be used to overwrite existing tags because of the "o" collision policy option. Another useful collision policy option would be "m" for editing tags.

The scenario is this:

I have a database full of some 30 columns worth of data for 4 different kilns. I want access to about 29 of those values in my applications. I have a single query tag that retrieves [4R x 30C] for a total of 120 discrete values into a dataset. Although I could theoretically use values directly out of that tag, the addressing would be a nightmare, especially for anyone coming behind me. I would much rather have 116 intuitively named tags with a single value for use in my application so I chose to make expression tags that pull their values out of the aforementioned dataset tag. This keeps the traffic to the database at a minimum.

That's a lot of copying and pasting with 115 chances to make an error or I can just write code to do it and they will all be perfect. Here is the code:

tg = "FiveSecondLeased"
tt = "AtomicTag"
vs = "expr"
dt = "Float4"
be = "{[.]KilnLiveDataVW}[kkkk,'ffff']"
bn = "Kilnkkkkffff"
fl = ['RunID','Sch','TimeDate','Hours','TargMC','MeasMC','AveTdal','SchDBstpt','AveDB','SchWBstpt','AveWB','MC_1','MC_2','MC_3','MC_4','MC_5','MC_6','FanFwd','FanSpd','AveEnt','LVent','RVent','KilnDmd','TotDmd','BlrFlow','StmPres','Amps1','Amps2','t_stamp']
ft = ["Integer","String","DateTime","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Float4","Boolean","Short","Float4","Short","Short","Integer","Integer","Integer","Float4","Float4","Float4","DateTime"]

path = "[v8Provider]Kiln"
tgs = []
for k in range(1,5):
	i = -1
	for fld in fl:
		i += 1
		tag = {
			"valueSource": "expr"
			,"expression": be.replace("kkkk",str(k-1)).replace("ffff",fld)
			,"dataType": ft[i]
			,"name": bn.replace("kkkk",str(k)).replace("ffff",fld)
			,"tagGroup":tg
			,"tagType":tt
			}
#			print cfg,'\r\n\r\n',pp,'\r\n',tagtgs.append(tag1)
		tgs.append(tag)
print tgs
system.tag.configure(path,tgs,"o")

This code only runs the one time in a script console window so there is no harm in sprinkling in some print statements in there for ease of debugging. Voila. 116 tags from a single query to a database.

Can any other SCADA platform do that?

4 Likes

No you are not the only one. Im almost at the point where Im going to start refusing historian and batch upgrades. They are always a giant headache and never get done on time. Shouldn't need to be an OSI PI expert, a SQL administrator, and windows administrator just to upgrade versions of a software but thats rockwell for you.

Is there a way to go from a Rockwell plc directly to a monitor instead of a panelview?
Or are all Rockwell plcs designed to go only to a panelview?

I like the C-More headless, but my boss likes the reliability of the panelviews being around for the next two decades.

Heh. With Rockwell's boneheaded moves within its integrator program [expletive]ing off people like me, I'd be more worried that the Panelview will go away.

{ I too, like the C-More product line. I especially like Automation Direct's simple and affordable software licensing practices. }

2 Likes

I'd like to see the crystal ball he's using. There is never a guarantee like that, and-- if by a minor miracle-- one does last twenty years, the rest of the technology suppoting it will be dead.

3 Likes

Maybe he said it like Panelview has been around 20 years?
I hope I didn't quote him wrong.

Those black hornet drones, they are wirelessly transmitting hdmi over radio?
It might be far off topic, but I was wondering how some of these screens and cameras are connecting to each other so far apart, and if I can benefit from that, or it is like overly expensive.

Sure. Rockwell's supported way is to install the FactoryTalk ME runtime on the PC. Which is "basically" what a panelview is.

There are also other ways to pull data from Rockwell PLC's, any OPC Server & Client that you can find (including RSLinx if you must.) Probably the most popular is Kepware.

I've set up DDE Topics (way back when) and connected AB PLC's directly to Excel. (DDE and Excel :face_vomiting:).

C-More can also connect to AB PLC's, although it's been a while since I did so.

The only difference is using Rockwell products together makes communication Easier™.

4 Likes

And still questions on how to do it on the PLC forums after 20 years. :roll_eyes:

2 Likes

I like you too.

10 Likes