Relevant:
Attribution
- My experience is that both IA in person training and IU, although basic, are better than the vast majority of vendor trainings (Rockwell, Wonderware, SE, etc.).
- I do agree that there's room for improvement with education.
Here are some example documents by Rockwell for their best practices/design considerations:
I think what makes these documents useful is that they provide comparisons between different methods. These types of tables are fabulous.
Your meme is correct but at the end of the day I'd still rather use Ignition than WW or (shudders) iFix.
I have a saying for A-B PLCs that I also apply to ignition for SCADA:
It's the worst possible platform except for all the other ones.
From the same reddit thread
I like to say "No scada software is good, but ignition is the least bad."
The training materials are excellent. One thing that definitely stands out is the clearly intentional design of the tests. So often I run across tests in the industry that are essentially just a game of "which one of these options isn't ridiculous?" Even when they're serious, you don't really see the age old tropes like All of the Above or None of the Above being most likely the answer because they tend not to be options if they aren't. And you can't brute-force an Ignition test where you can take it multiple times and remember the answers you get right. They change the options and even the questions on you. Plus, they often ask questions that aren't directly answered in the material but you need to apply some logic to figure out.
Ignition's testing method does a lot better job of ensuring someone passed the test because they knew the material, not because they sat in a room following a monkey-see-monkey-do procedure in a workbook for half a day.
