The new Logix platform

[Firejo]

I responded to a post that involved a 5069 PAC and within that post someone gave me a good suggestion which was to start a new thread about what I had commented on which was how the new Logix platform has some differences that are noteworthy (to paraphrase).
So the background is that I’ve been doing some limited testing of a 5069 processor (limited because I’m getting geared up for Automation Fair and don’t have time to go into the details I’d like to at this point, but I digress). In that testing I’ve noted two things that has the made me realize that this new platform isn’t just another Logix processor but something different that will require a fundamental change in the way somethings are done. Don’t get me wrong I’m not suggesting that this is good or bad, just different but because it’s a ControlLogix/CompactLogix some of us might get caught off guard when working with them for the first time. At very least they will generate some posts here (and already have).
What my intent with this post is to get generate conversations and get feedback on what people are seeing for themselves and maybe even comments on what they think about the changes.
For me two things that I’ve observed so far are the change in communications I.E. the “path” structure is different (although I don’t know details) and the I/O structure has changed. For the latter, (in my experience) in previous version of all Allen Bradley PLC/PAC’s, the discrete inputs and outputs, with respects to “on or off” are represented by a single word with each channel having a single bit. In the new platform you still have each channel’s “on or off” status represented by a single bit but they aren’t made up into a single word but rather they are part of a larger word that includes a lot more information about the module and the channels. Please note that I’ve got about ½ hour into looking at this, so I might be missing some details but the long and short is it’s different and what I used to do to read or write discrete I/O has to change. Not a bad thing, in fact I love challenges and figuring these kinds of thing out so I’m looking forward to when I will have time to dig in deep. I just hope it’s not because I have to figure out an answer for a customer but rather because I have time to “play”.

[harryting]

You are going to the fair? Cool.

I'm confused (as usual), is the 5069 the same as the 5380, 5480, and 5580? I know about the 5069 IO which is used with 5380 and 5480 Compactlogic. 5480 is supposed to be this IoT processor but there are scant information on it.

I'll be working on my first 5380 soon, quite a jump for us since most of our PLC are still version 20 or older. Looking forward to have the description stored in the processor.

[RonJohn]

Originally Posted by harryting

I'm confused (as usual), is the 5069 the same as the 5380, 5480, and 5580? I know about the 5069 IO which is used with 5380 and 5480 Compactlogic.

I believe that all 5380 hardware components have a part number that begins with 5069. I'm not aware of any 5069 processor, but I've been confused before as well.

FYI: Rockwell put out a manual that deals with all of the changes between the older style Logix controllers and the newer 5380/5480 controllers. I mentioned it in a previous post/thread that I started after my first PLC to 1756-L81E conversion. This little 158 page pamphlet of light reading may contain a wealth of useful information.

[Firejo]

Originally Posted by RonJohn

I believe that all 5380 hardware components have a part number that begins with 5069. I'm not aware of any 5069 processor, but I've been confused before as well.

FYI: Rockwell put out a manual that deals with all of the changes between the older style Logix controllers and the newer 5380/5480 controllers. I mentioned it in a previous post/thread that I started after my first PLC to 1756-L81E conversion. This little 158 page pamphlet of light reading may contain a wealth of useful information.

I've never been very good at the model number versus the product family. I do believe you are correct in that 5069 isn't a controller but rather a product family (I think that's how it works. Ken?).
Thanks for the info on the documentation. After AF I'll look into it.
Having said that, I'm still curious about the experiences people are having. The reality is a lot of people don't realize (or think about) the fact that Rockwell would publish that. It makes total sense that they would but human nature is what it is and logic seldom plays a role (I speak of my own nature here. No offence intended to anyone reading this).

[dmroeder]

I think of 5069 as a platform, with controllers, modules, accessories. It's just like 1769, which is a platform with controllers and modules.

[bill4807]

5069-L310, 5069-L320 ect.. processors.
The I/O structure has changed and I'm not quite sure I like it all that much.
But then again I've only briefly worked on them.

[tarik1978]

CompactLogix 5380 vs 5370
https://theautomationblog.com/compac...-5380-vs-5370/

5380 Family of CompactLogix controllers
772353 | Date Created: 02/22/2016 | Last Updated: 09/23/2018
Access Level: Everyone
https://rockwellautomation.custhelp....il/a_id/772353

[Firejo]

Originally Posted by tarik1978

CompactLogix 5380 vs 5370
https://theautomationblog.com/compac...-5380-vs-5370/

5380 Family of CompactLogix controllers
772353 | Date Created: 02/22/2016 | Last Updated: 09/23/2018
Access Level: Everyone
https://rockwellautomation.custhelp....il/a_id/772353

Thanks for posting that. Some good information.
However there aren't any details with regards to differences in the operation, communications, word structure, etc... But, still, good info.

[tarik1978]

Differences and Migration information between Logix 5000 Controllers:

http://literature.rockwellautomation...m100_-en-p.pdf

[Firejo]

Originally Posted by tarik1978

Differences and Migration information between Logix 5000 Controllers:

http://literature.rockwellautomation...m100_-en-p.pdf

Yah that's the document that RonJohn talked about. Definitely on my reading list but not until after AF
Thanks

[Firejo]

Something else I discovered, the new Logix platform isn't compatible with 1734-AENT modules. That one is a little narrow sighted in my view (pardon the pun).

[Ken Roach]

Where did you encounter an incompatibility with 1734-AENT adapters ?

The 1734 POINT platform is specifically called out as supported over EtherNet/IP in the 5380 CompactLogix Controller Specifications / Technical Data document on Page 17.

Were you using an early build, or is there a specific firmware revision issue that isn't called out in the technical data document ?

[JordanCClark]

Originally Posted by Firejo

Something else I discovered, the new Logix platform isn't compatible with 1734-AENT modules. That one is a little narrow sighted in my view (pardon the pun).

From technote 772353:

The 1769 Compact I/O family is not directly compatible with the 5380 controller but can be used along with a 1769-AENTR Ethernet adapter.

The 1734 Point I/O family is not directly compatible with the 5380 controller but can be used along with a 1734-AENT or 1734-AENTR Ethernet adapters

[cardosocea]

And yet I get shot down whenever I say Rockwell is poor when it comes to compatibility... go figure.

[Ken Roach]

In this case, "not directly compatible" means "has a different I/O bus connector".

The 5069 bus is based on gigabit Ethernet.
The 1769 bus goes back to the mid-2000's and is based on SPI.
The 1734 bus is CANBus, running DeviceNet at double speed with some extra adjacent-module features.

CompactLogix 5380 controllers can use them all, but the older platforms need to connect via EtherNet/IP network adapters, not plug directly into the backplane.

Every design decision is a trade-off between modern features and performance and compatibility with old technologies and installed base of product.

I disagree very strongly with the idea that "Rockwell isn't good at compatibility" when I can connect an 8-bit 120V AC I/O module built in 1978 into a network adapter that links to a modern ControlLogix 1756-L83E controller.