Rockwell Software Stinks

[parky]

Sorry I did get you mixed up with someone else DOH...
I do agree with PV, what struck me was it seemed to be a quick conversion from their Scada RSView32, almost identical, if they did port it & modified it then they made a bad job of it & god knows if this was the case then how could they justify the cost, I know it has probably moved on a bit now but still not much better.

 

[busarider29]

to sum it up a lot depends on your exposure to these platforms, the more you use them the easier they become to use (well there are a few exceptions).

+1

 

[busarider29]

Bulk of our customers demand ladder, and their ladder is clunky. In my experience RA is the best with ladder, has been for quite some time.

I agree, RSLogix ladder editor is one of the best out there, if not the best. However, it's not that much better than some others out there to justify staying with RSLogix.

For instance, comparing RSLogix ladder editor with TwinCAT ladder editor, the only significant differences I've noticed are...

1. RSLogix rungs wrap, whereas TwinCAT's don't. But I've found that this is almost insignificant because TwinCAT's rungs stretch out for a very long way, so you'd most likely never require rung wrapping functionality in TwinCAT. That's probably why wrapping was never added (because it's really not needed).
2. RSLogix is a bit easier to use for making branch circuits. It's just drag and drop. In TwinCAT, it's a bit more cumbersome with branch circuits, but just takes some getting used to and then it's not a problem.

Past those two things, there's really nothing in my opinion that RSLogix ladder editor has over TwinCAT's ladder editor.

All the other editors, especially Structured Text and FBD, its TwinCAT all day long. Plus.....I can do SO MUCH MORE in TwinCAT than I could ever do in RSLogix. I'll gladly sacrifice rung wrapping (which I don't need) and the easier branch circuit creation in RSLogix for all the many, many benefits that I get in TwinCAT.

 

[harryting]

Keep in mind we are dealing with niche software and they ALL HAVE WEIRD ISSUES.

I'm on week X of dealing with weird interaction between iFix, Win911, and a DNP OPC driver. I get it, sometime I just want to set it all on fire.

Just from top of my memory:

- A test equipment that has a "32 bit" USB chip that can only work with Windows 7 32 bit version.

- A datalogger program that needs a INI file renamed, removing a underscore (-) from the file name, and no it's not documented anywhere nor is there a knowledgebase article.

Welcome to the profession, I say.

 

[AlfredoQuintero]

I'm surprised that people do not like Mitsubishi, coms is easy the only problems are as follows:
Documentation is what I call Chinenglish so the translation is rather poor, but once you get used to it it's decipherable, well almost.
Because they have made their later IDE's backward compatible it does mean you need to understand the reason behind using both symbolic & physical addresses (not going into that one), Ladder is a little awkward but no worse than any other platform, FBD is great, the ability to manipulate bits/words etc. by giving same memories a different symbol and type (providing it is a global & physical address) makes many memory manipulation very easy.
The in-built library of functions is comprehensive. Hardware extremely reliable, reasonable cost as is the software. The IDE runs pretty quick even on older PC's .
Siemens I liked the S5 & earlier S7, however, when TIA came out installing took ages, a couple of bugs where it would fall over at a critical point, RA ok like some of the features, however, the cost, the strong arm tactics of tech connect & incessant need to update firmware /software really got to me.
Other platforms I have used yeah, ok.
To sum it up a lot depends on your exposure to these platforms, the more you use them the easier they become to use (well there are a few exceptions).

Parky, something I find strange about GX Developer and GX Works is that the editor will not let you save a project that cannot be compiled. That is, say you are writing a program and you wish to save it because you have been working for a long time and would like to make sure you do not lose your work by a hang-up of the PC; or because you want to go back home, whatever. But if the circuit is incomplete and it cannot be compiled, the editor does not let you save. Why is this? Since it is not possible to send a program to a PLC if the program cannot be compiled, is not this enough protection? Why did they make it a rule that in order to save a program one needs to be able to compile it?

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

When I was programming using RSLogix 5000, I really liked being able to type rungs in text. It was so much faster that having to mickey mouse around.


If I were design a IDE for PLCs I would try my best to make the programming so a mouse isn't required. It would be optional for those that don't type well.


I would make use of H,J,K,L keys for direction. Think VIM. The C key would be for contact or coil depending on where the cursor is. If you don't like a normally open, then just hit the C key again to get a normal close. It is MUCH easier to hit the C key twice than to hunt for another key. ^C,^X and ^V would have their regular meanings. Hitting a direction key with the space bar held down would put in bar if the bar doesn't exist. It would erase it otherwise. The B key would add boxes like add, subtract etc. A lot can be done with only a few special keys. The parameters for our RMCTools functions can be constants, variable or expressions. Writing the IDE part is only a small part of a PLC IDE but it is important because that is how we deal with PLC programming.

 

[Corsair]

Ladder language vs Ladder Editor

Threads like this seem to avoid making an important distinction There are details with the usability of the software - how the editor works, installation, and so on. And then there are issues with how well the manufacturers language works. All too often the language issues get lost in the discussion as it goes on to things like mouse clicks.

The issue is further clouded by the near-religious Rockwell fascination. Too many seem to only see the world through AB eyes. If AB does not do something then it is claimed that feature is never needed. If an 1131 feature requires more data entry typing to implement some code then it is claimed that that language is junk.

There must be a few of us out there that really want 1131 strong data typing. We haven't encountered customers that only allow ladder logic because their management believes AB marketing hype. We're not going to use an obscure instruction like FSC because we'll loop it out in ST instead. The code is easier to understand and much more brand-independent. We're willing to do a little more typing to make it very clear to the PLC that we want to do a double-integer multiplication and not a real (floating point) multiplication. I tend to feel that I have more control over what the PLC does in some of the non-AB platforms.

We all have personal gripes. I've never had a control action that depended on what year it is but I've had a lot that depend on day of the week. Making me use an AOI to get that is ridiculous. The rep acts like he's doing me a favor to let me have it as a free download. If I want a 5-second delay I think 't#5s' is a lot clearer than '5000'. And I want to be able to make the choice if I want to put a timer in ST.

I guess my point boils down to - there's a lot more to be discussed with a product than just how easy it is to edit...

 

[parky]

Alfredo: I just tried to save a project that would not compile & it did save it even saved it as a different name so not sure why yours will not this was in GXWorks but not tried in GXDEV.
EDIT: Just tried GXDEV it will not save, in GXWorks though I created it in a structured project not tried in direct ladder, I think in normal ladder it would not save, but then again why use the old ladder when you can use a structured one but still do it in ladder, even if the original was done in GXDEV, it can be converted, however, it does not convert the actual ladder so only new programs or functions can be added in FBD/Ladder as structured, the original ladder will still have the same problem however, it will not save unless compiled.
I always convert them if I can & if not too much of a task re-write the blocks as FBD but if the customer requests it use the ladder symbols. I also download the symbolic code if memory allows so that in the event of a lost source file it can be uploaded from the PLC as a re-constructed FBD plus comments.

 

[AlfredoQuintero]

Parky, thanks for the tip.

 

[parky]

Here is a rather quick way to convert, I did this for someone a while ago, not sure now why I had to do the first bit twice but I think it will be to do with if it has more than one ladder program and to do with function blocks can only do them in ST or ladder, however, if you convert to structured twice it then allows FBD blocks to be added there are a few weird things like the difference of labels for some reason, the global comments versus global labels, so there will be no global labels, these can be copied from the global comments but as you might know in ladder there can be spaces but in FBD there cannot so need modifying if you use the global labels for new program blocks.

 

[parky]

Sorry it is too large document to upload

 

[busarider29]

When I was programming using RSLogix 5000, I really liked being able to type rungs in text. It was so much faster that having to mickey mouse around.

This is true, but admittedly sometimes a simple drag-and-drop is faster, especially for those that can't type. Speaking of, here's my rant on that:

I think typing is a very over-looked skill in this profession (or any programming profession). In my opinion, if one wants to be a programmer, then you should know how to type, and not the two-finger kind either! If you can't type, then learn and teach yourself. One of the side questions I ask in interviews - "Can you type without looking at the keyboard?" I rarely, if ever, get a straight "yes" answer. That's when I know - nope, can't type! On the surface, it may seem insignificant, but it drives me nuts when I'm trying to teach programming to a new hire, or teaching ST programming to a Ladder programmer, and they are staring down at the keyboard the whole time while two-finger typing, totally oblivious to the several spelling and syntax errors they just made. Then they have to go back and correct them, making syntax errors yet again because they are staring down at the keyboard. SOOOOO SLOOOOWWW (and annoying)!! Why? Because they can't type! I suppose that's a big reason why a lot of PLC programmers prefer ladder and the ease of mouse click, drag-and-drop - because they can't type. Programmers, please learn how to type without having to look at the keyboard. It will not only benefit yourself and make your job so much easier and faster, but it will also benefit your clients and/or the company you work for. Rant over.

If I were design a IDE for PLCs I would try my best to make the programming so a mouse isn't required. It would be optional for those that don't type well.

One drawback to that is that one would have to remember or look up every instruction's keyboard inputs to insert it. But nothing's perfect though.

I would make use of H,J,K,L keys for direction.

Make it J, K, L, and :; keys instead, since these are the natural 'home' keys for the right hand.

 

[Phrog30]

I suppose that's a big reason why a lot of PLC programmers prefer ladder and the ease of mouse click, drag-and-drop - because they can't type.

Most programmers I know don't prefer ladder, it's customer driven. I do agree typing is a necessary skill.

 

[lostcontrol]

I also agree with the typing comment & have taught myself over the years.
Occasionally I have to look, but less often..

One thing that tends to compromise this, is different keyboards. I am used to the 2x different desktop keyboards that I have, both Lenovo laptops are the same & the Mac air.

But the times there is a different keyboard, the struggle is real .

 

[busarider29]

Most programmers I know don't prefer ladder, it's customer driven. I do agree typing is a necessary skill.

It's just the opposite from my experience. I've tried to get some of our polished PLC guys to use ST more, and it's like pulling teeth with them. It's Ladder through and through for them. Everything ladder. They like what they know (LD) and they don't like what they don't know (ST).

Personally, I easily prefer ST over anything else, but at the end of the day, I use whatever language is the most efficient for the task/routine. Typically a combination of ST (80%), LD (10%), and FBD (10%).