+ or - for Logix5000?

[Rob D.]

I'm trying to gather information from those who have used Logix5000.

1. What percentage of new installations are using this platform?
2. What percentage of equipment upgrades (modifications to existing equipment) are changing to Logix5000?
3. If you've used Logix5000 what are some things that you like about it?
4. If you've used Logix5000 what are some things you don't like about it?
5. I've heard complaints about software revision and firmware revision incompatibility issues. Do you have any comments, stories, revelations regarding this?

Any comments/inputs are welcome!

[Peter Nachtwey]

The Control Logix is rapidly becoming the PLC of choice in the saw mill industry. Perhap 50% or more of the new installations are using Contro Logix. I'd say at least 30% of my customers are using Control Logix overall. This view could be slanted because the Control Logix works extremely well with our product.

I like

1 Tags,
2 Ethernet/IP
3 User defined data types
4 32 bit integers
I5 f you know SLCs then learning Control Logix is easy.
Motion blocks.
Subroutines that allow passing parameters. Almost as good as the S7-300 functions but much easier to use.

What I don't like

1 Can't ID the cards in the rack like a SLC or a TI505.
C2onfiguration could be a lot easier.
A3synchronous updates of Ethernet/IP. At least the updates Ethernet/IP updates are very fast. Who needs Profibus or Control Net when there is Ethernet/Ip?

Updates or new revisions have been a pain. The situation is better now but I hope the changes slow down or at least be more backward compatible so the firmware in the intelligent modules don't have to change with each upgrade. In Rockwells defense, they did raise the high bar very high with the Control Logix. Rockwell has had trouble clearing this high bar, but other PLC companies are not even trying or fall way short.

[JDW]

We have pretty much banned any new installations
of AB automation products. The reason being non support issues
(even with a comp. support agreement). All of there licensing
**** doesn't help their cause either. We have been waiting for an answer from our local rep on an issue for about a year and a half.
NOT GOOD! We will probably replace the existing units with another
manufacturer and $#!tcan them along with the software.
It's not that I can't figure out most problems, but, their
attitude is not conducive to a good working relationship.

[akreel]

Originally posted by Rob D.
5. I've heard complaints about software revision and firmware revision incompatibility issues. Do you have any comments, stories, revelations regarding this?

DON'T GET ME STARTED! banghead

I never got the "route-step" lecture when I was handed a bucket o' parts and software. I started by upgrading RSLinx (I did need that one), and moved on to upgrade to RSLogix10. Then, I found out about the firmware... You have to match versions of the firmware to the version of the software; software 10 cannot program firmware less than 10...

With everything upgraded my problems BEGAN! In the end, it turned out that one of the modules (a system redundancy module) I was using was only compatible with RSLogix Ver. 8.5! The only way I could get that was to call tech support and have them mail me the latest distribution disk, which has all the versions up to 10 on it.

I can program the PLCs now. But I still can't access my I/O rack because it's Flex I/O, connected via ControlNet. You have to configure the ControlNet link separately, and this can't be done from the processor. I've got the ControlNet PCI/ISA cards, but I'm not going to bother our IT department to get them installed because this is all non-billable (demo hardware) playing around that I've been doing after hours. Besides, we've got snooper software on our workstations here that's likely to screw with the connection anyway. One of these days, I'm going to bring in my home PC to configure the network. I'll let you know how it goes.

One other thing to look out for is that the memory addressing in ControlLogix is handled differently than other Allen-Bradley PLC products. It's more like writing a PC program (from what I've seen). You've got to declare/configure a bunch of "variables," rather than the usual N/B/F files. If you're already using the SLC, I'd stick with it. You'll probably save yourself some headaches.

AK

[rsdoran]

Its strange...I dislike so much about AB but when the engineers ask me what to use I say Slick 50. WHY? To me and alot of others its easy to understand AB ladder logic...doesnt matter if it has funky communication differences or lack of support (which lately I have found to be better even tho not as good as it was in the day).

Problem is the engineers use local integrators..therefore when you mention Siemens/automationdirect etc they get that DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS look. Some like GE ( forgive me Steve ) but I think they are lacking in some ways. Personally I would like to get involved more with automationdirect plc's or Siemens...there are alot of things about both I like.

[93lt1]

Originally posted by akreel


DON'T GET ME STARTED! banghead

I never got the "route-step" lecture when I was handed a bucket o' parts and software. I started by upgrading RSLinx (I did need that one), and moved on to upgrade to RSLogix10. Then, I found out about the firmware... You have to match versions of the firmware to the version of the software; software 10 cannot program firmware less than 10...

With everything upgraded my problems BEGAN! In the end, it turned out that one of the modules (a system redundancy module) I was using was only compatible with RSLogix Ver. 8.5! The only way I could get that was to call tech support and have them mail me the latest distribution disk, which has all the versions up to 10 on it.

I can program the PLCs now. But I still can't access my I/O rack because it's Flex I/O, connected via ControlNet. You have to configure the ControlNet link separately, and this can't be done from the processor. I've got the ControlNet PCI/ISA cards, but I'm not going to bother our IT department to get them installed because this is all non-billable (demo hardware) playing around that I've been doing after hours. Besides, we've got snooper software on our workstations here that's likely to screw with the connection anyway. One of these days, I'm going to bring in my home PC to configure the network. I'll let you know how it goes.

You learn after about 1 time of something like this happening, read up and learn everything about what you are doing before you start. I've been there.....

One other thing to look out for is that the memory addressing in ControlLogix is handled differently than other Allen-Bradley PLC products. It's more like writing a PC program (from what I've seen). You've got to declare/configure a bunch of "variables," rather than the usual N/B/F files. If you're already using the SLC, I'd stick with it. You'll probably save yourself some headaches.

AK

You dont have to Declare/configure if you dont want to. You could go along and give every tag a unique name as you program. But the CLGX gives you the ability to create multi-diminsional tag arrays. This actually gives the programmer a lot more flexibility for data management. Instead of having (for instance) station 1 auto enable bit, station 2 auto enable bit, etc. you could create a 20 bit array named station auto enable bit. The CLGX would give you station auto enable bit[1], station auto enable bit[2], etc. Another thing you can do is create B3, N7, F8, or whatever you want. One of the machines I work with is a multiple station sheetmetal former. The programmer made all station 1 bits, B1; integers, N1; timers, T1; counters, C1; floats, F1; and so on for each of the rest of the stations B2, B3, B4, etc. Not a major thing but it makes his program a little more organized, It still kinda feels like a SLC or PLC5 but makes a little more sense.

These are very simple examples, there are a lot of much better, but more complicated examples.

[akreel]

Originally posted by rsdoran
[B]Its strange...I dislike so much about AB but when the engineers ask me what to use I say Slick 50. WHY? To me and alot of others its easy to understand AB ladder logic...doesnt matter if it has funky communication differences or lack of support (which lately I have found to be better even tho not as good as it was in the day)./B]

I was pondering a similar question the other day... Some guys I've talked to, who "grew up" on Allen Bradley consider other platforms to be "too hard" to learn. WHAT?!? :eek: I think they're so used to Allen-Bradley, that they get confused when you tell them that they don't have to configure that, that, or the other. "Well, how does it work then?"

They get so used to the bells and whistles and poking around in RSLogix, that they don't know what to do with anything when you take that stuff away. It'd be like me trying to pick up on Linux after years of being a Windows user. (Remember the "If operating systems were airlines" email: "You had to do what with the seat?")

AK

[akreel]

Originally posted by 93lt1
You learn after about 1 time of something like this happening, read up and learn everything about what you are doing before you start. I've been there.....

Right. Once you've done it once, you're fine.

The real kicker in this situation is that the AB gift fairy delivered this stuff to us as demo equipment to try out. They gave us the redundancy modules and RSLogix 5000, version 7!

Hey Phil! We need a :headscratch: smiley face!

AK

[Ken Roach]

While I really enjoy the wide-spectrum opinions here on PLCS.NET, there's probably more depth of user experience in RSLogix 5000 at

www.software.rockwell.com/forum

You'll also find a "suggestions for the software" section that the product managers actually read.

When I want a real-world automation answer, I read this board. When I want an Allen-Bradley specific answer, I read RSI's board. And when I want broken English, Linux bigots, and fundamental questions about electricity, I read Control.Com.

[Eric Nelson]

Ah yes Ken, the "A-List".... I almost forgot about it lolis

I was there for a few years, but ended my subscription when it seemed the only solution for the world's problems was deemed to be Linux by someone (I'm remembering the name "Curt" for some reason?). You couldn't avoid the Linux debate in ANY topic you subscribed to. http://www.peyups.com/images/phpbb/icons/argue.gif

I'm S-O-O-O-O-O much happier here :nodi:

-Eric

P.S. AK, how 'bout this one? http://www.peyups.com/images/phpbb/icons/headscratch.gif

[rsdoran]

Well Ken reckon our debate/disastification is on again.

Personally, I dont see anymore experience (technically that relates to ability) with AB on rslogixforum then I do here.

YOU are the exceptions in most cases.

YOU are AB in a sense, you have access to the latest and greatest. You are knowledgeable in the latest and greatest. YOU share that knowledge.

I appreciate that.

[Ken Roach]

The main thing I like about the RSLogix forum is that the product managers pay some attention because it's on their server. Tad Palus, whose attention I can't seem to attract with a 2x4 as an employee, regularly replies to the RSLogix 5/500/5000 editors forums and is the top poster on the "New Features" forum.

As far as technical ability.... well, that's up for debate. At least I never hear "use Linux" on the RSI website.

But this thread is supposed to be about RSLogix 5000 so here's some of my input:

1. I really like the tag-based memory system because it both allows me the flexibility to create tags online when I'm cowboying code, as well as to do very structured subroutine and array work when I'm planning ahead.

2. The tag editor needs work. I know it wasn't developed by the same software group as the 5/500 editor, and that it has different challenges, but little things like losing my place in the database when I go from Edit to Monitor is a big time-waster. It's gotten better, but there are a lot of things I'd like to see improved for user experience in the Tag Editor.

3. Upgrades are not as big a thing in my everyday life because demos don't run 24 hours a day, and I always have my stack of RSRevs CD's to get new software from. I've worked closely with one of my large industrial customers and it's forced them to do a little more planning and management in the short term so they don't run more than a couple of revisions in the mill at any one time. I actually test new installations of Linx, Logix, and View32 on their standard PC images before they'll roll them out in the plant. This problem will thankfully be history as of Version 10 and later... right now I run V8, V10, and V11 on the same Win2K computer.

4. The Logix should have a backplane browse and I/O module auto-insert like the SLC-500 does. It's technically perfectly feasible, and the number of users who would have to manually sort out I/O sharing is very small compared to the ease of use this would add.

5. A related thing is the default I/O connection configuration. I can't tell you how many customers I've had to fix their ControlNet configurations because they selected the default Module Connection for every I/O card in a remote chassis. One customer had about 40x more traffic on his ControlNet than necessary because of this.

6. I'd like a better DeviceNet integration. This is probably a ways off because of the wide-open scanner configuration methods DeviceNet uses, but I'd prefer to be able to browse the devices on my network from RSLogix 5000's I/O table instead of having to get out RSNetworx.

[akreel]

Originally posted by Eric Nelson
P.S. AK, how 'bout this one? http://www.peyups.com/images/phpbb/icons/headscratch.gif

YES!!!! That's it!

[jvdcande]

I discovered that CompactLogix (one of the products to be programmed with RSLogix 5000) is non-deterministic. Meaning: its I/O cycle is not synchronised with the main program loop, but is scheduled every 20 ms. Anyone else here had the same experience? It seems odd to me, because all the PLC's I've used before were deterministic (Siemens S5, S7-200, S7-300, Philips PC20, Omron CQM1, ...).

Are there any features or points of attention specific for this type of controllers?

Why the need for non-deterministic behaviour?

[Ken Roach]

A subtle but important correction: The CompactLogix backplane RPI is set to a default 2 milliseconds, not 20 milliseconds. They're looking at decreasing that period when the L35 controller comes out next year.

All of the Logix controllers are fundamentally asynchronous in solving their logic program and updating their I/O systems. I think the idea behind asynchronous I/O communication is that it ends up giving you better average throughput than performing data updates at the end of the I/O scan. Furthermore, the Logix family doesn't have just one I/O scan: it has time-driven periodic tasks as well as the continuous task. Version 12 firmware will even have interrupt-driven tasks.

Remember also that RPI is usually the Maximum time for data to be exchanged; you can set input modules in the Logix local chassis for "Change Of State" and their data will be in controller memory microseconds after they detect a change in the Input hardware.

I'm not qualified to present a thesis on asynchronous I/O's effect on control determinism, but I figure I can contribute my two cents to the thread.

[russrmartin@hotmail.com]

We have several PLC 5000 where I work, and all of the new installs and upgrades on machines with Servo motion are going to the 5000. Some of those that don't have this are going to it as well, just to try to uniform things. When this first came, no one liked it, everyone thought it sucked. As we got more familiar with it, the guys like it much better. Most people are more afraid of what they aren't super comfortable with. THat seems to be the case here. I will bet 2 years from now if you ask the same question, the # of positive responses will be much higher.

Russ

[Jiri Toman]

I have a fairly good handle on issues surrounding Logix 5000
platform and it's evolution. I have been involved in a Warehouse
application which involves multiple processors and many I/O.
The early adopters of this platform have gone through a bleeding edge
struggle unequal in AB's history.
Doing a re-flash of a large system is not for faint of heart.
On one hand you have a warehouse on who's operation depends
the future of the whole Company and on the other hand you need
to shut it down to do the re-flash. It took me (4) 14 hour days
to re-flash the system. That involved spending hours on the phone
with AB tech support. The bigger the spread between your Versions
the more challenge you will be facing. In our case we went from
V2.XX to V8.XX. Apparently when you are at V10.XX level you don't
need to upgrade anymore, it's supposedly upward and downward compatible.
Now that was the bad part.
Logix 5000 will take you to a new level of performance
which is much higher than that of SLC or PLC5. The Online programming
is superb!! ControlNet at V8.XX functions very well.
Programming format is just excellent.
Tech support? depends on whom you talk to. Sometimes good and
sometimes not.
I have learned to dismiss incompetent tech support in a very straight
fwd manner and demand a different engineer. It's just too costly
to put up with someone who is giving you no answers.
My recommendation is to use this platform (Version 10.XX
and higher). Do your homework first, learn all you can about it
before you start your design, don't think that you can get by
with your knowledge of PLC5.
I give it thumbs up!

[ganutenator]

I like the tag based memory.

I don't like the asychronous I/O. I just see it getting too many people in trouble, mainly because they are used to programming with the mentality "Inputs are updated before the scan and the Outputs are updated after the scan". I would probably copy all I/O to memory tags on my next project. Plus, using memory tags for I/O would allow me to give them easier names. Plus, if I needed to duplicate the program for another similar application, I could change all the I/O in one location. Anyone agree?

I have been waiting for a long time to get some of the advantages of a PC while still maintaining the advantages of the PLC (i.e. online editing/viewing, robustness, troubleshooting). I think that this product is a good step in this direction.


I don't think that anyone likes having to flash the processor, since it necessitates stoping the processor. For that matter I don't think any programmer likes to have to explain to a production manager or other big wig why he is going to have some production down time. The answer may be to buy two processors. Justify the second one as a back up and also, for this very reason to flash. I don't know if there is a procedure for swapping the processors using this idea.


The programming software brings back some of the memories I had when RSLogix first came out. I realize that these things take time. I am hoping that the version upgrade thingy will settle down, and am definetely waiting until it does. At the present time it would be nearly impossible to support all of the software and firmware versions for all of our customers. I guess I could mandate the order of a new laptop for each new project, and that I need to keep the laptop for support reasons. Somehow I don't think that will fly with the customer. It would be cool to have all of those laptops though. hmmmmm


My verdict is to wait. Expecting a Rockwell product to be decent before patch number 20 is like expecting a Microsoft OS to be good before service patch 4.

[Mick76]

Originally posted by jvdcande
I discovered that CompactLogix (one of the products to be programmed with RSLogix 5000) is non-deterministic. Meaning: its I/O cycle is not synchronised with the main program loop, but is scheduled every 20 ms. Anyone else here had the same experience? It seems odd to me, because all the PLC's I've used before were deterministic (Siemens S5, S7-200, S7-300, Philips PC20, Omron CQM1, ...).

Are there any features or points of attention specific for this type of controllers?

Why the need for non-deterministic behaviour?

I would disagree, i guess i might start a holy war on determinism.
Logix 5000 products are based on determinism. I/O updates are calculated not measured as in other PLC'S including legacy AB, this means it is tranparently deterministic.
It is true that I/O has is Asynchronis to scan time but scan time of what. We now look at the file as a project not as a single program.
The key thing about logix 5000 products is increasing scan time of programming resulting in a finer control.
AB are also trying to eliminate this old wheel called master slave with products. Remember i/o, processors, network cards are now their own true master, no more reliance to the centre of the universe(processor)
An added bonus of this determinism is the elimination of data collision, remember the phylosphy is base on cnet. This allows all the cards to produce and consume info at fast rates

Welcome to the future guys Produce and consume,
You guys at the back, yeah you with the siemens shirt on, hurry up and catch up with the rest of us. Your slowing progress down


mick

[ntommyb]

I guess I can't comment as intellegently as most of you. I'm just a Tech for the automotive industry working on Robotic assembley of car bodies. I've used mostly RS 5k so I can't really compare it with anything, but I've got three projects under my belt with 5k. Two for Mercadees and one for Crystler (Dodge Nitro). I like the platform. All I can really add to this thread is that nearlly all new projects for Crystler and Mercadees are RS 5000 based. Also I find it weird how hard it is to grasp for the old pros in this industry, it can't be that much different and its really not that hard. I just worked on design for the new Seabring and its also all 5k. Interesting thread btw I learned alot.

[CroCop]

I use version 15 and my only complaint is the UDT needs to be able to edit online, while in use.

Other then that, the 5000 software & hardware are great.

Hot swappable everything, integrated motion control, PIDE, structured text, good indirect addressing, good use of subroutines, many different tasks, running periodic or when called, and you can make it run just like a SLC if you really want to.

[RSL]

I find all the functionality of 5000 to be a huge plus. In general I am a fan.

Task organization/prioritization is excellent. Time or event triggered tasks. Very good task prioritization on interval triggered tasks.

Tag based programming using UDT's is the only way to go. When used properly UDT's can almost completly document a project.

Selectable I/O update intervals (RPI) a wonderful thing. (when you really need it) If you don't just buffer the I/O. If you program with UDT's you will likely be buffering anyway.

Communications; ControlNet, EthernetIP, DeviceNet, DH+RIO.

I love Ethernet when used properly it is truly amazing.

ControlNet is THE way to connect RPI critical I/O. I prefer it for I/O period. Once you schedule it forget it. You will get your data at the RPI or faster.

DeviceNet simply can't be avoided when integrating some systems. The DeviceNet interface is OK at best. It works fine, but is a little clunky to configure. I also think it could use an overhaul.

Producer/Consumer I/O is great. You can share I/O amongst several controllers if needed. Produced consumed tags are a great way to get data between systems.

DH+/RIO, although both are older there is really good connectivity to CLX. You can communicate with legacy controllers and even replace systems while retaining the original I/O.

Redundant controller features are top notch. I started out on version 8.53 on redundancy and migrated from it to 11.5x and now 13.5x. If there is an easier redundant system to configure and operate that even comes close to CLX I would be amazed. It is great.

HUGE negative, lockstep firmware and LOT's of revisions! It has settled down a lot in the last year or two. I think the worst is behind us.

In general I think most people who think CLX is ridiculous just have no use for all the features. If your project can be done with DirectLogix or an SLC500. You simply do not need CLX. I can see how a new user trying to do a fairly simple project would be VERY frustrated wading through all this stuff.

I was thrown to the wolves I took a job with a company that standardized on CLX. I had no choice but to sink or swim. In the beginning I was ready to have a stroke trying to get used to it.

I have used it long enough now I miss the features when I have to use something else. (even when I don't need CLX)

RSL

[PhilipW]

Coming late to this thread I cannot add much extra information. I've used every version of the CLX firmware from V 1.0 on. Bear in mind that the product was first introduced about 8 years ago and is now at a very nice stable V15. All of the upgrade issues that were encountered by people who in general had not read the instructions before they set forth....are pretty much in the past.

Over the last few years I have been thoroughly exposed to the S7 and TSX products on some reasonable sized systems....and I still greatly prefer the CLX for it's huge flexibility, very efficient programming and excellent reliability.

Most of my work these days is for a water supply authority and once we decided to standardise on CLX and Compactlogix we have never looked back.

[TSmith]

Hi Rob D,

We had control logix forced on us, by an engineer. It also uses rslogix 5000. Our other plc's were slc's and plc 5's.still Allen Bradley.

The features I like are building data files online and all documentation is stored in the processor. The 1st time you connect you have instruction comments,rung comments, everythimg.
My biggest complaint against it is the search function.

I like Allen Bradley logic controllers,I have no experience with ant other. But remember...they try to make you upgrade, new products are cheaper than older products. The price of older products keep going up.

[jstolaruk]

All I can really add to this thread is that nearlly all new projects for Crystler and Mercadees are RS 5000 based.

I wish that statement was true for Chyrsler. Yeah, its in the AME specification but the individual plants can override it. I'm designing a SLC system now that is perfect for CLX, as in the specification for projects with servos, but the plant, ITP1, can't support CLX yet. The plant's FIS is all DH+ so 5/04 is the only option. But its sister plant KTP 3 miles down the road prefers CLX. oh well.

[Charles.naude]

The RS Logix Forum is no more available. Ken may shed some light and also his view on Version 16 of Logix5000. The features and functions of the previous versions does not provide half of the flexibility or power of the new release(almost release)

[russrmartin]

I'm trying to gather information from those who have used Logix5000.

1. What percentage of new installations are using this platform?
2. What percentage of equipment upgrades (modifications to existing equipment) are changing to Logix5000?
3. If you've used Logix5000 what are some things that you like about it?
4. If you've used Logix5000 what are some things you don't like about it?
5. I've heard complaints about software revision and firmware revision incompatibility issues. Do you have any comments, stories, revelations regarding this?

Any comments/inputs are welcome!

1. 100% new installs are this platform.
2. 100% upgrades are using this platform.
(This is a site standard for us now)
3. Head and shoulders above the rest in technology, mostly because of integrated motion control. It's amazing how easy this is now. Until the rest of the field adds this, the 5000 will be king.
4. Dislike that tagnames will not wordwrap, (long tagnames make for hard to troubleshoot rungs of logic) the revision stuff can be a pain, but our support is excellent. If someone has a bad experience, it's their vendor, not rockwell. Our vendor happens to take great care of us.
5.See above.