Why pay for PLC programming software?

[Stephen Luft]

My question is simple, but the answer escapes me. To all you devoted Allen Bradley people and to everyone else who uses PLCs, why do you pay for their programming software?

For AB to charge $1100 - $1200 for programming software, then on top of that, some people have told me that they charge a yearly upgrade/license fee blows my mind at how many people pay these fees. Then there is Automation Direct that charges for OEM licenses and little things like manuals. They are starting to remind me of banks...charging for every little thing.

A question that has been on my mind for some time. Curious to see what some of your answers are.

[Allen Nelson]

I buy the software because I can't program the PLC without it.
I pay the service fee to get "free" upgrades, phone support, and bug fixes (TANSTAAFL).

The old way was to buy a "Programming Terminal". Thank heavens no one does those anymore.

The usual spiel from the manufacturer is that the Hardware and Software Development Groups are two independant groups, and each are expected to be a profit center.

I can buy one programming package and program hundreds of PLCs with it. But the software development requires a bigger effort than the hardware (some of which hasn't changed in a decade).

And don't forget the body-blocks that Microsoft throws them - software that used to work, doesn't. But custonmers want it both ways - the lastest OS from MS, and software that works on it.

So I do see their point.

But you could always apply the Gilette business model ("Give away the razors - make money on the blades"). If I got RSLogix for free, I could only use it on AB PLCs. If I invest time making a program using it, I've committed myself to either discarding that investment of time (and money), or buy one of their PLCs.

So why doesn't someone try it? Shareholders. How would you justify giving away something that you used to sell?

[gbradley]

I'm not sure, but I think HP & Cannon practically give away their printers, but make a fortune on the Ink Cartridges?

[Tom Jenkins]

Simple Answer: I pay for programming software because I have to!

I agree that the A-B software is egregiously over priced, and out of step with the market. (And not just AutomationDirect.com either. A-B is significantly more expensive than their competitors at GE or Siemens or Modicon too.) However, A-B is often specified as the only acceptable product by end users, mainly because of their huge installed base. They can get away with charging higher proces, and since I don't want to break the law, I have to pay them as the entry price to my market.

If I had my choice I would never use A-B PLCs, and not just because of the price either. Apparently I'm not alone, because A-B is loosing market share. (Remember, thogh, it took Modicon years to loose their position as a market leader.)

However, since A-B was well over 50% of the US market at one point they can drop a lot and still be the leader! And maybe 40% market share at 50% margins is more profit than 50% market share at 30% margins. (And don't knock shareholders for wanting to make money unless you work for free!)

[Ken Roach]

I refuse to participate in this debate.

I refuse because the argument is stale and the answer is simple; development and support cost money and the profit margin in PLCs has been eroding steadily since the late '80s.

I'm sure you'll get a lot of action on this topic. Some of it will be perceptive, some of it will be ********. Lots of it will be whining.

I work long hours supporting Rockwell Automation customers. I'm dedicated to their success because I used to be one.

And I stopped working for free as soon as I was tall enough to push a lawnmower.

[Jay Anthony]

How about internet server based programming software which you pay a small fee for each use?:eek:

[rsdoran]

OK I get to put in MY 2 cents worth here.

I have cursed, cussed, blasphemed, and totally disrepected Allen Bradley in more ways than you can imagine. I have had some totally awesome debates with Ken Roach on AB products, service and support,

Put all that aside Allen Bradley does have awesome products overall, including their PLC's. Yes there are issues with them and others concerning manuals, support...just plain understanding. I dont see anyone or any brand being plain to understand or being just plain simple to use.

Mr Luft, I know you represent a PC/PLC brand that offers free software. Fuji electric also has free software with their plc's. Automationdirect was a poor choice as an example because their line of plc's and software is reasonably priced.

I personally dislike the prices Allen Bradley charges but they do offer a product with an abundance of features...some that arent seen in others.

Mr Luft, I and several know of your brand plc/pc and its free software but since you are NEW to the market some of us are not in the postition to use/purchase because its an unknown product.

Offer us some form of demo/trial unit with software to experiment with.

Dont take this lightly because in the past Allen Bradley did just that for us with a PLC5/20 and 6200 software..this was along time ago but the fact was it was done to get the business.

Recently a Siemens rep GAVE me not 1 but 2 S7-200 plc's. I can not say how many others have done the same.

As the old saying goes "Put up or shut up". This would be a good place to give demo's and software to promote your brand.

[Steve Bailey]

I've often wondered why the PLC manufacturers didn't offer a bare-bones programming package for free, and charge for the full-feature package. Probably because they've been getting away with charging for the software since they evolved from dedicated programming devices.

[Rick Densing]

Modicon's concept is priced right up there with RSLogix.
One reason stuff costs is that we keep demanding more.
I haven't used it, but I did download directsoft32. It seems really clunky. Based on my experience with other software, the price of the RSLogix is made up in productivity gains.

[Pierre]

I'm not in the service side of this wall. I only do projects. My customers do have a choice of brand, 50% of the time they will take my advices on what to install in there plants.

-They make the parameters for my job.

-They end up with the bill!!!

As for AB I just hate having to deal with them. Maybee 10% of my dissatisfaction comes from the hardware (mainly from the manuals related to it) the 90% left is from there tech. support. Wether it is localy or from there head office, I just have a lot of difficulties dealing with those fat cats.

Recently I recommended AB slicks to a plant manager. Shurely he specified this brand for the project.

-Why?

-Two of the in-house technicians where foing trough night-school and, you gessed it, they where learning PLC on an AB setup.

-I got one of them to purchase the software at The Learning Pit and the other uses a micrologic which I set up in there shop for them to enjoy.

At the end, my customer pay the bill. In most project, the price of the sofware is small in comparison with the cost of the project.

Personnaly, I would never purchase a $1000 software, just to program some hardware from the same manufacturer, it's like paying to have a fork and a knife in a restaurant.

[akreel]

Originally posted by gbradley
I'm not sure, but I think HP & Cannon practically give away their printers, but make a fortune on the Ink Cartridges?

For the price of some ink cartridges, you can almost go out and buy a new printer. If your lucky, that printer will even come with ink.

Now, back to PLC software... Cheap software makes sense, if you think you can do it for free more power to you. Get people to try your stuff, sell lots of hardware. AutomationDirect sells cheaper packages for users who might only be interested in one of their PLC lines, that's especially nice when you're on a student budget.

Allen-Bradley also has separate software packages for their different PLC products. But, I think they're stuck charging more for them because of they have so many users. There's a lot of product out there, which requires a lot of support. They've got to pay these technical guys somehow. If no one ever needed technical support, the software might be cheaper (so stop calling :) ).

Of course, we'll never know if this is the real story, because Ken has opted out of this debate.

AK

[Peter Nachtwey]

So how much does it cost to write a package like RSLOGIX 500? How much would it cost you do write or have done? Then after you spent the $200K USD, how much would to charge to each copy? At $1100 a copy one would have to sell almost 200 copies but that requires marketing and distribution. We haven't talk about phone support, manual or making a profit yet.

I think the prices for the software is fair. What really bothers me off is that companies want to charge you money to fix their bugs. This is out rageous. Even Microsoft has free service packs. Service packes should be free and fix the bugs for a version of software.
New versions or upgrades that add features should come at a cost.

I am contemplating developing a suppset of IEC 61131-3 programming package for our motion controllers that supports IL,LD and SFC. I figure this will cost $200K. Now how do I justify that?

[Rick Densing]

PLC programming software is a productivity tool, just like a word processor or spreadsheet. Do you say that "I won't pay for Word, it is just a tool to run my LaserJet"? Does that mean HP should be giving a word processor away for free?
Not all softwares are created equal. How long did it take for most PLC software to run under windows? Much less be 32-bit? Now everyone is *****ing that their laptops don't come with serial ports. All this stuff costs $$ to support.
More and more in the future, you will be getting what you pay for. It may work, but how much are you paying in extra time that it takes to use it?
Maybe I am lucky, my industry seems to have more money than time.

[Allen Nelson]

Only $200K ?!?

That's what?, 2-3 programmers' salaries for only one year? And at the end of that year, you will have a full-featured, well-documented, bug-free product that runs on Win95, '98, NT, Win2K, XP, ME(?), under any service pack, and on any hardware? That's so user-friendly that you won't need tech support (or can justify having the customer pay it's full fare)

What's the communication link? RS-232? Will a USB or PCMCIA card be able to handle it, too?

I think you'll be hard-presed to pull it off (depending on the size of that 61131 subset).

You can tell that RSLogix has many more man-years in it than that. And don't forget, Rockwell does give away RSLinx for free, at least enough to take the comm burden off of the RSLogix developement team. OK, maybe it's Rockwell's fault that they have so many comm protocols (DF-1, DH+, DH-485, ethernet).

And then, like you said, there's a sales&marketing effort, product enhancements, accounting overhead, etc.

I understand Ken for leaving the debate. It has been done before (but then, so has most topics here - but you never know when you'll get a fresh insight). And it started with the old "Why is AB so expensive", which I'm sure he must be tired of hearing (I know I am - even if it is true).

On the other hand, I do agree with you about the bug fixes. The same should hold true for when the upgrade "only" supports a new line (or revsion) of hardware. (Although I could forgive Rockwell if, say, they came out with a SLC 5/06 that had built-in Devicenet - it might require a major S/W upgrade to support that.)

What bothers me most about this thread, though, is that Stephen Loft who started it, is the perveyor of free software for his company's line of PLCs. I had remembered that there was such a company rep who posted on the old site, and tried (but failed) to find the topic, so I could provide the info to him. I didn't realize, until Ron Doran's post, that it was he who originally posted it.

I guess it was his intention to get us all riled up, "Throw the *******s Out", "Free Software", and then come to our rescue. From the general consensus, it looks like he failed.

I also feel that he misrepresented himself here. What does that say about how he represents his company?

Or, to sum up the whole thing in one word:
<center>TANSTAAFL
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch</center>

[Goody]

A B or any of the big PLC manufacturers are never going to sell me a PLC. I buy loads of PLC's every year Thousands and thousands of pounds worth every year. But, if they want me to lay out a grand for the software for every model, I aint gonna do it. If they gave me the software or made it cheap, I would certainly buy some of them if only to try them out. The percentage profit on each of those PLC's could go towards the software development. If there are thousands around the world like me, then that is a whole lot of money that they cannot get their hands on. All PLC's do basically the same thing. Everything you buy has development costs included in the price, why not PLC's?

[Mani]

Try programming it with QBasic!
I really do not know if this is possible...but I too do not want to pay these ridiculous prices anymore.

[93lt1]

I have recently bought Siemens Simatic Step 7, and GE Cimplicity Machine Edition........

I want someone to show me how these were so much cheaper than any of the A/B PLC software?? If I look at the Original quotes they all rank somewhat in the same price range.

I dont see why every time this topic comes up, It's Bash AB time.

After about 3 years as a Controls Eng. at a somewhat large manufacturing facility, who specs AB, I have had to call AB support 1, maybe 2 times and had no problem.

Im sure that if anyone wanted to, we could pick apart ANY PLC mfg. and rip on them all day long, but what is the point?




......I feel a little better

[rsdoran]

FYI: Stepehen Luft is/was a representative for Enertron
http://www.entertron.com/

I have no problem with giving the link, may one day try the product. The software is free.

Other PLC makers offer free software
http://www.fujielectric.com/distr/elc.htm

[icky812]

I use Automation Direct for 99% of our jobs. Someone said that the software is clunky. This was probably because they didn't take any time with it. I also use RSLogix. I can program as just as fast in either software. Usability depends the user.

As far as price goes we spent $1200 US on RSLogix for the SLC/500. So far we have not received and upgrades to it.

We spent $495 for Automation Direct's software for all of their PLC's. 5 models. With free bug fixes until the next major version.

Hmmm... Which is the better buy? A $18,000 A/B system or the exact same thing for $6,000 from AD?

BTW, I am not plugging AD. But, they do have excellent customer service. And to me that goes a long way.

[93lt1]

GE Logic developer software (Cimplicity Machine Edition) $1760.00


Siemens Step 7 Basic V5.1 (not pro) $2137.50


Allen Bradley RSLogix 500 Standard (not starter) $1100.00

[Tom Jenkins]

I'm not sure it is possible to compare software prices one to one. For example, the Cimplicity Machine Edition may be closer in performance to RS Logix PLUS RSView PLUS Panelbuilder32, and Versa Pro against RSLogix500 may be the right comparison. Or maybe the ADC package should be compard to the AI Series, and so on and so on and ......

I price the projects, and I check the books on all my projects, and I can state without hesitation that an all A-B system is more expensive on total project cost than GE or AutomationDirect or Modicon. But, as someone pointed out, the PLC hardware and software cost is only a small part of the total project cost, so that isn't the determining factor for me. (Total project cost = hardware + software + engineering + programming + assembly + testing + start-up + warranty) I've repeated my A-B rants ad nauseum, and won't do it on this thread.

So, to answer Mr. Loft's question again, we pay for software because we have to. There are cheaper solutions out there, but some won't use them because of a comfort factor, and some won't because they get good local service, and some because the cost isn't a problem, and some because of compatibility with existing stuff, and some because they don't know any better.

If you want to take a bite out of the A-B apple with your product, Mr. Loft, you have to get in line. Every GE rep and Modicon rep and Cutler Hammer rep I talk to knows who they have to shoot at, and they know that just better pricing isn't getting them on target. A-B built their market share on good products and good service and a full line of automation equipment. Whether or not they can maintain their market share under Rockwell is the $64,000,000,000 question, and will be an interesting exercise in Darwinian economics.

[93lt1]

My comparison of GE software is for the Logic developer ONLY, No PC MMI, no MMI configuration, No Motion programming.

Sure, the package is capable of it, but each of these is a seperate liscensing fee........

[Stephen Luft]

I would first like to thank all that have replied with their honest answers. I am aware that when an integrator is required to use AB or anyone elseby customer spec., they have no alternative. The end customer usually pays for it anyways. What I am still confused about is the people that have a choice and still choose to buy a more expensive package when there are alternatives out there. So I guess that I should restate my original question - If YOU have the choice, why would you buy AB or any other controller that charges for their software when there are alternatives?

In response to some specific threads:

To Mr. Roach - Of course it costs money to develop anything - software or hardware, but if you are buying the hardware on a continuous basis, why be penalized up front? Why don't they (AB or anyone else) include the software cost and development in the cost of the controller? Ken if the debate is stale, how come it still gets a lot of response? One of the reasons is because nothing has been done about it. The larger companies of the world think they have you right where they want you when in the PLC world, you have 40+ alternatives, granted only one has the name Allen Bradley. If my question riles anyone, then there must be some merit to it.

To Mr. Doran - I need to correct you on one thing that you stated in your post. The company I work for isn't new to the market, we have been suppling controllers since 1978. In respect of the site, and its members, I respect Phil's rules using the site as a promotional tool for my company. I have emailed him ahead of time if I was going to post something that would be considered questionable to the members. The question I have asked, is one that has puzzled me for many years. In the past I have supplied specific responses where a members wanted opinions or information about controllers. I am more familiar with what my company offers.

To Mr. Bailey - Let me ask you this, if a company offered a bare bones programming package free, what would happen when you needed one of the functions in the Full featured package? If it were me, I would be frustrated because I would think it should have been in the bare bones package. Where would you draw the line as to what is included in a bare bones package and what isn't?

To Mr. Densing - I would have to disagree with your statement that PLC programming software is similar to Word or Excel. You don't need Word or Excel to run your computer. They are specific programs for specific applications. You can get other word processing or spreadsheet packages to work on your computer, but you can't get other software to program the PLC you purchase (not taking into account third part packages that would have to be purchased for a price as well) The PLC software is a necessity for the PLC, not an accessory.

To Mr. Nelson - I have no control over people's reactions, but it seems to be a hot topic if it affects people in the manner it does. Regarding your comment about misrepresenting myself, all you had to do was view my profile to find out who I am, granted, I didn't sign my post. It is no secret. I state who I am...no alias. Phil has allowed us to put links to our web sites. If I truly wanted to mislead anyone, I would have signed up under a different name. I have asked an honest question. My intention is/was to try to understand from people with experience in this industry, why? Phil's site has a wide range of subscribers from all over the world that can offer many different opinions and perspectives. This question has been on my mind for some time. When you speak to customers that expect to get the software for Free, while at the same time, many are paying over $1000 for software, promted me to finally ask the question to those who have to purchase it.

To 93It1 - All I have to say about those prices is ouch!!!

To Mr. Jenkins - AB may have built their market share on good service, but many people I have talked with have stated that their service/support is terrible. Not to mention that a customer in California told me that AB wanted $165.00 / hour to do programming, plus travel time (40 hours minimum)

To agree with most of you, AB is an easy target because they have the largest market share, but for a company that is the leader in market share, you hear more negative comments than positive.

I look forward to your additional comments.

God Bless.

[Operaghost]

When was the last time anyone had anything good to say about Microsoft? Never? Hmm, then they must not have any market share.

OG

btw.... I think you meant 4 hour minimum, not 40. If you meant 40 then be advised, it is a 4 hour minimum.

[Stephen Luft]

My customer's specific words are "AB wants $165/hr. guaranteed. 1 week of work, nothing less. To me, 1 week is 40 hours.

Sorry about the errant post, hit post instead of reply.

[Rick Densing]

Mr. Luft,
If I am a secratary, I have to buy a word processor to do my job. It is a necessity. The fact that it is run on a computer is irreleveant.
My main argument is that PLC software is a productivity tool just like any other piece of software and should be treated as such. I have used some bad PLC software, and believe me, that $1100 I paid for RSLogix looked mighty good in the end.

I am certainly more inclined to listen to Tom's cost analysis argument and cold hard facts than chest thumping "I am not going to pay a lot for that software!"

I know this sounds like I am an AB cheerleader. I don't mean to be. I haven't used much else but them lately, and when I have, it has largely been a disappointment.

[Steve Bailey]

Mr. Luft,

I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from deliberately misinterpreting what I had to say. When I said bare-bones, I meant a packgae capable of programming the PLC including all of the functions in the instruction set. The bare-bones package should also be capable of monitoring an working PLC and uploading/downloading programs. Features to be left out would be things like names/nicknames, rung comments, capability of online or runtime edits, import/export files from one model to another.

On a personal note, you seemed rather defensive in your response. You certainly asked a legitimate question. Could your defensiveness be due to your track record on this forum. I can't remember any post from you that varied much from the general theme that "Entertron is the answer to your needs". You've been more subtle lately, but IM<HO, you push the definition of non-commercial to the extreme. Sort of like the people who advertise (excuse me, underwrite) on NPR and PBS.

[Operaghost]

Word Processor! I like that analogy. Some manufacturers offer cheaper word processors but maybe they are missing a couple keys. Just the "c" and the "p" keys.

"You won't miss them anyway. They are _onsonants, you don't need them be_ause we give you the all im_ortant vowels just like that $1,000 _er word _ro_essor _om_any but at half the _rice. And, we give you the _a_er when you buy our word _ro_essor."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

OG

[Peter Nachtwey]

Originally posted by Allen Nelson
Only $200K ?!?

That's what?, 2-3 programmers' salaries for only one year? And at the end of that year, you will have a full-featured, well-documented, bug-free product that runs on Win95, '98, NT, Win2K, XP, ME(?), under any service pack, and on any hardware? That's so user-friendly that you won't need tech support (or can justify having the customer pay it's full fare)


We do that now on our motion controller setup software and ,as Steve Luft company does, we give it away for free. I can justify this because it is also a marketing/sales tool, diagnostic tool, manual, etc. The PLC package would be grafted on to current setup tool. You can get it off the internet if you want to see. The cost is obviously borne by the person that buys the hardware. I learned long ago that it more acceptable to sell software/firmare in hardware units that people can touch and see.


What's the communication link? RS-232? Will a USB or PCMCIA card be able to handle it, too?

Ethernet or RS232. That is already worked out. USB is not industrial strength and has limited cable length. Ethernet is the future. Customers love Ethernet and just about every laptop has Ethernet now whereas serial ports are going away.


I think you'll be hard-presed to pull it off (depending on the size of that 61131 subset).

Yes. As I said we will only support IL,LD and SFC and only a subset of the SFC and LD will be supported. We will keep the subset small to support only what is needed. I think that there are too many instructions on most PLCs that rarely get used or are not needed. On-line changes and debugging and editing will be a high priority and the on line changes and compiling will be the biggest challenges.

[Stephen Luft]

I appologize if you feel that I deliberatly misinterpreted your comment. That was not my intention. I was asking, where do you cut off what is considered bare bones and what isn't. Using your example, nick names or comment areas could be very important to one person but not another. Nick names provide real world identification and comments provide notation to anyone who isn't familiar with the program.

[rsdoran]

After reading this post and the answers several times the answer seems to be self evident.

Why pay for software? Its a standard for the technology environment.

Think about it, a computer is an awesome machine BUT you need an OS and application software to do anything.

A computer is a hardware machine which needs and OS...Unix, Linux, BeOS, Windows, Dos etc. To program these OS or apps you need a Programming Language...C, C++, Pascal, Fortran, VB etc etc al.

A PLC is a machine, it must be told what to do. Therefore a Programming Language is needed...no different than a computer (which a plc is in a sense).

Overall we ( the buyers ) do what we have to. IF we own a computer we pay what is asked for the OS (yeah the Linux guys will be stating ours is free...yeah right, time and familiarity is also a determination). We pay for the applications that we need. Technically this is right (even though we may dislike the prices) to pay for what someone has spent the time to develop and market.

I have no choice, my business bought/buys machines with AB products in them therefore I MUST have the software, the same goes for Siemens, AD, GE, and others. If there is a problem I must be able to reload or modify the program.

Many of us arent really concerned about the price actually (except it excludes some of us from obtaining it for personal use). Even with all the *****in about support, prices etc etc al we have our favorites (personal or company mandated) that we deal with on mostly daily terms and will favor them because of familiarity. Personally none are perfect (i know i aint) so any take getting use to after dealing with another brand specifically.

It boils down to we do what we must.

I gonna state this even tho it may be or seem to be inappropriate because I have a need.

I am in the market for a Scope meter...preferably Fluke 123 or 190 series or similar, 20mhz or higher. I have an abundance of new/used plc's primarily GE Fanuc 90-30 or Siemens s7-200/300, S5 to trade. Please forgive me for this blatant request but I have a need but not the funds to buy new.

[Terry Woods]

The original question is...

"Why pay for PLC programming software?"

The immediate answer is simple. If you buy PLC based control systems, you buy PLC programming software (unless you are able to Pirate a copy) just to be able to program the device.

But the question, as posed, is really asking two questions...

1. Why PAY for any PLC Programming Software?
2. Why pay for PLC Programming Software?

Variation #1 suggests that PLC Programming Software can be had for FREE. While you might not have to PAY for PLC Programming Software, you usually get what you pay for!

Functionality? Does it provide all of the functions you need?

Variation? Does it apply to ALL of the PLC's you might need to program? The key-word here is "PLC's". The basic assumption is you are using typical Industry Standard PLC's.

Variation #2 suggests that there is an alternative to "PLC Software". This is TRUE!

Many of us have wished on many occassions that we could get right down into the guts of the PLC's operating system and see what's going on.

The simple answer to that is... you can't!

PLC's are CLOSED!!!

You can do what they will allow... nothing more!

This is reminiscent of the APPLE vs. PC battle. The APPLE architecture has been CLOSED forever! The PC architecture has been OPEN forever (at least, for as long as many of you young pups have been around!).

The very fact that PC's are OPEN makes them THE General purpose Programming and Control tool!

There is a STANDARD Language - "C". This language lets you get down to the very heart of the CPU! I mean, down to the beeding guts!

ALL PLC's ARE PC-Type Micro-Processors! The difference between the PLC-type Micro-Processor and PC-type Micro-Processor is that the PLC-type requires a "Mother, May I?" While the PC-Type says... "Hey, Whatever!"[

Technically, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to prefer PLC-type control over PC-type control!

In fact, Technically, there are a ton of reasons to go with the PC-type control rather than the PLC-type control!

With a PC-type Control system...
You can design your Operator Interfaces as you wish! NO RESTRICTIONS!
You can design your Process Controller as you wish! NO RESTRICTIONS!

The only Caveat is, ]You gotta know what you are doing!

C'MON YOU GUYS !!! We're basically talking about using a Micro-Controller (or Micro-Processor) to control a process!!!

It doesn't matter if the Micro-Controller is in a PLC or a PC. What matters is what kind of control YOU have OVER the Controller!!!
`
A PLC DOES NOT let you have the kind of control you want or need!!!

Any, So-Called, "PLC MODULE" IS a PC-Based Module.

THE PLC is a SUB-SYSTEM OF THE PC !!!!!!

For those that would cry "Hey, this is too much like REAL Programming!", I have no sympathy! This is, after all, the game we are in! Get IN or Get OUT!!!

QUIT YOUR GD WHINING!!!

[Rick Densing]

If you design it all yourself, you are still paying for it.

[Goody]

<QUIT YOUR GD WHINING!!!>

Dear Terry

I have always respected your opinions and thoughts but I have no idea what you are ranting about here.
To me the question was simple; why should you pay for software that can only program one brand of PLC?
I can see all sides of the argument but in business, the customer is king.
In this case I am the customer, I buy the PLC’s and software.

In my position, (which is different to others), I personally pay for the stuff.
At the end of the year when my accounts are done and the profits are revealed, the profits are all mine. They are not going to be eaten away by me having to pay thousands of pounds for each manufacturer’s software.
I would love to have the software for all brands of PLC. I would try each one out and maybe buy other brands regularly.
The way it is, I am going to stick to one of two brands. (Mitsubishi, Toshiba) and they will get thousands out of me each and every year because I have their programming software.

I had to pay nearly £1000 for the Mitsi software; I had to pick a manufacturer and Mitsubishi won, they being the predominant PLC around these parts.
The price of that software is offset partly by each program I write with the rate or price I charge.
I cannot justify the price of buying new software for other brands when in the main, my customers do not care which brand is controlling their machine to make bricks or treat their cloth or whatever.

But if say, an OMRON rep came to me with an offer that I buy a PLC and he would give me the software free, it is an offer I would take up.
Omron would then maybe sell me lots of PLC’s over the next years.

The Toshiba software, I got free; It was a pirate copy if you like. But Toshiba have benefited because I have bought their PLC’s.
Not many because I prefer Mitsi, but they had their chance.

Other PLC manufacturers would get their chance too if the software was free or at least cheaper.

[Steve Meisel]

We recently purchased a machine that came with a Keyence plc in it. I called our Keyence rep and he sent me the software, books, and cable at no charge.

Always a first for anything!

[rsdoran]

OK gotta love Terry's tangents. They definitely are informative. Terry you are very experienced, very well educated, and just dang good. We see you thing the PC environment offers more solutions than the plc by itself, I agree with this...to a point.

Why buy plc software...we dont all design, specify or make the machine/device. We buy/use what is needed for access, reloading program, editing etc capabilities.

This question is relative...why use PLC's at all? As Terry has stated a PC can do the same thing and allows you many options to create your own. Why not use a PC, seems the answer to that is simple...not enough know enough to program/edit/modify etc devices controlled with a PC. THere are so many options that its hard for the service/maintenance/electrician/tech to learn them all. This goes back to a statement I have made before...plc's were created to replace relays, the software to program them.

Overall this seems like a DUH to me, pc..plc whatever needs to be programmed somehow. I would like it to be cheaper but you do what you have got to do.

Mr Luft I see you got what you wanted: A long winded debate on WHY...you got it. NOTE tho that just because your company states its has being doing this for many years and you offer free software does NOT mean you have a viable product. If your concepts of marketing are any inclination of Enetron then I doubt your company will ever receive a strong market share.

Phil wanna remove a post that has seen too much action, this would be the one.

[Terry Woods]

Goody,

I do tend to think long and hard on my responses, so please excuse the long delay.

Your explanation of your position illustrates exactly the point that I am trying to make.

It seems crazy to me that we, the Programmers and Developers in the control industry, accept the idea that there are 2 dozen or more different PLC's out there with, at least, the same number of PLC Programming Software Packages.

I really hate the idea of an "AB Question" or a "Siemens Question".
Kinda like only being able to use FORD-Tools on Fords and CHEVY-Tools on Chevys - no such thing as a crescent wrench (spanner?).

And then we all get into pi$$ing contests over how my PLC can beat-up your PLC! It's ludicrous! I think your Mitsubishi & Toshiba PLC's are every bit as good as any others! What makes an AB look better than a Mitsubishi? In fact, what makes any PLC look better than any other???

The difference is the PROGRAMMER that wrote the code!

Am I to believe that an AB programmed by an idiot will produce a better control system than a Mitsubishi just because the former is an AB? I think not!

At this late date, all of the major PLC's are essentially the same. The only differences are the secret handshakes, winks and nods that are necessary to get the thing to perform at all. That is, the particular coding methods.

Now, with respect to the coding...
When a PLC compiles, Why does it have to compile? What is a compile?

Why does it have to compile?
The compiling is necessary so that the processor can understand the higher-level language in its own terms - machine code.

What is a compile?
A compile is an exercise where a very low-level program takes a program written in a high-level language and converts it to machine language (machine-code if you prefer). This is NOT to be confused with assembly-language. Assembly language is only ONE level above machine-code. The only thing more hateful than programming in Assembly Language is programming in Machine-Code!

Machine-code is the actual ones-and-zeros that the micro-processor (or micro-controller) in the PLC uses to actually perform work.

When the compiler sees a rung or network, it converts it into a "stackable" set of instructions, value locations and values. That is, it creates a properly ordered list of instructions, value locations and values. That list then resides in a particular place in the program sequence in memory.

During program execution, when it is time to execute that particular rung, the stackable set of instructions and data are loaded onto the "stack". The processor then executes the stack. The first entry is always an instruction. The instruction indicates the function and the operand (next word) or operands (next two words). An operand might indicate a memory location or be a value. The instruction indicates the case.

And so, by executing the instructions in the stack the processor is able to perform the process as we have described.

Now, What the Hell was that all about....????

The point is to show that we are all already performing machine-coding! Even those that only know how to "go in" and change a timer or count value are messing around at the machine-code level!

While there are a couple of differences (Big-Endians vs. Little-Endians - Remember Gulliver's Travels?) between the major processor providers (Intel & Motorola, AMD follows one or the other) they are essentially the same.

Ultimately, we are all accessing the same control system through different filters (PLC Programming Software). And so, when we get into the pi$$ing contest, we are actually arguing that "My filter can beat-up your filter!"

As if, my filter gives me better access to the bleeding-guts of the controller than yours does. It doesn't! For all practical purposes, no filter gives better access than any other!

The difference between the filters, again, is the secret handshakes, winks and nods that are necessary to get the filter to provide "compilable" code for the compiler.

And each set of handshakes, winks and nods are different.

So... where does the concept of standardization come in?

Users of those PLC Systems that have "C-Modules" should be able to port that particular program over to any other PLC that has a "C-Module". However, there is still the filter problem. AB-C ain't quite the same as Mitsu-C. They are not exactly compatable!

I believe that standardization comes in through having ONE LANGUAGE that will "talk" to any of the major processors directly WITHOUT the filters!

So, which language can provide this kind of communication and control?

The "C" Language!

PLC's DO NOT talk STANDARDIZED-C, so that means, blowing off the proprietary PLC programming software provided by AB, Siemens, Misubishi, DL, etc.

One of the greatest things about "C" is that you can create your own functions - re-creations of your favorites or originals!

You can recreate your favorite functions as you wish. If you want to specify a particular data file type, fine, do so. You just have to specify IN THE CODE how it works! This is great for subsequent readers of your code!

Another of the GREATEST things about "C" is that you can speak ENGLISH !!! AS YOU DEFINE IT !!!

"If Part_is_Late_at_Station_A then Execute_Plan_B" <<-- That is a literal command line!!!

So, my vision is, one general purpose language that gets down to the guts of the processor as you need for the very best control and, at the same time, allows access to a plethora of devices and control modules.

So that you, Goody, can maintain ONE software package, knowing that you can access any of your controllers and that you'll have access to a variety of vendors for your control modules. You won't be STUCK with any particular PLC Vendor for programming support (which you can always get right here!) or Hardware! There is a tremendous amount of "generic" type hardware out there.

Now, as to why I sounded like I was in a ranting mode...
I spent some 10+ years working in maintenance. I'm a licensed Electrician. Then I went to college for Electrical Engineering. When I got out of school our local economic situation here was in a down-turn. I wasn't willing to leave the area. I had to go back to manintenance. Since then the economic situation around here has gone up and down severly for the last couple of decades. All the time I've kept trying to learn more about my field.

At this point I have about 20-years maintenance experience with about 10-years of Electrical Engineering/Design experience.

I have a real problem with anyone that come to a "Programming" site and whines that we aren't keeping things dumb enough for a poor ignorant maintenance guy who is not willing to put in the effort to lift himself out of his own self-declared ignorance.

He continues to apologigize for his ignorance and still continues to plead for the PLC-world to be brought down to his level.

He's a self-declared, ignorant, irritating PITA!

That, is who I was directing my rant at!

However, I also believe in the concept of open forum.
So, he is what he is, and I said what I said.
(I typically say what I mean and mean what I say!)

I've run out of patience with him. He can rot.

I've only been able to get away with this because my keepers are away on holiday!

[Rick Densing]

It may be a negative for mankind, but by keeping the code/operation simple, we are reducing the costs of ownership for our customers. Something that will may result in another order.
Obviously, this is from an OEM's perspective. I have often suggested more complicated stuff only to be shut down by the customer for the above reason. All that being said, I won't sacrifice the best method to do the job.

[Terry Woods]

Before PLC's there was hard-wiring. The maintenance people fought against the PLC idea. It was new and they didn't know how to use it. It took time and effort for the maintenance folks to be convinced of the benefit. They had to learn something new.

So, what is different in what I am suggesting?

It's simply a case of trying to get the control system designers and maintainers (customers) to recognize the benefits of the new idea. Then, as before, they need to learn how to use the new idea!

It's the same game as before! There are benefits to be had if there is an effort to learn!

Let's see, do I want to go through the pains of learning several languages which don't give me direct access to the controller or do I want to learn just one which will give me direct access to the controller?

Do I want to be restricted to a specific hardware vendor or do I want to have access to an unlimited number of hardware vendors who are competing with each other for my money?

These questions are answered in Economics-101.

"It may be a negative for mankind, but by keeping the code/operation simple, we are reducing the costs of ownership for our customers. Something that will may result in another order."

"Simple" is a relative term; Simple for who? A turn-key system is supposed to be simple for the user - Plug-n-Pray, if you will. Such a system requires great effort on the part of the designer.

Obviously, this is from an OEM's perspective. I have often suggested more complicated stuff only to be shut down by the customer for the above reason. All that being said, I won't sacrifice the best method to do the job.

As I said, customers need to be convinced of the benefits. My vision includes providing access and a copy of the source-code with the system. Just as customers now have at least one PLC Software packages to support their own systems, they will need to have a copy of "C" to create and maintain their PC programs.

Whether you like it or not, it is coming! So, why not embrace it?

[ganutenator]

Wow this is a long thread. It has kind of veered away into a PLC vs PC thread however.

1) 1st of All, Yes, the PLC manufactures are raping you. Why? because they can. Each Manuf. is in essence a monopoly for its own PLC. Yes, you can switch to another manufacturer, but at what expense. There is a serious learning curve to each PLC. Not to mention keeping backup parts for production. Also, compatibility to HMI's, OITs, hardware, etc. I think that most would agree that is very very very difficult, if not nearly impossible to switch a plant over to another PLC manufacturer. Plus, I think most PLC books I read stated "stick with one PLC manufacturer" and with good reason.

What I hate the most about this raping procedure is how you have to buy every little item individually in order to appear competitive to other PLC manufactures. AB is the worst abuser of this. Just give me everything I need, i.e. software, PLC, chassis, power supply, PCMCIA card, AND CABLE, and charge me more for the PLC. This way I don't have to beg/explain to my superiors that I need a $200 cable.


2nd) for the PLC vs PC debate I believe that there are very strong cases for both.

Problems with PLC's :

1) the blasted proprietary stuff
2) not able to create your own functions
3) buying expensive software packages for each and every platform
4) learning curve for each
5) cost cost cost cost; not only hardware, but development as well
6) relay ladder logic
7) portablitily
8) forced into using one software package
- I was able to get arround this a little bit in AB. I could export the code and comments into ASCII and use VIM and Perl to program. This cut my programming time nearly in half, and made me profitable as a programmer. Even though it took me twice as long to write code as my fellow engineers, I was able to finish in half the time. But it was a royal pain in my *** to get this to work.
9) Time, it takes much longer to write PLC code than it does to write the equivalent in another language.
10) code needs a PLC to run. PC programmers have always had the ability to compile test re-compile test re-compilet test etc.
11) Too many bad programers out there. (myself included, however, after 7 years, I am getting better). Every electrician that has ever come along and changed a timer value thinks that they are a programmer.
- sure there are more



Advantages of a PLC:

1) Robust
2) does not run games
3) IT guys don't understand them
4) Does not entirely depend on Microsoft
5) The ability to view/change compiled code online
- try troubleshooting a program poorly written in structured text online.
6) Its not an available PC that someone else will try to come along later and use for an additional purpose.
7) Easier to try and figure out an existing system, some things are constant. A PC based system has an infinite number of combinations.
8) its not a pc



I agree a lot with what Terry has been stating, however, there needs to be some changes in order for the PC based control market to take off.

My "genie pop out of a lamp" Solution:

Imaging a function block diagram that is controlling a process. As an electrician, you easily view this online, and see the inputs and outputs of a particular function block to determine that it is operating properly. The function block may be labeled as Conveyor 154 (East Packaging conveyor) Control for example. By double clicking on the function block you could see the guts of the function block. Up would pop, either ladder logic, or structured text, or C code for example. You could use this function block over and over again. The variables would not all be global, as in the current PLCs. You would have to pass data into and out of the fucntion. But this would make it easier. I.E. you would see a line coming into the function block as I:00/1 or whatever with a comment of HOA-154 Auto. In the code inside of the function block, it would just be Auto. Do you see the potential for duplicating sections of code here, without having to reassign addresses?

2nd, all of this code would run in a Sony Playstation II. I believe the current cost is $200

3rd, the I/O would be ethernet I/O. Pick whatever manuf you want. All manuf. would be forced to be compliant if they ever wanted to sell I/O

4th The HMI would be in VB on a flat touchscreen monitor and connect to the USB port of the playstation.

5th, One of the ports of the ethernet I/O hub would go to a wireless ethernet hub. This way, you could walk right up to the device that you were troubleshooting and be online to the PLC with your laptop. Look ma, no wires.

6th, The HMI would communicate back to a server with all of its data. This data could be broadcast on a web page.

7th, A palm pilot, web ready cell phone, or other web browser could view this HMI data.

....Just my thoughts.......

[Ken Roach]

Sigh.

[rsdoran]

I have a real problem with anyone that come to a "Programming" site and whines that we aren't keeping things dumb enough for a poor ignorant maintenance guy who is not willing to put in the effort to lift himself out of his own self-declared ignorance.


He continues to apologigize for his ignorance and still continues to plead for the PLC-world to be brought down to his level.

He's a self-declared, ignorant, irritating PITA!

That, is who I was directing my rant at!

However, I also believe in the concept of open forum.
So, he is what he is, and I said what I said.
(I typically say what I mean and mean what I say!)

I've run out of patience with him. He can rot.

Why has a question concerning buying PLC Software become an attack on ME (either personally or as a Maintenance Man in general)? The above is a very egotistical statement, it falls into the category WHY at this time you should "dumb" down (which really means stop thinking like an a$$ and make it understandable). A PLC is a device used in an area where a wide range of expertise/skills are even more important. Most plants dont need a programmer but they do have to hire someone that can understand what that Professional Programmer has done but needs to have more skills.

Dont give me that ego **** about pulling up out of the self declared ignorance...you dont get it do you? Its engineers/programmers etc that create the atmosphere that makes "maintenance men" ignorant. NOTE THO IGNORANCE IS NOT STUPIDITY.

Y'all try to make it sound like its wrong not to KNOW all this stuff. Not all want to be an Engineer, Programmer, or even Management. They just want to be able to comprehend what is being done. As things stand now there are multiple brands of PLC's on the market and still the most common way to do things (overall) is with Ladder Logic. Yes this will change but not the way you may think it will. Yes the PC is a viable alternative, have you developed a system using one? One that anyone could use if they can program?

I am a Maintenance Man, to fulfill the qualifications for my class rating I have to be certified welder, EPA certification for refridgerant recovery, 2 year A.S. degree in electronics, training in pneumatics/hydraulics, PLC training...this just to get an hourly wage job. I have also obtained an MCSE (3.51 track, havent recertified yet), cisco, and numerous pneumatic/hydraulic, drives, plc and business management.

No I am not a Programmer nor an Engineer, as alot of Maintenance Men arent.

Yes I am ignorant but ignorance is relative not always an absolute. It does not signify stupidity or the inability to comprehend when the subject in discussion is done in a fashion that can be related to. Ignorance is also not being willing or capable of looking at something objectively, the "I AM RIGHT .. YOU ARE WRONG ALWAYS" thing.
IF I and those here were truly ignorant then we wouldnt participate at all, I do not write code that often or that indepth BUT I know where to look for a multitude of information on a multitude of brands/devices/software. The idea on a forum (I thought) was to share information and ideas. I have attempted to share what I can.

AS i stated above I dont understand why a Post about BUYING PLC software has turned into a debate about plc vs PC AND an attack towards me (either directly as I think it is or indirectly as a maintenance man). Maybe you could enlighten all of us?

Personally I like reading your long winded debates etc when programming is involved. I ususally print out the whole thread to maintain what code/theory/equations etc you have posted. Your ideas about PC's make sense, but so far you have never shown a hardware method to start it. Ever thought about working with others on an open system to implement a PC design? Ever used a stamp? Designed an I/O board? I have burnt many a 286/386 board working on this stuff.

Yes I am ignorant to certain things but I share what I know and attempt to teach and learn from those around me. I feel sorry for the maintenance men that have to work with or for you, with that god complex I doubt any of them can be more than mindless labor.







Get off your high and mighty ****. You are doing a job working with machines...this aint rocket science.

[Rick Densing]

I have a real problem with anyone that come to a "Programming" site and whines that we aren't keeping things dumb enough for a poor ignorant maintenance guy who is not willing to put in the effort to lift himself out of his own self-declared ignorance.

Last I checked, this site was called PLCS.net not PLCPROGRAMMING.net

Like it or not, ignorant maintenance guys (I don't include you Mr. Doran) are part of the world and always will be. Ranting may make you feel good, but it won't change anything.

You also condradict yourself with your own biography. Once you raised your own knowledge level, you became an engineer.

[Allen Nelson]

Ron

One thing you must have learned by now about Terry is that his Keepers make sure that he takes his medication. Currently, his keepers are out of town....

When I first read Terry's diatribe, I was puzzled as to who he was complaining about. Although you've had a few post that start with "I'm just a lowly tech....", I've seen others here what are more in favor of "dumbing down the code for the sake of maintenance" than you.

But I don't happen to think that there's anything "only" about being a tech. Most of the ones that I've worked with know more about electrical and mechanical engineering than I am ever likely to, if for no other reason than I sit in a cushy office most days typing, while they're out there looking and fixing.

Terry's wrong about a lot of things (including the REAL original quesiton of this post, which was "Why isn't my business model working to bring zillions of users to get my free software?". I think Stephen Loft got the answer that he should have known all along. Both Charles Darwin and P.T. Barnum were right.

As for the rest of Terry's rant about where PLCs are heading, "'C' is comming"? Maybe. I'm also highly skeptical. Is there any advantage between

A B
---| |---( )


and

IF A=1
THEN B=1
ELSE B=0
ENDIF

to repressent the desired outcome? I can't figure out where ganutenator (and others) feels that there is something so wrong with Ladder. It's a graphical representation (which must be a good thing, since he advocates flow charts), it's compact (and don't anyone start on how STL is more compact - in every example I've ever seen, someone takes Siemens ladder, shows how that ladder exists in STL, and shows how much cleaner they can do it in STL by hand. Baloney! That's a flaw in the translator/compiler, not the language. Regardless of the languge, it takes word of raw memory for the instruction, and one word for each address reference. It will also have a few dedicated registers for interim results. Period )


I figure that there are maybe 20 Basic PLC instructions (if you don't too 61311-3 and say that a MOVE from a float to an integer is different from a MOVE from an integer to an integer - they're both MOVEs as far as I'm concerned.).

I haven't yet reached the depth of all that I can do with those instructions, a bit of indirect addressing (an Array, in 'C' terms), and imagination. Why are more needed?

All the other instructions are typically just "Function Blocks" of those 20, or variations on the theme.

There's also more to running a PC to act like a PLC than just writing some 'C' code that reaches down to the roots of the processor. It still needs an operating system to do the housekeeping (like polling the I/O after every program scan). If it was as easy as Terry makes out, the folks at the Puffin PLC project would have been finished long ago.

I'm not saying that things aren't going to change. Of course they are. And it may even change in some of the ways being predicted.

But again to reference Darwin, things change because there's a pressure to need them changed. As I see it, while htere's some problems with the way things are now, all the proposed solutions are no better.

Take ganutenator's "Put all I/O on ethernet" idea. Sounds good on the surface. But I wouldn't want one bad Level Transmitter take down the entire I/O ethernet network. Or perhaps he means to replace a 16-point I/O module with a 16 point hub? Instead of running 2-wires, we'll run CAT-5? Where's the advantage?

[Tom Jenkins]

Thanks Allen - I was waiting for somebody besides me to say it!

I don't know if C will give more compact code than RLL. I don't know if an "open" PLC will really save money. I don't know if distributed I/O is less expensive, or as reliable, or more flexible, or as deterministic. AND I DON'T CARE!

I think many of us loose the real point of applying PLCs - to serve an end users requirements. And the end user isn't paying for elegant code, or compact panels, or the ***iest interface. The end user is paying for plywood, or engine blocks, or clean water at the tap, and so on and so on ......

Since the end user wants to pay as little as possible for these items, the total cost of converting his automation logic into working controls is the final arbiter of the "best" technology at least in a global Darwinian view. And as we have stated many times, total cost includes hardware, and configuration / programming software, and control logic, and installation, and de-bugging, and maintenance, and lost product for errors in any of the above.

I used to do my controls with high level language. (OK, it was DOS and Q-Basic, not Windows and C, but I don't think the differences are significant.) And they worked fine, and my customers were happy. I went to ladder for several reasons, all of which, in my opinion, are as valid today as they were 8-10 years ago when I made the change to PLC:

De-bugging is simpler with ladder logic and most RLL programming packages

Operator interface is improved because a number of suppliers have products optimized for reading and writing to PLCs

Customer acceptance was better, because justified or not they felt a PLC was more robust than an industrial computer and serial I/O

Elimination of a single point of failure. I could use small PLCs for about the same cost as my serial I/O, and by putting protection logic and local control at each one I could maintain equipment functions even if my master control or main PLC died, thereby improving customer uptime.

Maintenance was simpler, since many users had access to somebody that could troubleshoot PLCs but there were few to none that could work with high level languages.

Please note that control hardware cost and initial programming were not critical parts of the decision process. That is because they weren't that different from one architecture to the other, and because they constitute a small percentage of overall system cost.

[Stephen Luft]

To all that have posted replies to my original question about purchasing the software to program PLCs, I thank you for your responses. I enjoyed reading the various opinions and insights, even the ones that went on a tangent. They were all very interesting.

[Stephen Luft]

In reviewing many of your replies to my original question, a couple of additional questions have come to mind.

I am interested to learn more about the following:

1) When you purchase the PLC programming software (and your investing anywhere from $100 to $1500+) what do you expect to receive from the manufacturer?

2) What do you actually receive from the manufacturer?

3) Does what you purchase and what you receive meet, exceed or fall short with your expectations?

I am looking forward to your answers.

Thanks,

Stephen

[Allen Nelson]

How 'bout you answering a question for a change.

You've posted "Why do you pay for programming software?" on this and other boards, and gotten many replies.

They have usually been variations on: Because we have to. It's resonable to pay a resonable price for the development effort (whether the price should be rolled into the hardware or priced seperately is irrelevant. You still pay. TANSTAAFL.) We shouldn't. Linux is Free. The internet is free. Everything should be free.

So my question for you is: What is wrong with your business model?

You offer inexpensive PLCs with a marketing gimmick of "Free Software". Yet people continue to flock to AB, Seimens, and GE. Those on a budget go to Automation Direct.

Have you figured out what you're doing wrong, yet?

[geoboni]

Without too much thought:


PC based solutions (PLC's are becoming PC's and PC's are getting robust enough to be PLC's). With this, software and hardware will become cheaper. I see deterministic ethernet and PC's taking over. It just seems like a natural progression. When we are all writing and designing to a common architecture, there will be more competition and lower prices. 3rd party vendors can close the gaps between companies.


Tell me there error in my thinking

[Russ]

I've had very good support with Allen Bradley. They've sent me updated versions of rslogix 5/500 and linx as well as a masterdisk. All materials were sent 1 or 2 day through UPS free of charge. Every software related problem I have had (corrupted keys, resetting keys, configuration issues, patches, drivers) has been resolved quickly.
Their software is easy to use, and has encouraged me to want to learn more about programming plc's. It has allowed me to do my job more efficiently, and with better productivity.
They may be expensive, but you get what you pay for.



Regards,
Russ

[Pierre]

I have mix emotion on this fellow. Like Allen, I shure am curious has to the point this salesman wants to accomplish. Ho, did I call mister Luft something bad?

How should I call somebody who is suppose to have been in and around this industries for ho, so many years and still has to rely on cheap publicity gimiks. Cause this is what I thinck it is.

Like your software and this present post, this thread is free, and it's about what it's worth. Niet!

You want to be more than a cheap salesman Stephen. Tell us more.

How much time was spent on development of your software?
Who ended up deciding to give it away with the hardware, and what was the deciding factor?
Was there much discussion on that point then?
What amount. in an hardware piece is directly related to your software?
Whats your total sales number for 2001?
How much of this would be lost if you where to sell this software at 50$, 100$, 200$, 300$?

[Jerry Desaulniers]

In my opinion the worst thing you could do is install a non-popular component in a plant when you could install a popular one. You see I'm a great fan of modularity and interchangeability. With this as one of my core beliefs I find it very important to use one of the most popular brands of PLC's throughout your whole plant. After all the purpose of a plant is to get as large of a return on investment for it's owners or shareholders. For this reason the only way I would install something other than one of the top sellers is the price was right and I believed that they were soon to become the leader. The issue with leadership is the ability to have good support from within. In my experience machines that are not well understood are usually the first to die, that is because "curiosity can kill the machine". Anyways Mr. Luft, have you considered sending your resume to Allen Bradley?

[Stephen Luft]

It is fair enough that I answer the questions you have asked.

In answer to your questions:

How much time was spent on development of your software?

On our new 32 bit software, we have spent approximately 8 months in development and 2 months in testing before releasing it. We will be adding features and enhancing existing features as we proceed. Approximately, 3-5% of sales have been invested in our new software development.

Who ended up deciding to give it away with the hardware, and what was the deciding factor?

The decision to offer the software Free of charge was a mutual decision. The deciding factor was that no one else was doing it.

Was there much discussion on that point then?

There wasn’t much discussion about it because we were all in agreement.

What amount. in an hardware piece is directly related to your software?
Whats your total sales number for 2001?
How much of this would be lost if you where to sell this software at 50$, 100$, 200$, 300$?

These questions I will not answer because they relate to non published company information. As a private company, we do not disclose financial information. It would be the same as me asking you how much you make per year.

First, you should probably understand what our business model is about.

Entertron is a manufacturer who's target is the small to medium sized OEM. Our focus is to provide solutions while at the same time providing value and protection for the OEM's application. Save our customers time and money, while at the same time increase their revenue potential.

How does Entertron do this?

1) We provide a longer warranty - 3 years for relay outputs and 5 years for solid state

2) We don't charge for every little thing, i.e. manuals

3) We don't charge for support

4) We don't charge for Software, upgrades or bug fixes

5) We provide higher output ratings, thus eliminating additional components, such as additional relays or fusing (depending on the controller you use). Our relay outputs are 7 amps for the Smart-PAK PLUS and 8 amps for the SK1600-RIC (up to 16 without any restrictions out of 24). Our triac rating is 2 amp continuos and 10 amp inrush; transistor rating is 2 amp contiguous and 8 amp inrush. Our solid state design is individually fused and has been proven over its 20+ year history.

6) One CD for everything.

7) We give the OEM control over their program. Only one file resides in our controllers - that is the hex file. If the OEM wants to give the program, that is their option. Most PLCs have the ladder file stored in the PLC. Our customers consider this to be an advantage. Not all would consider this an advantage, it would depend on your perspective (end user probably not, systems integrator - it would depend)

8) When you contact the factory with a question, you do not get voice mail. You will speak with someone in technical support. Will you always get an answer when you call - it will depend on your question. If you call at lunch, they will call you back when they return. If you call after 5pm eastern time, you will be able to leave a message. You do not have to worry if your maintenance contract is up to date or if your software version is covered for support.

9) We will review programs at no cost to our customers. If you need help with your program that you have developed and you are uncertain as to what the problem might be or you just want us to review it, we do. I don't know what other manufacturers do, but this is probably done through their distributors.

10) Should you require a modification to a standard PLC - you will likely get the answer "no" from the other manufacturers (unless there is enormous volume involved). Why? Because the larger manufacturers produce thousands of one product at a time, usually over seas. They have no means to make changes once they arrive in the US. We are an American manufacturer. All of our ePLCs are manufactured here. Whether it is 1 pc or 1000 pieces. We have the ability to take a controller out of stock and make modifications to it.

Entertron is not the least expensive, nor the most expensive PLC on the market. Our product focus is in the Small to Micro end of the market. (up to 128 I/O)

I wouldn't say that our model is flawed. Allen Bradley and others have done a good job at marketing their name to the End User. For many of the larger OEMs, they are dictated to, as to what PLC is to be used. In talking with many people, asking, why did you go with AB? The answer I receive most is that our customers want AB. It is mostly for the name.

Automation Direct has gone head to head with AB, based on price and has taken some share away from them. Automation Direct has a successful model, primarily based on pricing, but in the mean time their business model has lowered pricing while at the same time hurt many distributors. The distributor provides a valuable service to their customers. When people see the pricing from Automation Direct (who has no distributors or reps and just recently added a few integrators) they still expect their distributor to be able to compete with pricing, while providing the same services that Automation Direct doesn’t. As stated several times, there is a cost associated with service. Do you want to be successful at the expense of others or based on your own merit?

Both have used a lot of advertising dollars to get where they are. We are not their size nor do we want to be. We don't want the many layers of cost that are associated. We would lose our flexibility.

We have many OEM customers and are working on new applications every day. We want our customers to be successful. If they are successful, then we will be successful. We want to make their experience as hassle free as possible. Providing things such as Free programming software is only one way

We are addressing an area where companies are frustrated with the way larger PLC companies do business. We are also providing companies an alternative to designing their own controllers. Giving the OEM a solution they can call their own, without spending thousands of dollars in design costs, hundreds of man hours and months of development for their own controller.

The intent of my original question and subsequent follow up, is simply research. To find out from a wide spectrum of users, integrators and OEMs what they think, in order for us to better serve both new and existing customers.

Included, for some of you who would like to know more about marketing is an article link to Selling Power on "How to Use Tough Times to Boost Sales and Increase Market Share" http://www.sellingpower.com/article/display.asp?aid=SP2662776&fromFriend=TRUE

Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope this has answered your questions.

God Bless,

Stephen

[Jay Anthony]

Let's put this topic to bed! zzzzz

[rsdoran]

I dunno, I guess this is as relevant a topic as any that should be on a plc site. Stephen is an owner/salesman (haven't determined or been told which) of a company that manufactures PLC and caters to the OEM. What better place to get feedback?

Somewhere in the past he (like me) has "antaganized people" in some way. It happens when dealing with people.

Yes he wants to market his product but has also offered assistance at times on ways to do things (non brand specific type, his or others), just concepts that should cross over.

Personally (my opinion and mine only) he/his company has/is losing a large market by being OEM specific. I probably wont ever buy anything from ENTERTRON (http://www.entertron.com/) for that reason.

At the same time I can see where an OEM could maybe profit from dealing with his company. They offer viable solutions with what seems earnest capabilities to fulfill an OEM needs at competitive pricing. They arent a newbie to the PLC industry, they have been at it as long as just about anyone.

Stephen, I am going to direct this to you/your company. In the past dealing with the major players (AB, Siemens, GE etc) I/we have obtained items to play with (sometimes free, sometimes at a very low cost). I doubt I can play in the field you need/want, I just work for a small international company and am an end user BUT if there was a way to provide some form of "demo" equipment it would be a good thing for some of us.

Personally I would like to try your product, it amazes me as long as I have been in this business (and your company has been )I have never seen your products. Alas I have not the capability to just order from someone BUT can (if I know the product) make recommendations that will be used...alas I am an end user tho, we only use a few hundred small plc's at my plant. I can and do retrofit the older machines with newer models when needed (which is regular) but have problems with purchasing, pricing, and support of some of the major players of plc's.

Anyway while you are hanging out on this site make more effort to assist with the generic plc questions, who knows what the future may bring.

[ckchew666]

RSLogix Started pack for MLX 10-points is free for download at he web.

[RSVIEWRULZ]

Development costs are excessive... with out it you have something like Automax. It is Free with the hardware, very powerful but very combersome. You will not see this software get any better

Rslogix 5 is not a big market item any longer. But, it remains robust, expensive and available. As a company that is in bed with Microsoft (RS) and as OS change and are altered, so does the operating software like Rslogix 5. You HAVE to pay for this. Look at the last 2 updates for Rslogix 5, have you noticed any obvious change? No, but they were needed.

I think that (THINK) Rockwell is stabbing their selves in the back with the renewal costs. The tech support is usually losy but the updates are neccesary. They (Rockwell) came out with a new plan to include Drives, MMI, Software ect.. all in one price. It is reduced but still the costs are excessive. I paid almost $8,000 for support and renewal.

I would pay for the software as I do now... I would pay the cost up front. The renewal fee is what I think is rediculously high and frankly, I won't pay it next year! I will cross the bridge of updates when it becomes a problem. But right now, I think with XP being my primary OS, I should be good for a few years.


BUT MAN!!! Did this ever start a thread and a half!!!! hahahaha

[Pierre]

One thing to remember.

MAC vs PC.

IF MAC would have been sooooo easy to clone and copy like the PCs and there OS used to be...

Don't ya thinck they would have been in the below 5% market shares like they are today?

For me, its the same thing with PLC software.

The only value of information is when you share it. Keep it locked and protected and it has no value.

So yes, make us pay for it but let us cheat a little before we commit.


:p :p :p :p :p :

[93lt1]

Originally posted by RSVIEWRULZ
Look at the last 2 updates for Rslogix 5, have you noticed any obvious change? No, but they were needed.

Yes....
RSLogix5 V5.50 gave the ability to click the "on rung" cross-reference and go to that location without having to search.

RSLogix5 V6.00 gave the ability to "open" the ladder files in the project tree and view/go to the page titles.

I do see your point. Usually there are no visible changes. I was amazed that there were actually two very helpful changes in the last two releases of RSLogix5/500.

[jt]

How can you succesfully promote your product without knowing your competition?

This is a quote by Mr.Luft from a thread called "plc"


Not being familiar with other manufacturer's programming software, I don't know if they provide this information when you compile. Other manufacturers like Mitsubishi tell you the number of steps available, and still others tell you the ...

I would think that knowing your competition inside and out is a must!

AB's programming software is worth every penny.
Price / performance ratio justifies the steep price.
No offense Mr. Luft but Entertron's ladder programming is stuck in the 1980's mode.

[Sparky]

OK here is something a little different.
I do not have a degree; I never went to school for PLC or any computer related programming or application. Just a couple years’ military experience with electronics. :huh: After two years as an electrical technician, I program A-B PLCs and WonderWare on a daily basis. Stick with me here I know this is kind of winded but it has a point. The plant that I work at has about 120 PLCs in it, from micrologix1000 to SLC5/05. 95% being A-B PLCs. Most were here when I got here. Every day I learn more and more about PLCs. Now we are expanding and I have input into what kind of PLCs we should add for our process. Can any one guess what my suggeestion is going to be??? :smas: My point is if you can teach a monkey like me to program with this software and hardware, I'm going to pay extra money for it. Just like I would pay extra money for automatic transmision. It is simple and easy. Now before I get chopped up here yes I know my ignorance of other PLCs and their software significantly reduces importance of my opinion. But why would I complicate my life by throwing something new into the mix, something I don't know.
__________________

[seppoalanen]

1'st of all, I do not own any Plc.

Still I have 2 kinds of 'hell', licence-hell and upgrade-hell. Do you have ? I'm working with many PLC's as Simatic, AB and Omron, rest I live to others, I can't buy them all. I'm self-employed person and my customers wonder my hour-prices, why ? Very often (too often) I have to buy some driver-kind software for one project only.

Is it my role buy software as OS for PLC's? PLC is not as PC. I can do only controlling by PLC, but with PC I can do many diffrent kind of things, even 'soft-plc'.

[DesertDog]

Originally posted by akreel


Allen-Bradley also has separate software packages for their different PLC products. But, I think they're stuck charging more for them because of they have so many users. There's a lot of product out there, which requires a lot of support. They've got to pay these technical guys somehow. If no one ever needed technical support, the software might be cheaper (so stop calling :) ).
AK

Wouldn't many users make more people to share the costs and lower the prices?

[Hootnholler]

Wow, I can't believe I read the whole thing...lol :D

I know that this has gone on forever, and since I can type like a demon, be forewarned, this will be a lengthy post, but will try and add a bit to the convo... maybe even some pertinent information.

I'll try and make this follow a timeline, since there is so much to digest from my readings... Mr. Luft, you do bring up a very good point about the licensing, etc... I will not deny that. In response to your original question, I think that the answer is becoming self evident, it's the familiarity of the product. To borrow an analogy from another user (sorry, so many names to remember...) you should not need chevy tools to work on chevy, and ford tools to work on fords. But, being that I am in the states, I like working on domestic cars vs. foreign, if for no other reason, the electrcial system. European grounding still baffles me... lol. In response to some of the other posts, why can't there be an overall language that covers all plcs? That's a great question. Personally, I believe it has to go down to the hardware level. Not all processors are created equal. The one thing that was left out from the previous pc to plc debate, the pc processor still carries over the original 16 bit addressing falling all the way back to the 8086. That is the main reason why C language is still formidable to this day. The memory address architecture has not changed, just the amount of addresses. But, to keep this in plc debate, the pc processor is shifting away from the 16 bit mode... you will see some major changes in the next few years (.net and longhorn, for example...)

I may be mistaken, and please, if someone knows, correct me... the plc processor is not the same type architecture. Yes, quite a few will follow the bit/byte method of programming, but I do not believe that all the memory addresses are the same from plc to plc. With that being said, could there at some time be a standard? I would hope so, and maybe someday, we will see it, but it has not become a dire issue to the end user, but it sure has drawn some interest (have to remember, we are a bit 'cutting edge' here...).

As for another anology, the word processor, etc... why do most people use windows? For an example, there is a free word processor out there, and it will open M$N products, called openoffice. They have followed the same philosophy as yourself, Mr. Luft. They give away single licenses for free, but charge the corporate usage. They have not taken off as much as I'm sure they would have liked to, but why have they not taken a fair market share? Familiarity. Why would I install openoffice in my office setting, when I can pay a little bit and have just about every user in the office familiar with the product? When Mr. Johnson needs some help with putting a picture in the word processor, he can turn to Mr. Smith and ask a question. Or, should I just install openoffice, and have everybody call the 1-800 number and hope they get a reasonable amount of support, if they are open? Is the cost of productivity worth more to me than a few dollars up front? That is up to the owner to decide...

This does lead me to the AB debate. Why are they so formidable in the market? Again, I feel, familiarity. Ask just about any programmer and they know AB, and maybe a few others. I very rarely come across technicians/engineeers that know just Modicon, or GE, etc.. but quite a few know AB, then usually one or two more, like AD, etc... Does this alone justify their prices? No, it does not. But, as quite a few others have posted, you are not just paying for the hardware/software itself, you are also buying into a culture of knowledgable programmers and coders that are willing to help. Plus, if I am running a larger facility that is producing thousands of dollars an hour, I want support for that product. I will pay $10,000 up front, for the chance that I will get my product fixed within hours instead of days. That's just smart economics. As a caveat, I live in Milwaukee, so AB is DEFINITELY supported here... ;).

With that thought in mind, in respect to Mr. Doran, kind sir, you represent what I feel to be the 'new' programmers. I am very much like yourself, and so are quite a few others in this site/forum. We are extremely fortunate to have users like Mr. Allen, Mr. Nelson(s), Mr. Woods, Mr. Roach and a myriad of others that I would classify as 'gurus'. They have been an exceptional help and I am bowing to all of the helpers in this forum for the kind words and sage advice you have expunged on programmers like myself. Does plc software need to be 'dumbed down'? With all due respect, yes, it does. Does dumbed down mean make it buggy and problematic? No, it does not. It needs to follow the formula for familiarity. Think about it, why does the plc program follow a flow chart? Why does it look like an electrical diagram? Why does it follow the process of 'relay logic'? How do you dumb it down? I'm not sure, and if I had an idea, I would be contacting AB right now :p

To tie this together, Mr. Luft, let me explain another plc to pc analogy. Once, there was two workers that decided to break away from IBM and create their own personal computer. Their names were Mr. Jobs and Mr. Gates. They broke away with the same idea, but different ideologies to create the product. Mr. Jobs believed that the computer should be simple and proprietary, ie, hardware. Mr. Gates decided that people would prefer an operating system that would work on all pc's of similar architecture. This led to a fairly heated debate, and they decided to part ways. Mr. Jobs went on to create a company called Apple. Mr. Gates went on to create a company called Microsoft. Mr. Gates big break came from IBM when they needed an operating system to run on their new 8086 processor (and soon released after, 8088). Mr. Gates said that he could do it. He scoured high and low to find something that would work and found a programmer in Seattle that had created an os called 'QDOS', quick and dirty operating system. He purchased the rights to that program (for $1000, I believe) and licensed it as just DOS. It was a simple command line operating system that accessed the memory addresses to IBM's new 16 bit processor. As time went on, Mr. Jobs realized that the cost of building a computer was becoming less as manufacturing became more economical. He decided that it was about time to introduce a pc for the home use and created the apple line of products. He was not trying to go head to head with IBM, since they held the business share, but going after the home user. As time went on, people also had a similar idea, but since IBM never copyrighted or patented their arhitecture, the fruit was ripe for the picking. This started a whole lot of competition within the pc market. Now, Mr. Jobs had a system that worked great, very stable, but not very configurable. The pc market offered just about any configuration that manufacturing would allow, and they had an operating system that worked on all of them (to some degree...lol) called DOS. Plus, Apple could set their price, but the pc market was literally a study in economic's supply and demand curve.

How does this tie into you, Mr. Luft? Well, I feel that the plc market is very much like the Apple setup mentioned. You get proprietary software and hardware. Would an all encompassing plc program be a good idea? Given history, I think so. But, that is not your niche, so to speak. I feel that your company is more of an Amiga/Commodore setup. You, I'm sure, offer a great product, but people are too familiar with the Apple's and IBM's of the world. If I may be so bold, I feel that you are on the right path, but maybe narrow your view a bit? As you stated, you are going for the small to medium manufacturer. Maybe try to take over some of AD's market share, instead of AB's? Get your product familiarized in that arena, and see if you can grow from there. Heck, take a plunge, and see if you can become the Linux of the plc world. It's not as popular as windows, but it's gaining ground. Make it open source. Make it be created by the user, not the company CEO. I know, these are crazy ideas, but I am not a leader of a company, nor do any marketing... :rolleyes:

Just some food for thought on the mile long thread...

Hoot

[Stephen Luft]

It is amazing how this thread has appeared to have a life of its own. It was just over a year ago since the last post, and then all of a sudden, this question comes back to life again...lol

I have been reading all of your comments, suggestions and opinions...thank you for all of them, it made for interesting reading.

I will admit that our software is not cutting edge as some of our competitors offer, but when you are providing it to your customers at no additional obligation, you must be realistic in your expectations. When you contact us to discuss an application, without having to go through the labyrinth of voice mail and prompts, that provides value.

How many of you contact your vendor, and have to navigate yourself through automated attendants to eventually arrive at someone's voice mail? How many of you come to this site to ask a question that can easily be answered by tech. support? Aren't these services you have already paid for if you purchased the software license?

Several have mentioned that the AB software is worth every penny. If you are looking for all the bells and whistles, then you should expect to pay for them. For many systems integrators that work on a project by project basis, whereby, you are doing new projects all the time, then the more advanced software will probably pay for itself, if you are able to use one PLC brand. For the price that you are investing in the software, I would also expect first rate technical support. Do you receive it?

AB provides good products that they have spent a great deal of marketing to make their brand familiar. Many other PLC manufacturers do the same thing in order to get a piece of the shrinking pie.

To present yourself as a "me too" and not have the resources of your competitors is a sure fire formula for failure. All they have to do is outspend you or lower their price to the point where you can't compete, while at the same time they offer many other products that are not as margin sensitive. Basically, they are able to shift costs, while still making a pretty penny. Not to mention the fact that the majority of PLCs on the market today are manufactured outside the US and cost a small fraction of their selling price to manufacturer. You factor that in with the strong US dollar and you have an imported product that US manufactured goods are challenged to compete with. This is why AD can sell a PLC for $99.00 in 1 pc volume. They too have done an admirable job of marketing and using their advantages.

For as many of you that rave about our competitor's products, just as many gripe. The issues I hear about most are:

1. Yearly license fees
2. Cost of Software
3. Technical Support
4. PLC price

Some of you talked about the yearly fees. The software development and bug fixes were paid for when you purchased the license...correct? So now, you are paying for the technical support people. Wouldn't you think that technical support is covered with the purchase of the equipment?

I have talked with some people that write yearly maintenance checks to AB for $10,000. They continue to pay because AB did their selling job and the customers are so heavily endowed to AB, that now they have no choice. The only way to keep your million dollar assembly line up and running is paying the fees. You decide not to pay and you run into a problem and your contract isn't current, you are out of luck if you need help from the manufacturer until you become current. Everyone's experience with these issues will be different. Some will witness to receiving wonderful support and I don't doubt that. Others will offer terrible experiences. That is what makes life for all of us unique.

If you are an OEM, then your needs are different. You are usually working with a product that may offer several variations, whereby a modification here and there is not a big deal. You aren't constantly using the software, or you have a library of programs that have already been developed.

If your responsibility is maintenance, then your needs are different from the SI or OEM. Entertron would probably not be the best solution for End Users even though we do sell to them.

This is a question that could probably have its own thread, but it is also relevant to this thread. If so many of you have purchased the software and receive the support, then why are there so many "how to" questions posted on this site that should easily be answered by tech support?

Are we the perfect solution for everyone...no. You will probably find a problem with any product offering, just as with any industry. So your selection is based on the manufacturer that can provide you with the greatest benefits and least drawbacks. Our primary focus has always been the OEM, due to the benefits our products provide. Whether our approach is flawed or not, that is who Entertron can best serve.

And for many of you who are wondering why I haven't posted lately. It is due to the majority of threads being vendor and product specific for which I always defer to those who are more knowledgeable and experienced with those products.

I am certain that there will be many opinions. Please keep your replies related to the questions and responses. Whatever opinion you may have of me or Entertron is merely an opinion and does not do the forum, its members or guests any service, considering, that the majority of the members here have never dealt with Entertron or myself directly.

I look forward to some interesting reading.

God Bless,

[xrf123]

Try Horner and OCS,

You can down load OCS PLC software from their web page, The offical price is real low and is site lic. and comes with free upgrades. Software should not be a profit center for any of the PLC makers, it stops people learning other packages.....

Oh! may be thats why the software isnt free!

[Tom Jenkins]

"This is a question that could probably have its own thread, but it is also relevant to this thread. If so many of you have purchased the software and receive the support, then why are there so many "how to" questions posted on this site that should easily be answered by tech support?"

You probably already know the answer, Stephen, but in my opinion there are two reasons:

1) Some of the tech support and on-line documentation and manuals are horrible, regardless of the price paid. A-B is easy to pick on here - I can never do a project with their equipment without referring to three or four separate documents or manuals. My local distributor's tech support is responsive and knowledgeable, but other distributor's aren't as good, and factory tech support has been awkward to use in the past (maybe the new Tech Connect program will be better?)

2) Some users are too lazy or in too big of a hurry to scour the manuals and the help for the answer - they feel it is easier and faster to post the question here (and sometimes I'm sure that it IS faster to ask here than to do their own work!)

It comes back to the answer to your original question - why do we pay for software, why do we put up with poor service - because we have to. Either because of customer insistence, marketing prowess, installed base, or a failure of will to investigate options, the big boys can make a good living without having to excell in value or customer service. And they aren't bad guys - they truly think they are great companies with great product value and excellent service. They are just too big and too established to be in close touch with the needs of customers like us, and for the foreseeable future they can continue with business as usual.

[ajbachhuber]

WOW!! Now here's a thread with some shelf life. I read through the whole thing because I wasn't around when it started. Very interesting.

I've drawn a few conclusions and have developed a question or two. I hope you will excuse me for continuing this thread that at least some would probably like to see DIE.

This is truly the nitty-gritty, soft-underbelly of the PLC world that the casual programmer/user would never even know existed. This is exploration of the culture of industrial control. I wish I had gotten onboard long ago in order to personally witness the manifestation and growth of the industry. Someone mentioned how a forum like this (and the support it provides) didn't exist years ago because it was hard enough to find others who knew what a PLC was. Now, the edgy (state of the art, if you will) talk revolves around open architecture and PC control at the I/O level.

As I understand it, from the industry magazines I receive, truly open architecture is still a few years away. PC control on the shop floor is a couple more years beyond that. I agree with the guys who are the maintenance practitioners. Ladder logic was created for the technician. I wonder what will need to happen to bring the "programmers" down to the shop floor. Either the "wrenches" will need to learn "real" programming or the programmers will need to pick up a wrench. Clearly there is not a definitive line in the sand and I'm willing to bet that there are people here who consider themselves both a "wrench" and an accomplished programmer versed in many languages. I lean to the "wrench" side but I would like to expand my horizons. The thought of PC programming makes me sweat though.

With regard to the Entertron product line, has anyone ever seen one of these things in a piece of equipment? I noticed that quite a few people were willing to try out a demo, has that opportunity ever been offered? I too would like to have the opportunity to try somthing new.

I think AB is too expensive and I have taken into account all of the comments regarding development, support and all the others. The reality is, a price reduction is due in order to come onto par with the rest of the manufacturers; they should all take a look at their prices as well. Every year as a 2nd tier automotve supplier our customers come back at us with "givebacks." This is where the customer says we will keep buying your product but he is going to pay you 10% less for it this year and 10% less than that the next year and so on. This happens because the automotive manufacturers demand to pay less for the components from the 1st tier suppliers. The theory behind it is this: You've been making that part/running that process for XX years now, your process should be so streamlined that it should cost you less to produce. This is a MANDATE for a QS-9000 or ISO-9000 registered company. It is called CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.

Here's another scenario. Unless you are one of those who has to have it when it is the newest and hottest thing on the market, you could just wait and pay less. Flat screen plasma TV. Seems to me if I wait long enough the prices will come down out of the stratosphere. Did you know you can buy a DVD player for less than $70? Did I see a Dell with a monitor and keyboard for $400? Why has AB been able to buck this trend? Where is the contiunous process improvement? Has the price ever gone down?

Do you think anybody is listening? Do you think the manufacturers care that discourse like this takes place? Is it possible that some marketing guy prints out threads like this and takes them into the boardroom for discussion, info, ammo?

[Pierre]

ajbachhuber wrote:

Do you think anybody is listening?
The answer is NO.

Look at this Entertron guy. He's small fish in a big pound but how does he go about pushing his agenda (read sales and brand recognition)?

He ask a student level question. Why pay for blablabla.

He has done it in other forums or BBs.

Ho! Poor little kitty. He does not know why others make us pay for this software and has genuine interrogation about it.

It just happened that there company gives this software away. WOW!
It just happened that you only have to register and they will give you access to there stuff. WOW!

You see, even the small fish learn deception from the start. What futur is there with them company that don't even respect the End-user intelligence to discover how phony they are.

Hey, get free publicity!

The only thing he as to do is perhaps seem like and idiot. "20 years in the buziness, have developed his own PLC and softaware. Hes wonders why people pay for blablabla.

A Forum is a place to EXCHANGE INFORMATIONS . Not to push a product, your product.

Let me give this guy another try.

We always speculate that the big guys make tons of money with our dependance on there software and that we are given the short side of the stick.

Mister Luft, tell us what you know.

What is the ration of cost of development of software to hardware sales. Is it 1% or 50%?

You have told me in a PM that this is private information. I don't care about your company's figure is just want to know from a guy who's been there, YOU!

So we can look at Siemens and Mitsu and AB and make ourselves and idea about what's in for them.

Come on stephen, PARTICIPATE. Who has the previlege to get to have some figures from an actual person who has been part of some the most secret stuff in the PLC industrie.

You have a knowledge that very fiew will ever acquire here. How about sharing a little of it.

Them maybee you will be a genuine small manufacturer who actually cares for his products End-users. And have berhaps many futur ones.

Do you want to be the Linux of PLC or what?

See what I means?

[Stephen Luft]

To Pierre,

You crack me up.

You are correct about this forum...the exchange of information and also ideas. A forum also allows you the freedom to express an opinion, disagree and rebut. It is left up to the moderator to decide what is not appropriate for the forum. If the intention of this post was not appropriate for this forum, it would have been gone along time ago. This thread has been viewed nearly 5000 times...seems relevant to me...what do you think?

I apologize to all the students reading this post for the way I have worded this section of my response.

For a "student level" question...it certainly has created much debate and irritated many. Many opinions have been expressed. Many people that haven't responded have read about an issue that has been going on for many years now. A "student level" question would probably not have continued on for over a year. Even you, yourself have replied to this debate twice. So it must have some validity if you took time to generate a response, even if it is to berate me.

To complete a registration form for something that you are not even paying for is really not much to ask...is it? There is no deception. We like to know who has downloaded our software to evaluate. It is a simple manner of keeping track of potential customers. Deception is to make believe what is not true. What deception has we done? The software is free. There is no charge for it. On our web site, we clearly state that you will require a password to unlock it. The only string that is attached is that you have to provide your information to us. If your information is priceless, then I would suggest not registering.

Regarding your desire to know how much we invested in software, I first must qualify a few things.

1. To relate our costs to others, may not be accurate due to overhead and other factors. Mitsubishi, Siemans, Omron, AB, AD...etc. all have different development methods, as does Entertron. Therefore, our cost may not be similar to the others.

2. As most of you who are programmers are aware, software development is labor intensive and costs will differ based on number of software engineers and the country the software was developed in.

The total cost to develop Eware32 was approximately 5% of sales when it was developed in 2002. We decided from the start that the software would not be deemed a "profit center" Others believe that wherever you have cost, you must have revenue to offset that cost and justify the existence of that department. We believe you cannot have a PLC unless you have software to program it. Is our software full of icons and function blocks...no. Our goal is to provide software for our controllers that our customers do not have to purchase.

The majority of the software cost is upfront in the development. Once developed, the cost is next to nothing to distribute. Upfront cost includes the software and documentation. The cost to ship a CD is next to nothing. With postage and shipping, it costs us $2 to fabricate and send out a CD.

As Tom mentioned previously, most documentation is less than adequate. I would venture to say that you would require less support people if the documentation was thoroughly developed to begin with.

You can go on and on about costs, support, upgrades, new releases and the people required to do all this. There will always be costs associated with development and support. What you have to ask yourself is:

1. Who has to pay for it?
2. How long do you have to pay for it?
3. How much is enough?
4. How do you differentiate the cost of programming questions from PLC support. Aren't they one and the same?

You cannot have a PLC without some way to program it. Prior to software, you had handheld programmers. You had to pay for it...they were a piece of hardware, similar to the PLC. The programmer that you purchased, did you have to pay for it each year or once? Granted, software has many more features, but the programmer still had a team to develop it (probably not as many engineers) and there was a cost associated with that development. Was that development cost part of the PLC or was the programmer, its own division? I would venture to say that it was part of the PLC development.

To ajbachhuber,

Thank you for your reply. It has been an interesting thread. There are many knowledgeable people that participate on this forum with unique experiences and equally unique opinions.

There are rules for this site regarding the use of this forum to promoting and selling products within the forum itself. There are other areas on the site that allow you to post selling information. Therefore, I am not permitted to post that type of information here. You can either email me or send me a PM.

With regards to your question about anybody listening. I can't answer for our competitors, but for us, we make the attempt to be as responsive as our resources will permit us. We have realized that we cannot be all things to all people, but we have to be realistic in knowing what we can and cannot do. Our decision to offer free software was not a "gimick" but a response to the feedback we received from our customers and potential customers. The software is only one aspect of the entire picture, but once you have purchased it, why are you forced to continually pay for it?

To Tom,

Thanks for your reply.

I have my opinion, but my view is different than others. So, there is nothing like getting the reaction of others.

God Bless,

[r30824]

My company uses AB software. It works. I really don't like having to pay for it, but at 2:00AM when the bottom has fallen out(figuratively speaking) it is easier to use than other types of software to figure out what the blazes is really going on with a piece of complex equipment. Saves me from having to purchase aspirin. So our engineers will probably continue to specify that we want AB plcs on our automatic equipment. And we will continue to pay the fees for support from AB. Makes my job easier.
Glad I got to voice my opinion.

[Jay Anthony]

Pleeeease! Let's close this topic.

[Phil Melore]

Originally posted by Jay Anthony
Pleeeease! Let's close this topic.

Agreed. :shoot:
Closed now.
****Update--- reopened

[ArikBY]

I do agree with Ron.
This forum is PLACE TO EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS why to closed this topic?
From my point of view it very simpel,No one force nobodey to use AB
Omron or other PLCs.
You want to use this, it part of the deal,I dont like that, no one like that BUT THAT THE DEAL.
Evry model you have new software new cabel. It make me mad, but it better then to go to the small manufactures who give the sofware and cabel for free, but it look like something which made in back yard garage.

Just think we pay for good tool who came to help us(sometime it not so good).
If we would not pay for software they(the manufactures) have excuse for low quality software, when we pay we have the right to demand.
I know it not so simple but that the way it should go.

Phil

I dont think it was proper to closed this topic, I think you miss the purpose of this forum in this way.

I am sure it was not what you mean.
Its the first time I approach to you to thank for this great site.
All the best

Arik

[BobB]

Yes! Thanks Phil.

I have sold, and been a technical backup person in Australia, for several of the brands mentioned here, and others. I then went to work for a switchboard builder/systems integrator for 8 1/2 years using many of the products mentioned here. The company closed it's doors and I now have my own company. I design systems and switch boards, build the boards, do the design work, software, SCADA systems etc etc. I believe many of you will know my preference, but that is beside the point. I am quite happy to work with what my customer requires. I just adjust my price accordingly.

I have no objection to paying for software, with the following criteria in mind.

1. The software must perform the functions for which it was intended.

2. Bug fixes must be free and freely advertised for download from a website.

3. The software must be intuative, quick and easy to learn and use. Too many PLC software packages do not properly support cut and paste functions, for example, that are standard in every other commercial Windows package available. Normally if software does not support these, and other Windows functions, we would not buy the software. Unfortunately the various manufacturers have us at their mercy as we have to use their software to program their PLCs.

4. The software should have programmable function keys to achieve point 3. Drop and drag is no good. It is too late in life to get RSI using a mouse. It is also very slow. I personally describe this type of software as being "good for factory fiddlers". I am not referring to many of the very competant maintenance people who contribute very strongly to this and other sites. To those people please do not be offended as the type of software to which I refer is to your benefit also.

5. The software must program ALL the PLC's in the manufacturers range. Different sets of software for different PLC's in the manufacturers range in really a pain in the "A", expensive and they invariably work differently. To some of the larger PLC manufacturers YES!!!!! I am referring to you.

6. The software MUST be reasonably priced.
WOW!!! Do some of the manufacturers know how to charge. I think we all probably know who I mean.

7. Most manufacturers sell software in packages. You have to buy the PLC software, and then the HMI software, and then the Device Net Configurator software, etc, etc. When there is an upgrade to each of them you have to buy each upgrade individually. Why not have plug in modules!!! One could then purchase as one requires and when an upgrade becomes available, all packages that one has licensed could be upgraded at once. I am sure that this could be done fairly cheaply and the manufacturers would be in a position to reward their regular users with some financial benefit at that time.

8. Jay Anthony suggested downloadable upgrades at a reasonable price. I think that is a very good idea. No distribution costs etc would have to keep costs to a minimum.

9. The PLC, and therefore the software, would need to have a large number of functions available to make programmer's lives easier. Having to build functions in one brand of PLC that are available as standard in other brands really does not help any of us make money. Money is one of the main reasons I am still working. The other is - I love a challenge. However, that is another story. If I cannot make money nobody benefits - including the manufacturer.

10. The PLC and software MUST have online programming capabilities. Please take note Schneider, AB and many others. I now refuse to use a PLC that does not have online programming capabilities. The hardware may cost a little more, but not always, but the frustration of turning a PLC out of run, download and then back into run is too much. It costs me lots of time and money. I normally have mechanical people, consultants, clients etc right up my tail to get the job to the practical completion stage so that all can get paid. Most of my jobs involve multiple networked PLC's with lots of different programs and many words and bits flying around the network. Unfortunately, I am normally the last in and they all think that one should be able to download an often lengthy, and complicated PLC program (or programs), and it (they) will just work. We all know better than that. I/O have to be checked, analogues calibrated etc etc. Time really is of the essence here and bad software and hardware can cost one heaps, not to mention clients that blame you for missing the dealine. It does not matter that they have held you up for months, they only see you as the reason they did not get practical completion on time. This is where a really good software and hardware package can either cost or save a lot of time, aggravation, client satisfaction and money.

That's my 2 cents worth. I hope I make sense to forum contributors.

beerchug

[Nikhil]

I think being new on this forum probably does not entitle me to post a reply on a heated discussion such as this.
but all i would like to say is that it is all very well that Allen Bradley has an installed base and therefore can get away with charging its prog. software.But dont you think that when they approach new customers esp. the OEMs, it will be inevitable that they will be compared with competition which does the opposite. if it has to increase its base, will it not have to rethink strategy?

[Xion]

It's the same as everything else, if people will pay, companies will charge.

If a company such as A-B can reduce the price of their PLC's by maybe $100 and then charge $1000 for their software, for the single user this is a price rise, but if you buy hundreds of PLC's you might save money with only 1 piece of software.

Do big companies want lots of small irregular customers or 1 big feck-off large customer? I know what I'd choose.

[Rick Densing]

Originally posted by BobB

5. The software must program ALL the PLC's in the manufacturers range. Different sets of software for different PLC's in the manufacturers range in really a pain in the "A", expensive and they invariably work differently. To some of the larger PLC manufacturers YES!!!!! I am referring to you.


That is simply not practical. PLC manufacturers support their products much longer that say computer hardware mfrs. And I am glad they do. However, When they do come out with a new product, the tech advance is usually significant enough that I wouldn't want to clutter up the software with backwards compatability.

I have never used contrologix, but I think there may be a point there. The hodgepoge of firmware/ software releases has left me waiting for the producte to mature.

As I have stated before, I consider PLC software to be more than a programming tool. It is a productivity tool, much like Word or Excel. Would we argue that printer manufacturers give away word with every printer?

Rslogix has been worth every penny in time saved to me. Some of the others have caught up in the last few years, but I haven't been able try them out. As ArikBY mentioned, I would almost rather pay for the software, so I feel I have a right to be demanding.

As to large customers and PLC manufacturers, there is this. For those of you not exposed to it, the amount of money in the automotive industry is staggering. The PLC was invented for them. The mfrs will continue to cater to them. The small guys who have little hope to get on GM's spec will cater to the integrator sitting in his office by himself, worried about how he will pay the distributor.

[Pierre]

Originally posted by Rick Densing

...Rslogix has been worth every penny in time saved to me. Some of the others have caught up in the last few years , but I haven't been able try them out...

Wow! Do you really beleive this? :boo:

Then I hope they NEVER catch up!

[Rick Densing]

Yes, I do. I would guess that you don't know how to use rslogix.

I do have to ask- do you really believe what you just said?

[Pierre]

Originally posted by Rick Densing
Yes, I do. I would guess that you don't know how to use rslogix .

I do have to ask- do you really believe what you just said?

Of course, if you question my ability or intelligence to use this software, you would just fall in line with there marketing bull. But I give you more smarts than this Rick.

I really hope others will not follow AB's steps, not because the software is crappy.

As in many other automation subject, ALL manufacturers thinck they can re-invent the wheel and make it much better. This is the reason for such lack of inter-brand compatibility, wether it is with there proprietairy network protocol, softwares or I/O cards.

In a way this is good because thats how we find new ways. AB is not showing me new ways.

My personal favorite is Modicon Concept. My second choice would be AB if only the software was the case.

Do you thinck that Eddison or Francklin would have worked for AB or they would have worked for some more dynamic and respectfull outfits?

AB have good products. They do not have the best. BUT they have the worst customer care department, the worst bang for the money.

What do they do best? Like best in the world! Marketing.

[Rick Densing]

Originally posted by Pierre


My personal favorite is Modicon Concept. My second choice would be AB if only the software was the case.


Your first reply implied that rslogix is one of the worst packages you have seen. Apparently that is not the case.

I am not questioning your intelligence. I don't know how to ride a horse. Does that mean I'm stupid? I means that I never took the time to learn how.

[Lee Wood]

I read some of the replies to this topic with interest. A few years ago I worked in a very large paper mill which had half the site running on ABB drives, DCS and PLC's, the other half running on AB PLC5 connected to either AB digital or analogue drives. On reflection AB were no more expensive than their counterparts. My view based on high volume FMCG plants is that you pay high prices because you cannot afford to wait for "support" to turn up the following day. AB are still viewed as "preferred" suppliers in many industries, the decision perhaps, is what reliability and response do you require when your plant is down?

[BobB]

To Rick Densing (and all others interested).
Yes!!! I do want backward compatability. With Omron I get it. CX-Programmer gives me backward compatability except for some very old PLCs. The C200H has been around for about 10 years or so and the latest software still supports it. Thank heavens some companies are sensible.
The previous software, Syswin, supports all the old PLCs back to the C20 and C120. I only need 2 sets of software to support all PLCs in the Omron range, except the old S6 and the steppers etc before that. The original C20 software I used was a DOS program that disappeared I don't know how many years ago. The C20 has been around for some 20 years no less.
In Australia I paid approx $1500.00 Aus for the Omron software, including networking. Upgrades cost me about $300.00 per time. Compare that to $2000.00 for AB software to support the SLC range, without networking. Then add approx $8000.00 for the larger PLCs software with networking. I do not know about you but I cannot afford it. Then add that the PLCs are more expensive with less functions etc etc. Not a path I wish to travel.
The only thing missing from the Omron software is the Device Net configurator. It did not cost much either.
Then start to compare the ease of use of the 2 brands of software. CX-Programmer is configurable, has programmable function keys, a total of 81 choices no less!!!!
Then start to look at the fact that the Micrologix cannot be edited on line!!!! Painfull!!!!
I use AB sometimes because I have too. It is not the worst software around but it is certainly not my favorite either. It is quite usable compared to some but Omron is definately my first choice.
beerchug

[panic mode]

I am one big complainer about anything but I don't quite follow
what is going on with this monster topic:
General opinion is that PLC programming packages are not big deal
and that software should be free or at least inexpencive etc.
But when you look from another angle, ALL that matter IS software.
Think about it. Every PLC can handle I/O and has one or another
way to connect to outer world. What really makes the difference is
programing environment or IDE. And that's where all hate and love
for certain PLC (platform) starts. Some give their software for
next to nothing and yet they are still not big players. Some charge
a lot more than other leading brands and yet they are on top.
If I really don't like something, I don't use it. If I have to use
it (and not on just one occasion of course) and I still don't like
it that much, I would write my own software. Competition is always
healthy thing. Maybe I'm too busy with my projects or maybe I don't
pay same attention to the new developments as I used to but
whatever the reason, I don't see many alternative software packages.
And this is what should really make everyone happy.
Either everyone is already happy with what they pay for or they
don't have to use it themself...
:nodi:

[kf5pv]

I think with most major companies they are afraid to switch equipment to a different brand and then have to worry if that OEM will be around two years later for support.
we have around 28 plc's on DH+ (AB) (and maybe 10 not on DH+) and I would hate to have to change them out because we didnt have support for them anymore.
On the other hand we have a liscensing issue that I need to resolve and maybe MR. Roach can help me on!!!!!!
either way its the long term you have to look at in the whole picture.

[drfols]

This post has been going on now since June 2002 and everyone that has an opinion has said it..Well except for me and here's my 2 cents.

Who cares?! If I pay for my programming software it's my choice. It's what I want and I can afford it. It's like asking why do you buy a Ford truck and not a Chevy? Personnel preference. This thread has become a shooting gallery and the target is AB. If you don't like it don't buy it. If you're a contractor and your customer wants AB then guess what, buy it or don't bid the job. When you own your own manufacturing company then you can decide what PLC you want used in your plant.

I have been using AB for about 8 years now and my main complaint is their manuals. You have to have so much knowledge before you even open the book in order to understand it. Other than that I can't think of anything bad to say. Their equipment is very reliable and though it may cost a bit more that reliability I'd prefer to pay a bit more now than lose a lot more when one of my production lines goes down.

And as for service. Top of class as far as I am concerned. Between the Buffalo reps and the Rochester guys I have no problem getting answers to any of my questions day or night. As a matter of fact I have only called their tech support twice now in 8 years and both times they were very helpful and got my problem resolved for me.

Dave

[PhilipW]

I've ground my way through this thread and despaired at the lack of understanding shown by most replies.

OK guys ..Imagine that AB, or whoever, reduced their hardware to say 1/10 their current prices...and gave away the software for free. This seems to be the nirvana many of you want..no?

Imagine we push the automation industry to the same economic model as the desktop PC? Can you think of all the consequences of this? Stability, lifecycle support, bckwards compatibility, robustness, ease of integration,..are all attributes that would suffer badly in a totally open price driven industry.

Question. If the PLC is reduced to a commoditity...do any of you very clever guys imagine that anyone would pay YOU anything like your current incomes to program them? With zero barrier to entry the industry would be overrun with guys willing to crank out backyard code...and price it like shareware.

Go to the net and look for say CAD programs. You can download any one of dozens of useful and competent CAD packages for next to zip. But who are the ONLY people who make money from writing CAD packages...just a handful of majors like AutoCAD who establish and protect the value of their product with "MARKETING". And price their product accordingly.

Yes ...marketing ...that evil word so many of you totally fail to understand. Yet all of you work for someone, whose the value of whose product or service is created and protected by marketing. As Ken Roach put it ages ago...sighs.

[Celtfan]

Philip,
Good Analogy.

[93lt1]

This is the thread that just won't die....

[CaseyK]

93LT1

Yes, it will die, if:

1). No on posts any more.

2). Steven closes it.

3). Phil closes it.

It is an interesting topic, specially when considering Allen Bradley. Poor A-B, beat into the ground on this topic so many times. Yes, all manufacturers need to recoup their expenses. Some charge for it, some don't.

GM used to maintain 33-38% profit after taxes. I can't help but believe that it is still prety high. While at the GM locomotive factory, I saw how money was spent, so I know that there had to be a pretty hefty markup.

Anyway, you and I have now done our part to keep it alive.

regards.....casey

[Ron Beaufort]

oh, come on ...

let's kick it up a notch! ...

current thread on another forum (http://www.software.rockwell.com/forum/rslogix/messageview.cfm?catid=84&threadid=7823)

[croakus]

Ron,
Are you trying to start a panic or fan the flames of this too long thread? ;)
Maybe this ought to start a new thread...

[Stephen Luft]

Ron,

Help me out here...

"Effective April 2003, Rockwell Automation no longer offers support with new purchases unless you have never purchased any automation control programming software from our company in the past."

Does that mean that you have to purchase the software and a "tech connect contract" for support or do you still receive support when you purchase the software?

I guess it just continues to add to the debate. What do you get when you pay for something?

For Casey,

Phil had originally closed the thread (I believe back around post 72 or so) and received responses from other members not to close it, because of the relevance and that this is a forum for debate and discussion. Closing the thread would defeat the purpose of the forum.

Some are tired of hearing about this. My suggestion to those that don't want to be part of this, perform your own censorship and ignor it. Others still continue to offer their input...so it keeps going. This tells me that the discussion is just as timely now as it was three years ago. You now add in the above information providing additional fuel for debate.

Call it the Energizer bunny of the PLCs.net forum...lol.

Who knows where it goes from here.

God Bless,

[Pierre]

Since I'm sitting in ma hotel room I have time to add an angle on this thread. bonkhead

When I first deal with a new system from a O.E.M. one of the questions I have to ask before I tell them there options on hardware is IF there customer service department is for them a "Profit center" OR a "Cost center" :scratch:

If it costs them to deal with customers requests then we will see where there customer base is and fit there units with the components easyest to find for them Users.

That way we greatly reduce calls for parts.

Manuals are A LOT more precise in what they have to do for troubleshooting and other stuff.

There is much we can do to reduce customers call to almost zero.

If its a "Profit center" then the game gets dirtyer. shutit

The components although of a fairly good grade will not easaly be available in all regions. Some will even be darn hard to figure of which brand they come from. Some will be impossible to find.

Thats unless they post a picture of it on :site:

I see lots of this with Arthur Barney :boo:

I guess they have no choice but to go this path for the world is there territory and the brass have bonuses of RIO.

[Ron Beaufort]

Stephen,

I haven't had time to research this issue myself ... right now, you know just as much about the subject as I do ... maybe Ken Roach can give us the details ...

for those of you who might not have gotten the message, I no longer work for the Allen-Bradley distributor ... we're all still good friends - and I still like their equipment ... but now when people say bad things about them, at least it doesn't hurt my feelings ...

[Terry Woods]

First... Hi to my good friend Pierre! I almost said... Hi to mon ami Pierre... but I'm sure that would be just a bit too much... eh, Pierre? Seems like it should be "bon" something.

Anyway, Stephen...

You might recall that I responded to this thread quite a while ago. My response indicated my support for the idea of having access to the PLC CPU in the same manner that one has access the CPU of an ordinary PC.

This means being able to use ANY programming language.

Of course, I mentioned that the best language would be "C" because of its' total access to all of the nooks and crannies in the CPU and the entire memory structure. I should have included UNIX for the same reasons.

The "C" language was created by Dennis Ritchie while he was at Bell Labs. (From here on, when I say "C", it means "C" or "UNIX".)
Up until that time, the only language that had such access to the CPU was Assembly Language. However, Assembly Language is much more labor-intensive. The "C" language virtually eliminates all of the tedium associated with Assembly Language while continuing to provide the same access.

However, because the "C-Compiler" compiles according to some pre-configured scheme, it sometimes does not compile as efficiently as it could. In those cases, properly organized Assembly Language programming can be more efficient than particular segments of a program compiled in "C".

One of the great things about "C" is that any Assembly Routine can be incorporated into a "C" program.

Now, it must be understood that the compiled "C" version will work as programmed. But, if a process is so timing-critical that a 1.5 or 2.5 GHtz CPU can not satisfy the timing requirements of a particular segment of code then a programmer MIGHT be able to improve the response by using Assembly Language... stress on the MIGHT!

If the programmer can not improve the response with Assembly Language then, either the programmer needs to delve a little deeper into the art of Assembly Language programming, or the code has been compiled as tightly as possible through the "C" compiler.

I believe that the PLC Manufacures should stick to making hardware and stay the hell out of software.

For those that believe that AB makes the best hardware... fine... let AB continue to make the best hardware.

If I were King, (yeah, yeah, yeah... if you were King, blah, blah, blah) then AB could very well continue to make their hardware. HOWEVER, access would be allowed through ANY programming language!

If you want to use the AB Software, fine. If you want to use Ti-Soft, fine.

It sounds entirely reasonable to me.

IT'S GONNA HAPPEN ! ! !

Sooner or later, it's gonna happen.

BIT-WEENIES! ANSWER THE CALL ! ! !

[CaseyK]

Don't even think of programming in C, etc.

I guess I'llhave to start a thread to thwart this now!

Boycott IEC1113 or whatever it is.

Ladder Logic rules supreme!

And don't get me started on SteepleChase, either.

Are the prices some of the software costs worth it? Probably not. I like microsoft office, but won't pay ridiculous prices for it. Same way with AutoCAD. Between student editions, tool box srarter kits, etc, most manufactures have a lower price version out there.

Autocad, Lotus, and the other big expensive programs would sell a lot more if the price was cheaper.

I was brought up on Allen Bradley. After eight years, I was a little miffed when I was sent to GE Fanuc school and found out that I could do more for 10% of the cost.

On another thread that included a discussion on AutoCAD and I'm not sure what if anything else, comparable CAD programs costing about 10% were discussed. Tom had a nice cad package, that a couple of us loooked into, and may eventually get. Why pay more???

I personally like entertron's equipment and policies. I am not sharp with the software, but the price is right, and I have used a lot worse. Also, I like the fact that the customer can't get the program. Great for propritory projects, or to just keeping the customer out of the program. But I was on the other side of the fence. While at the tire plant, we had a tire balance checking machine for Hummer tires. Proprietory software on a Sixnet board type PLC. We wound up with 4 plc's, swapping them out regularly, as they all seemed intermittent. Perhaps it was the software, perhaps not. I could have spent a few days, and put in a 9030, but was not allowed to. I could spend $50,000 on sixnet repair parts, but couldn't spend $1,000 on Fanuc new capital parts. Corporate life can bite.

Why par for plc programming software???

Yeah, why???

They get to write off the development costs, and the support costs. If it is really that good, they don;'t need much support or updating! If I had the time, I would make a comparison spreadsheet on software costs, versus plc costs, and put in an ease of programming factor, and evaluate them all.

Next project.......I would consider:

1). Allen Bradley $99 plc with free software

2). Allen Bradley ML1200? starter kit with virtual free software

3). Any GE plc starter kit / tool box kit withh free software

4). entertron, with FREE software,

5). Moeller EASY with built in software

6). AD with cheap software

7). Several other bricks with cheap or included software

8). Nothing with expensive software (unless customer wants PC interface with $36,000 Cimplicity or ? and is willing to pony up for it up front)

9). Any type of bribe

Why pay for software, thats like buying a car, then having to pay to have then engine computer programmed to make it run.

regards.....casey

[panic mode]

Originally posted by kc9ih
Boycott IEC1113 or whatever it is.

Ladder Logic rules supreme!

LOL :D

I can only agree...

While it's obvious that having choice is always good,
as far as I've seen, products with multiple programming
languages don't have ONE language that realy works.
They all NEED all languages just to stitch it together.
I'd rather have one language (but make it good - ladder rules...) than five unfinished zombies with "tons of features".

[Peter Nachtwey]

Originally posted by kc9ih
Don't even think of programming in C, etc.


Why? I bet most of the software you use is written in C or C++.

You may live in a very small world where PLCs and ladder rules supreme, but the real world is very big. Ladder is a very small part of the real world. I think you need to broaden your horizons.

I do most of my programming in C and assembly. Take that! I write ladder only for testing and educational purposes. I couldn't do what I do using ladder.

[CaseyK]

I like state, used to use it, used to teach it.

Haven't seen a customer in years that wants it.

Most want AB becuase they're the best. Others want Siemans for the same reason.

We all have our favorites.

Being this is a forum, we are all allowed our opinions, and in most cases can express them (with in limits).

I don't do much fancy stuph. Some proportional control, ultrasonic distance checking for out of round tires, antenna positioning (X,Y,Z), satelite tracking positioners. Mostly stuph that could have been relay 20 years ago.

Different people have different applications. I would be interested in finding SteepleChase that worked as advertised. I imagine there is some somewhere. I only have seen customers that bought it and regretted it. Some took it out, and replaced it with a stock plc rack.

Universal programming would be wonderful. But t has to be truly universal and truly user friendly.

Your company has some interesting stuph. Some people canuse it, some can't. But it is still pretty neat.

So I will stick to my ladder logic as much as I can, and maybe try to sneak in some state logic once in a while. I plan to use my DOS based logicmaster until I just can't anymore. I think my versapro is at least 5 years old, maybe older. My cimplity is pretty new. didn't have to pay real money for any of them. LogicMaster was free with a starter kit. Versapro was a FREE sample for evaluation, as was Cimplicity. GE charges for it's stuph, but gives it away, too.

I guess it just depends who wants more business. GE reps give me software, and I go and buy a 9030 or micros.

AB rep wouldn't come up with a hat or keychain (but passed plenty out in the shop). Didn't see any real volume afer that.

I guess it's all relative, or something.

Guess one of us needs to post a poll on programming types.

regards.....casey

[kamenges]

Originally posted by Terry Woods:
I believe that the PLC Manufacures should stick to making hardware and stay the hell out of software.

That's already done. Tern, Z-World and any number of other 'embedded controller' manufacturers already offer this. So that option is already out there. If you want a backplane style setup, just go VME or PC104 or CompactPCI. I see these occasionally but not very often. And they've been around long enough that you would expect that product segment to be a larger portion of the total automation market.

So why isn't it? Well, the 'PC generation' hasn't made it to the shop floor yet. And I still don't think we have a true 'PC generation' even in my children (7 years old is the oldest). Before we move away from ladder logic we need a large group of individuals in design and maintenance positions who can understand some form of source code and know how to use a source level debugger. The alternative is the relatively small group of individuals who have this knowledge will get VERY tired when maintenance from one of the 30 plants in their area calls them every other night of the week to come and evaluate their software because a machine is down. Why? Because the guys on the shop floor can't evaluate it themselves. They don't know how to use the tools.
So, you say, let's give them the tools. Let's give them a representation of the software they can understand. Let's give them an easy way to look at data in a format that's easy to understand. And if they really get in a pinch, let's give them a method to modify the code. Because, man, I REALLY hate getting up at 2AM EVERY OTHER NIGHT. Sounds pretty close to what we have now, doesn't it.
But, you say, careful software design and solid diagnostics will fix all that. You will never get into a situation that isn't correctly displayed so it can be fixed. To that I say, look at the millions of man-hours of design, development, alpha and beta testing that Microsoft throws at an operating system design and they STILL can't get it right. I think it would be the pinnicle of arrogance to think we could conceive of and correctly handle every possible case in the hundreds or thousands of man-hours we have available in a project.

But the big problem with the hardware/software separation thing is we all like the single packaged solutions so much. I like being able to look squarely at Rockwell if my Logix5000 software won't go online with my CLX processor. I like not having to issue comnpile-time directives to make sure my 'universal' program compiles correctly for the target platform. It just happens. Why? Because the development envioronment is intimately tied to the hardware platform. It simply knows what to do. Can you imagine the entertainment value if I called Rockwell and said 'My Step7 Version 5.2 won't connect to your CLX PLC. What did you do?'. I'd pay money for a front row seat to THAT one.

Now for software cost. Granted, in alot of cases it's pricey. But developing this stuff isn't free. Why should we expect that we, as end users, shouldn't pay for those development costs? I can guarantee you that NO ONE gives their software away for free. It's accounted for somewhere. If it's not a direct charge it's rolled into the base price of the product it programs. I don't know of anyone who is in business to actually make money that wouldn't try to recover development costs of something they sell. The thing that really bangs us in the automation game is the EXTREMELY small number of buyers this cost is spread across.
kcpih stated in his recent post that companies get to write off their development costs. He's right. But Microsoft (or Sun, or Adobe, or...) gets to do that too. Does this mean I should get my next copy if Win XP Pro for the cost of a blank CD? My guess is the main reason a company can charge a small amount of money for development software they intend to basically freeze development and spread the cost of initial development across a large number of software sales or hardware/software bundles. But again, this doesn't mean the software is free. It just means the cost is spread across a sufficient number of sales as to make it basically imperceptable.

I do agree with Terry that sooner or later there will be that separation of hardware and software and development will be done in a much different 'language'. I just think it will be later and I'll be worm food by the time later arrives. And just think of the software costs then when manufacturers are changing hardware designs like most people change socks and the software developers need to keep up with that.

Keith

[Stephen Luft]

Don't get me wrong here...I agree, there is a cost to develop everything...PLC and software. The point that I am trying to make is that you cannot have a PLC without some way to program it. The development cost of the software to program the PLC should be part of the overall development cost of the PLC.

If other companies want to offer different methods of programming...power to them.

Many of the technical schools that offer PLC courses are training their students in ladder logic (predominently). Keep in mind that there are still a number of technical schools that don't even offer a PLC course yet. So to say that Ladder logic will go away any time soon, would be getting ahead of ourselves. The concepts for ladder logic are far easier to pick up and grasp than starting a C language routine.

There are many options for hardware solutions. What ultimately, determines the direction someone will go in, comes down to the programming of the controllers. If someone prefers C, then that is the direction they will likely head. If the programmer is not familiar with C, then they will look at what they are familar with.

We have lost potential customers for that very reason. They think our hardware is an excellent fit for their application, but don't like ladder logic. So they compromise on the hardware to find a package that will program in the language they prefer.

On another note...the more programming languages a manufacturer supports, the higher the support costs become.

There is a difference to application software that is written in C and programming software (for PLCs) that you use on a daily basis.
For an OEM that modifies various programs, having programs written in C vs Ladder Logic would be a negative (in my opinion) in that debugging and modifications would take much longer to do, then changes to a ladder diagram.

Some consider ladder programming to be somewhat limited, because they are looking to do things with the PLC that it may not have been designed to do. The capabilities of today's PLCs have morphed what it was originally designed to do. Keep in mind the processors PLCs are using...they are not Pentium.

We also have become a very impatient society...everything is instant, disposable and wanted yesterday. I have received comments that some don't like our software for the simple reason that our timers & counters take two rungs to program. "that will take up too much programming time" For those who aren't aware, we don't offer a set number of timers or counters, but a number of registers that can be configured as either a timer or counter. I guess flexibility has its price.

There may be one day when you will have non proprietary software to program a piece of PLC hardware. Imagine the headaches you will run into for support. The hardware company will tell you that it is a software issue...you need to call the software company for support, and vise versa.

More food for thought.

God Bless,

[kamenges]

Hi Stephen-

It sounds like you are simply looking at costs through a difference costing/accounting medel that I would choose. As you say you are lumping the cost of software development together with hardware development and spreading that cost equally over the design life of the product. But if you want true cost accounting that's pretty tough to do. The hardware development costs can be accurately spread accross each plc. But the software costs cannot.
Look at it from my side as an OEM. Assume I make 100 units of a given machine each year. They are identical (yea, right). So for each plc I buy under your model I absorb 1 unit of software development cost. At the end of the year I have paid for 100 units of development cost indirectly through the price of you plc. Fred down the street is an end user and he buys one of you plcs for an internal project. He gets exactly the same use and functionality out of the software be he only paid for 1 unit of development cost. Why should I get whacked with 100 times the development cost jsut because I used more of your product? I didn't get anything more or less for it. It just cost me more.

And what about next year, when you decide it would be neat to add some features to your software? Do you increase the cost of your plc to cover your development costs. This could compromise you marketing position. Do you eat the cost yourself? That would be very friendly of you but not real wise financially. Or do you just say forget it? It's just not worth the cost risk.
And what about legacy customers? Do you give them the software for free and load the development cost onto future buyers? Or do you charge them an upgrade fee, which compromises your free software position. Or do you tell them they can't have it at all?

Don't get me wrong. Rockwell, Siemens, etc are doing more than recovering their development costs here. Software is a profit center. But I still feel better paying $1000 once than $10 one hundred times. Because I know that as soon as I send out that 101st plc I'm farther ahead. And I also know that since their software business generates a profit they will have very little reservation in moving forward with development. That's how you sell new software to old clients.

Keith

[Stephen Luft]

Keith,

Some good points.

Let's look at the larger companies first. Their software for programming PLCs is considered a "profit center" They generate revenue to cover the cost of development. Let me ask you this...can they sell the software without the need to program the PLC? I would have to say no, because the software is useless without the need to program a PLC.

The "major" expenses in software development are up front and are predominently labor costs. The better the developer, the lower the development cost. The upgrades are a fraction of the original development cost. Also, keep in mind that with software changes or additions in features, there are usually operating system changes to the hardware...where does that cost go?

Your example is not completely accurate. That 101st unit in your second year has a software cost associated with it as well...it is called contract site license renewal. It may not be as much as the first year, but if you have multiple site licenses, it adds up quickly.

Also, as an OEM, if they supply the customer with the program, they will require the programming software, which means that you have to purchase a site license for each machine. If that is the case, then for the OEM that does this, the above example doesn't work.

As a private company, we are not dictated by wall street. Their desire to generate revenue from the sale of programming software, I would venture to say is dictated by being a public company and the need to maximize shareholder value and exceed expectations. The end result of this is a higher cost product to the customer, who ends up being the source for increased revenue. The large companies are able to do it due to their installed base and a customer's need to have a continued relationship for support purposes

Not naming names, but many of the controller manufacturers that charge for their software do not offer the least expensive hardware. So in essence you are paying at both ends. (what we have referred to as paying for the name)

As a company, whether smart or not...we absorb the software development/improvements because

1) You cannot sell a PLC without software. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.
2) It provides a benefit to our customers
3) We are able to.

We are in business for many reasons...one is to make a profit, so we can continue doing business. However, the difference between us and the larger companies of the world is it doesn't have to be excessive. So long as we are making more than we are spending, developing/improving products and obtaining new customers, then all is well. It doesn't matter if we make 1.02 a share vs 1.00 a share, because we don't have a public stock price and a board of directors who could be on the hot seat because the company stock price is underperforming the averages.

We deal with OEMs on a regular basis. Their primary concern is cost. Whether it is hardware or software, it is still a cost. Companies may account for these costs differently, but ultimately, it goes to the bottom line.

As an OEM, would you want to work with a company that looks to minimize your costs or a company that continually charges you for software, that you have already paid for, not to mention support?

God Bless,

[kamenges]

Hi Stephen-

I can't argue the fact that as a large company the 'big automation players' use software to help the bottom line. And I can't argue that as a privately held company yours is free to look at costs in a different manner.

However, I still hold that spreading software development costs across hardware is disproportionately penalizing large users. And this doesn't apply to just OEMs. Let's assume as an OEM all of my hypothetical 100 units go to one customer. That added cost just got passed on to them.
Also, your phrase 'contract site license renewal' ties together a couple of different items. You have a site license and you have a maintenance contract renewal. The site license is yours when you buy the software. None of the software I have has any kind of time bomb that renders it inactive after a specific date. So as long as I'm not interested in upgrades or tech support I can let my contract expire and I'm on my merry way. So I have my one-time software charge that I can spread across as many plcs as I can get through before technology passes me by and forces me to look at a different platform. There are still people programming AB PLC5's with 6200 or AI. So this isn't just theory.

You are correct that some of the software updates are required by hardware platform changes. But not as many as one would think. Take AB's RSLogix5. The PLC5 was near the end of it's development life cycle when RSLogix5 came out. So many of the new versions of Logix5 did nothing but add features. The AB CLX platform is the noteable exception with it's intimate HW/SW version dependence. But even that can work to my advantage. For example, CLX version 10 does everything I need it to. So there is no reasoin I can't just keep burning my new CLX plcs with V10 firmware and keepo my V10 RSLogix5000 software indefinitely. Why would I jump up to a newer version? Most likely because I like one of the new software features in a later version.
And that is the whole basis of my argument. We all want better, faster, stronger, more feature rich. But we wonder why we have to pay for it. We pay for it because someone put in the time and effort to make it better and that cost needs to be accounted for. If no one paid for it where is the incentive to add features? This isn't like the home PC market where a new gadget can add buyers who wouldn't otherwise be buyers. In that case the raw increase in sales might justify a free offering since it could account for millions of sales that wouldn't have existed. The automation market just isn't that big. So if we want features we need to pony up. If you can provide additional features to an offering and not have to charge for them I applaud you. I just know what my manager would tell me if I told him I was going to spend time developing features no one was going to pay for.

Keith

[Terry Woods]

Anybody that doesn't know that "C" is a superior programming language obviously has not learned it nor used it. (A corollary to this is... "Those that love AB programming simply haven't tried anything else." )

As Peter said, it is highly likely that most PLC Programming Software packages are written in "C". ANY... may I repeat... ANY function that exists in ANY PLC can be developed through "C". In fact, any logically sound function that you can imagine can be created in "C".

If you move from an old favorite PLC to a new PLC and find that the new PLC doesn't offer the functions that you were used to using in the old PLC... too bad... if the new one doesn't have it... then it simply doesn't have it. You'll have to find a different way to accomplish your idea.

However, if the PLC could be programmed in "C" then, you could simply cut-n-paste any function your heart desired (from your favorite personal library) into the new program. You will always have any functions available that you can imagine, develop, and store in your library.

The really great thing about "C" is that you can desire your program to be as close to English as you want.

Example:

IF ( THE_FRIGGIN_AUTO_SWITCH_IS_ON && I_AM_FREEZIN_MY_A$$_OFF ) TURN_ON_THE_DAMNED_HEATER

THE_FRIGGIN_AUTO_SWITCH_IS_ON = Input from Auto Switch
&& = Logical AND
I_AM_FREEZIN_MY_A$$_OFF = Input from Temperature Switch
TURN_ON_THE_DAMNED_HEATER = Output to Heater Relay

Just as in any programming environment, it is most important that the programmer develop his functions and process in a reasonable fashion.

Reasonably developed code is easily understood by reasonable programmers (subsequent maintainers). A disorganized mind can't help but create spaghetti/garbage code (if it works... at all... it's a hack).

"Staying the course" in spite of information indicating the fallacy of the course is just plain stupid. Refusing to be open to that information is equally stupid.

Well, it's late and the MGD has done what the MGD does...

(10219)

[rsdoran]

I have a question!
If a plc were programmed using C would it be possible to upload that program then decompile it for troubleshooting/modifying?
OR
Would you HAVE TO HAVE the original source code from the programmer?

I think that using C, C++ etc would require that someone other than a maintenance man to troubleshoot plc's. I know this has been argued before but there are many people that have gone to school, classes, thru OJT, etc etc al to be proficient in the maintenance field. Many have specialties like HVAC, welding, electrical and/or electronics.

I think the reason Ladder Logic has been so popular is because it so closely resembled Relay Logic which is and will be understood by many for a long time to come.

To me a plc is a plc, I aint going to buy any nor the associated software. I will use whatever a customer/employer wants to use but they will provide or purchase what is needed.

[kamenges]

Terry-

You forgot your semicolons. You also didn't declare your variables. That one won't compile. Try getting THAT through to someone at 2AM.

I'm not arquing the power of a language like C. Like Ron, I'm arguing the folly of a sudden, massive switch to it for all machine control. You lose the inherent simplicity of ladder. You're right that ladder can be hard to follow if written poorly. But it CAN be followed by almost anyone on the shop floor who might encounter it.

Keith

[PhilipW]

And consider this...

Ladder Logic (first demomstrated by the AB team led by Dr Otto Struger circa 1970) was the FIRST GUI (Graphical User Interface) of ANY kind...in any computing application. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong.)

It's continued acceptance and durability over 30 plus years of dramatic technical advances should give us pause to appreciate that there may very well be something "just right" about it.

Perhaps familiarity with ladder has bred a degree of contempt for some of us. In the meantime I continue to be astounded at what can be achieved in it...and I look forward to learning more.

Text based languages just don't get my enthusiasm going...no matter how powerful they may be.

[TimothyMoulder]

I expect there is tremendous power in the text-derived languages, but personally, I quit programming in high-level lingos back when QBASIC was still the rage.

Without getting too grandiose, I think people like Ladder Logic because, while all manufacturers have their own dialect of it, the basics are still there, and anybody with enough experience and persistence to master one style can master another. It's as close to a standard as you're ever going to see in this business.

High level languages are another matter. C/C++ is not VB. Hell VB6 is not even VB4, and if you don't have either on your machine, be sure to download the latest set of patches from Microsoft to... eh, you get the picture.

You know what would be truly useful? Revolutionize the industry-type thing? A compiler for ladder logic. Write a single piece of ladder in a single software app that can then be compiled and downloaded into different models of PLC. Imagine a single style of ladder for your GE Fanuc, Seimens, Koyo and any or all AB.

Now THAT! is software I'd pay for!

TM

[panic mode]

I luv ladder too.
Don't take me wrong, I was programming in ASM, C, bascic, pascal
and few other languages. The fact that they all coexist is because
there is need for all of them - in different places at different time.

C and C++ sure do dominate market nowdays when you look at
the volumes. They are used everywhere from VCR, burgler alarm,
operating system on your PC to big browser you use right now etc.

Ladder is visual language. You can see and edit the program
while it's running - without need to shut down production line
or rebooting your machine every time you make change.

Even though I use C, it's my least favoured language.
The sintax sux, it's way too freakin cryptic. How many times
I had to go through notes searching for formating I need - although
I just used it a week ago?

I was working way too many times in programs written by others
and sometimes it got real ugly. Give that complexity of C and
the hell will brake loose. Do I want PLC programmed ENTIRELY in C?
Please don't... I'll be good...
bawling

Compiled languages have great advantage to run more efficiently
and faster (except when used by MS or RS and our technicians).
This also makes any mess inside program well hidden (lucky for mentioned).

Anyone remembers recent communication failure of California
airports because their systems now running MS need frequent
reboots? And once the system was down they coudn't restart it?
And backup system failed as well...
If they programmed in ladder that wouldn't have happened :D :D :D

[CaseyK]

I guess when I learned ladder logic, I liked it becuase it made sense. GEE, it looked just like (pretty much anyway) the schematics that I had drawn for years.

In fact, when I program a big job, I usually start with a pencil and paper, draw up the schemaic, and then change it to I/O, etc.

From the time I hear some guys spend writing a program, maybe they should try this method. While I am not still up on AB like I once was, I can't believe that they got all that commplicated. Siemans, that is another story.

when I drew up schematics, I didn't have to pay for software. There is a point of diminishing returns, where the cost effectiveness and the convenience/over price factor cross.

anyway, free software reigns supreme, be it cad, plc programming, or???

I love ladder logic, and like GE state logic.

If you get a chance, check out Keyance's ladder logic. I am not sure how to describe it, except maybe as the rungs program backwards.

regards all.....casey

[Celtfan]

Poor documentation is the bain of everyone that has to modify a program, whether it is ladder, C, VB, etc. Comments should be made at least for program sections, even better before every "rung" or its equivalent. Also, program design makes a huge difference. For most PLC work I use state equations for the backbone of the process to be controlled. These "equations" merely define all the states that the process will go through as well as dictating how to get in and out of them. From this, all of the outputs can be defined by the "state" of the process (with timers, inputs and other modifiers), as well as the startup conditions, alarms, etc.

I like the idea of a universal ladder logic that would then be portable, much like C is now. It would be up to the various OEMs to write the software that would interpret the standard for their particular platform. Obviously, the most difficult part would be the more specialized functions unique to a company. Actually, the most difficult would be to agree on the "Standard". That would make these posts seem succinct. :)

[TimothyMoulder]

What I envision is some crafty little company reverse-engineering the programming communications for various plcs, writing the generic software, and then their own compilers, available for a fee. Somebody with enough ambition and genius could get very rich doing this, methinks...

Also, the "advanced" features are usually more interpretation than anything else. One guy uses a PID with three elements, another has 5-10. If our hypothetical company can reason out the common ground among these approaches, they could make a generic PID block with all the requisite math built in. If there are some genuinely brand-specific features, these could be "grayed out" when configured for another brand, but I have a hunch that wouldn't really be nescessary.

TM

[akreel]

Originally posted by TimothyMoulder
Somebody with enough ambition and genius could get very rich doing this, methinks...

You'd be right, except you forgot one thing: trial lawyers.
What company would be crazy enough to take that on and try to sell the software publicly knowing they're going to get sued over one of the following eventually:
1) Trademark/copyright/intellectual property
2) Liability
3) Being rude to someone

I imagine there are a lot of nice "private" pieces of software out there already. In fact, I've created an excel macro that can generate portions L5K files (RSLogix5000), in order to speed up programming time.

AK

[Eric Nelson]

Originally posted by TimothyMoulder
What I envision is some crafty little company individual reverse-engineering the programming communications mnemonics for various plcs, writing the generic software, and then their own compilers, available for a fee free.

With the edits I added, this idea sounds similar to what Bob (testsubject) is currently working on in his Java class. See THIS (http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?postid=62451#post62451) post.

You ARE currently working on this, right Bob?... http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage26/17.gif

beerchug

-Eric

[steve_rb]

I guess Stephen means there is other very cheaper way of programming PLCs. I have heard about a computer program can do this job but I am not sure what was it. Stephen please let us know what is your ownm opinion?

thx

[testsubject]

Originally posted by Eric Nelson


With the edits I added, this idea sounds similar to what Bob (testsubject) is currently working on in his Java class. See THIS (http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?postid=62451#post62451) post.

You ARE currently working on this, right Bob?... http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage26/17.gif

beerchug

-Eric

Well....
Emm....
erm....
<Exit stage Left>

I forgot all about that.
hehe

[TimothyMoulder]

Seeing this thread again reminds me...

"Dawn of the Dead", the remake, is coming out on DVD in a few days!

Hoo Boy! I love zombie movies.

I wonder if this qualifies as a zombie thread?

TM

[elevmike]

ZZZZZZZ...ZZZZZZZZ.....ZZZZZZZ....ZZZZZZZZ

[Rube]

Okay, show of hands....

1. How many of you have completely changed your mind about any of the number of subjects in this thread?

2. How many of you realize the amount of advertising Mr. Luft has gotten...just in this thread?

3. How many of you are gonna wake up in the morning and still bash AB, Siemens, AD, etc.

Okay--not many hands.


4. How many can spell PLC?


Wow, look at all the hands now!

[S7Guy]

Who is Mr Luft?

[elevmike]

Hands:

1. ME! Well not really, but when the dust settles a little aroung here I'm inclined to try out Mr. Luft's product.

2. ME!! Same answer as above....

3. Do I sound like an AB basher... Well it's not really intential, after all I've had VERY limited with their PLC product line. (Cant complain about there other stuff though), I just really like AD.

4. Let me see.... Hmmmm.... Programmabel Logox Confuer.. There!

[Stephen Luft]

To Steve_rb:

What opinion are you looking for?

If it has to do with the cost of programming software, then my opinion is spread throughout this thread. In talking with an integrator this week and various customers over the last few weeks, a common issue that has become more prevelent, is the yearly contract fees, based on the number of run licenses you have purchased. A nice little annuity for companies that can do it.

Consider this...Of the companies that charge for software, whether AD's $99 package up to AB's RSL...of all the threads posted on this web site, what percentage are questions dealing with programming and support related issues? Wouldn't you think that for the price you are paying, you should be receiving the support from either the manufacturer or distributor you purchased from.

To S7Guy:

I would be Mr. Luft.

[S7Guy]

I would be Mr. Luft.

Afterwards, I saw that you were the one who started the thread. But I still don't know who you are, or why someone would ask about how much free advertising you were getting. I was just curious, and thought maybe you were selling something. No worries.

...of all the threads posted on this web site, what percentage are questions dealing with programming and support related issues? Wouldn't you think that for the price you are paying, you should be receiving the support from either the manufacturer or distributor you purchased from.

I guess I might be in the minority. I am obviously a Siemens user (but have no other affiliation with Siemens), and I don't mind paying for their software. I just installed V5.2 on a virgin computer, and it worked just fine right out of the box. I get regular upgrades and hot fixes, and rarely have a problem, so obviously they are spending enough on R&D to make sure their stuff is reliable. If I do have a problem, I fire off an email to my distrubuter and he is on the problem like a hobo on a ham sandwich. If I was getting all of this software for free, I doubt I would get the same service.

[kamenges]

Originally posted by S7Guy:
...and he is on the problem like a hobo on a ham sandwich.

Now THAT'S a new one for me. I gotta remember that one. lolis

Keith

[Voltimus]

I always thought it was "quicker than Oprah on a ham sandwich"? :confused:

[Martin T.]

Can't bash any of the software or distributors, worked with AB, Honeywell, Square D, and AD. Company provides all the software I need, just got an update from AB received rev update and new key disk, have yet to receive anything from the others without a $$$$ figure attached.
The only thing in my area of "nowhere" is an AB salesman that makes sure I have what I need to get the job done, Square D, I just get an after market software rep call me every six months.
Not bashing(or supporting), just to many liquid pain pills and feel the need to talk out my!!!.

Anyway's, I'm not stuck on any one software, if I don't have to pay for it and they give me the time to learn, I'm berrering myself, not anyone else.

O YA, Where are ya snoopy!!! Good Grief!!! Is this enough fluff for ya, TW!!!

[CaseyK]

If I don't get around tuit (or a square D tuit), maybe someone else will start a poll on

Okay, show of hands....


1. How many of you have completely changed your mind about any of the number of subjects in this thread?

2. How many of you realize the amount of advertising Mr. Luft has gotten...just in this thread?

3. How many of you are gonna wake up in the morning and still bash AB, Siemens, AD, etc.

Okay--not many hands.


4. How many can spell PLC?


Wow, look at all the hands now!

or something similar.

For those who came in late, or are otherwise confused, "Click Here" (http://www.entertron.com/) .

This is a very interesting subject, which has brought up many valid points on both sides, but I still have to agree with Stephen...Why pay for programming software?

One thing I like about Moeller's easy, not only is the software free, but it is built in!

I like AB's PicoSoft software (Oh, it is FREE), I can use it and don't even have to have an AB unit!

regards all.....casey

BTW, I like ham (kc9ih) sandwiches...

[steve_rb]

I think time is about to over for PLCs. Now a days more faster and userfriendlier programs are about to be developed and will be replaced PLCs. Today CNC machines are equiped with a pc based software and you can do all simulations on PC and download to machine and let it run overnight and tomorrow morning pick your part and all is simple (well not that simple I should say) and cheap. PLCs to todays way of controling systems looks to me just like monocrom 286 PC to pentium 4.

steve_rb

[JesperMP]

steve_rb,
there is no need to hijack this thread with another topic that everybody has an opinion about. This thread is allready the longest on this forum.
I could have responded to your post, but I chose not to.
Start a new thread, or look in past threads as this has been discussed before.

[BobB]

Yes steve_rb, start another thread and I am sure the discussion will be extremely lively.

[mbferrari]

We are limited by corporate budget on how much we can spend for software each year. If we need cad, then there is no money for plcs. We have survived by buying the GE tool box starter kit. we use autocad lt (older) software.

We will be using some Allen Bradley ML1000 plcs soon, only becuase the software is free. We used some Easy relays, becuase the software is free. We have Entertrons CD, and I have been working with it, and we will probably buy some of there equipment too, becuase the software is free.

No budget means no budget. Most customers wouldn't even consider buying software for us. One wanted pc control, and when we told him what it would cost with the software, he switched back to a Fanuc 90-30, which was several thousand cheaper when we got done.

m
a
r
y
b
e
t
h

[TimothyMoulder]

Marybeth,

If you are looking for a low-cost PLC with built in HMI, lots of features, and totally free programming software, look here:

www.unitronics.com

I don't work for them, this is a shameless fan plug.

TM

[n8dc]

I got keyence software free also I use automation direct and omron. as luck would have it on june 14th i had a massive heart attack (just turned 55 9-11) and i was off work for 2 months.While i was off my boss bs'd management and got them thinking that 90% of all the machines built these days used A/B controllers? Now im back to work and the machine i dnt get to finish while i was gone has an a/b 1200 in it and they think its the cats azz. I can do the same thing with a omron or a A/D . Now thye want me to go to classes to learn the a/b stuff. Too bad im the only one in the whole plant that programs (thier fault) and they had to farm out the new machine but my boss (also is my cousin) is as near as i can see a lier and is just another guy on a trip that wants it all his way regardless if im saving the company money.
Sorry about my rant but when i see all the different controllers you all are using it just fires me up and i totally agree on the A/B software being over priced. Also after programming omron and automation direct for years the A/B stuff is way out in left field for me. Im sure its just the language they use but why be so different.
Dave

[rdrast]

Don't Like It?
Don't Use It.
Personally, I don't like seeing FOUR YEAR OLD THREADS RESURRECTED.

[n8dc]

well excuse me ........
consider my membership expired.

[elevmike]

Dave,

It might not be fun at first, but consider the benies of learing a new platform on somebody else's ticket... The more you know, the more you can do and the more valueable you will be...

[n8dc]

dont worry im gonna take the classes cause someone told me i probably couldnt figure out the a/b stuff. I was told that years ago when i questioned the test for ham radio and i was told i was too dumb to learn morse code. Well I learned it in 5 days and took my test on the 7th day.
Dave

[BudW]

Dave,

Five kids and a dog and still learned Morse code!! Good job. I am still to dumb to pick it up myself. Do not get discouraged with this site. Whither the post is old or new I think this site is here to get like-minded people together and help each other if we can.

73's to you

Bud

[Jimmie_Ohio]

and i was told i was too dumb to learn morse code. With all due respect, why not get a cell phone to replace your telegraph?

[BudW]

Jimmie,

How well did your cell phone work during the 2003 black-out? I'll bet N8DC still had communications with the outside world.:D I know I did not.

Fast, Faster & Fastest communication = Telegraph, Telephone & Tell my wife (Tell a woman)


Bud

[elevmike]

With all due respect, why not get a cell phone to replace your telegraph?

Jimmy if your ever involved in a community wide disaster you'll find that the most popular guy on the block will be the ham.

[n8dc]

got one... also got the internet. If youve never experienced Ham Radio then its hard to explain the reason we hams do what we do. It was a good learning experience because we learn or at least i did vacuum tubes to radio telegraph. I should have took that experience and went into a different field of work years ago but i didnt. Morse code was one of the things i really didnt want to learn but after i did i loved it. I still use it. I do use my cell phone more but its not the same.
dave

[Rick Densing]

The problem with morse code on a cell phone is it is hard to control the length of the beeps when you press a button.

[BudW]

Funny thing is I have seen people key Morse code while driving in a car. And I have a hard time holding my cell and driving at the same time>

[n8dc]

the best way to run morse code in a car is with the key strapped to your leg.
Dave

[elevmike]

the best way to run morse code in a car is with the key strapped to your leg.
Dave

No.. you get one of thoes head sets and sing di di di di, di, di da di di, di da di di, da da da. (no hands required)

[jjsohio]

.- -. -.. .... . .-.. .-.. --- ..--- ..- .-.-.-

[ganutenator]

Wow this is a long thread. It has kind of veered away into a PLC vs PC thread however.


My "genie pop out of a lamp" Solution:

Imaging a function block diagram that is controlling a process. As an electrician, you easily view this online, and see the inputs and outputs of a particular function block to determine that it is operating properly. The function block may be labeled as Conveyor 154 (East Packaging conveyor) Control for example. By double clicking on the function block you could see the guts of the function block. Up would pop, either ladder logic, or structured text, or C code for example. You could use this function block over and over again. The variables would not all be global, as in the current PLCs. You would have to pass data into and out of the fucntion. But this would make it easier. I.E. you would see a line coming into the function block as I:00/1 or whatever with a comment of HOA-154 Auto. In the code inside of the function block, it would just be Auto. Do you see the potential for duplicating sections of code here, without having to reassign addresses?

2nd, all of this code would run in a Sony Playstation II. I believe the current cost is $200

3rd, the I/O would be ethernet I/O. Pick whatever manuf you want. All manuf. would be forced to be compliant if they ever wanted to sell I/O

4th The HMI would be in VB on a flat touchscreen monitor and connect to the USB port of the playstation.

5th, One of the ports of the ethernet I/O hub would go to a wireless ethernet hub. This way, you could walk right up to the device that you were troubleshooting and be online to the PLC with your laptop. Look ma, no wires.

6th, The HMI would communicate back to a server with all of its data. This data could be broadcast on a web page.

7th, A palm pilot, web ready cell phone, or other web browser could view this HMI data.

....Just my thoughts.......

1) Unity Pro software - I can create my own functions. I even went so far as to copy the formula for the AB SCL function from the help page into my code and created my own SCP function.

2) ok, hardware still costs me around a grand.

3) All my I/O is ethernet using the Advantys OTB modules. Instead of having electricians run hundreds of wires, they only have to pull a cat 5 cable out to the i/o box mounted locally at the equipment.

4) Using SOAP to get the data out of the plc for my own HMI

5) Viewing HMI screen while blocking photo-eye w/ hand; priceless

6) love my treo 755p

[dan_barber]

Some manufacturers are starting to offer a basic version of software for free. I've used IDEC's trial software.

[rkautomation]

I will not pay for software

[OZEE]

I will not pay for software


So, you're using pirated software??

[bernie_carlton]

Ozee - 'pirated' is not the only option for 'not paying for software'. Other possibilities:

- Write your own
- Only use companies whose devices have software provided for free
- Use the subset of devices (from some companies) covered by free software.

[celichi]

Rockwell will be forced to comply eventually (don't hold your breath). Serveral companies offer free programming software, they make the money off of hardware only (the way it should be).

It is crazy that they have been able to get away with it this long. Unitronics offers free software and support.

[bernie_carlton]

:rolleyes: (Face turning blue holding breath until Rockwell complies.)

I guess I can breath slightly because the Micrologix 1000, 1100 and 1400 have free software.

[Oakley]

I will not pay for software


So, how would you feel if your employer said "I'm not going to pay for software."

What you write is considered software, so you don't get paid. What then?

[celichi]

****ED!

However, I am not selling and making a profit on hardware to my Employer.

[TimothyMoulder]

This thread began June 5th 2002... does this qualify for a prize or something?

[SimpleSimon]

As a programmer for almost 40 years, I certainly agree that software is NOT free. Of course, the REAL question here is whether the cost of the software should be bundled into the price of the PLCs, or if it should be separate. That's a business decision.

Personally, I think it should be separate, thereby allowing the customer base at least the possibility of choice.

This leads me to how I found this forum in the first place. I was searching for something better than Idec's WindLDR, which isn't bad, but is pretty limiting. The "source" files, aren't.

That is, they are not text, but a binary format. This means that it's near impossible to use regular source control software, comparison tools, library management, etc.

I'm thinking that the rest of the PLC world lives with the same problem, although selfishly (my current job), I only care about Idec FC4 PLCs.

Just yesterday I realized that I can can display the assembler source code (mnenomics) that is the REAL program, and to an old-timer like me, actually easier to read than a ladder (yes, I know, I'm quite strange). Unfortunately, there's no way to save or load that from/to Idec's WindLDR. That sucks.

It seems that these PLC manufacturers still haven't figured out that these things aren't just a new-fangled relay, but are actually computers, and should be managed as such.

At the moment, I'm thinking that my only solution would be to write a LDR-to-TXT-to-LDR file converter so that we can manage our code in a reasonable fashion.

So, my question to the forum is: Anyone interested in such a thing? Of course, it would NOT be free, but if someone has a lot of ladder files around (as we do), it could pay for itself in short order.

[Peter Nachtwey]

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showpost.php?p=1521&postcount=12
Allen Nelson had a much better idea of the true cost. We haven't even got a full ST and we have exceeded the $200K easily.

It costs a lot of money to make a good IDE that is intuitive and easy to use let alone all the programming code that makes it functional.

[SimpleSimon]

Peter, if you're replying to me, I can assure you that the software I'm thinking of can be developed for a couple of percent of that $200K. Of course, if someone wants to pay me even half of that to write it, I'll take it. :)

But on a more generic note, there's two kinds of software. ;)

1. Built by committees and large teams. Costs huge amounts, takes forever, and usually doesn't work very well.

2. Built by no more than 6 people. Economical, done quickly, and almost always exceeds expectations.

Been there, done that on both types - all the way from micros to mainframes.

Case in point. I just finished a complete Windows-based batching software control system. It drives PLCs and such with a (if I do say so myself) great OI. Took me 6 months. Alone (other than client review of course).

[Peter Nachtwey]

Peter, if you're replying to me,

I wasn't.


I can assure you that the software I'm thinking of can be developed for a couple of percent of that $200K. Of course, if someone wants to pay me even half of that to write it, I'll take it. :)

You seriously underestimate what is required to write good PLC software.

[SimpleSimon]

Well, sir, with all due respect to a senior member of this forum, in case I wasn't clear before, it all depends on who is doing the programming. ;)

What I've seen so far is that PLC "programmers" aren't really programmers. They may be quite expert in the other things related to what the PLCs are connected to, but REAL programming is very rapidly becoming a lost art. And I don't mean jokes like "Real programmers don't blah, blah, blah".

What I've learned is that PLCs are nothing more (or less) than the micros I worked on in the 1970s (aside: I was a beta tester on the Intel 8086 while I was working for Siemens as a PBX designer). They just come in a smaller package. They don't do any more (or less), but they sure don't cost as much now!

What I mean is that a real programmer has an actual understanding of problem analysis, algorithm design, resource management, etc., etc. This problem is not limited to PLC programmers, but is rampant in the entire computing industry.

I am one of those geeks that can actually write object code (for certain machines) on-the-fly. I literally grew up with computers, and I don't mean as a kid playing video games (they hadn't been invented yet).

I've been working with PLC "programmers" that don't understand they can skip rungs (eg. a Jump), that don't understand a latching relay (or the fact that it's actually a flip-flop), etc., etc.

It's the same thing when I do web programming. I have to deal with so-called programmers that don't even know what a subroutine is - and these are people that actually have a degree in programming!

It's a sad state of affairs out there, for sure.

Addition:

Oh - but I digress. The software I'm thinking of writing really has nothing to do with PLCs directly. It would be a file format converter so that ladders could be managed using readily available standard programming tools.

Now if I were to try to write something to totally replace WindLDR, that's a bit bigger. Might take me a whole year to do it right.

[Boxy]

I don't mind paying for software. The thing that annoys me about it is when (for example AB) tries so hard to limit piracy of their software that it limits the functionality of their software to those who do pay. I have non stop issues with FactoryTalk and its users and keys etc. Be like everyone else and just run on a product key/ registration/activation style protection. That way when the HW of you programming computer changes you don't have drama's.

[FrancisL]

I will not pay for software

Can I use your car for free?
Do you work for nothing?

[bernie_carlton]

I expect to pay for a piece of software which programs certain units. It costs money to produce the software and one copy is frequently used with multiple units. I don't expect its price to be hidden in the hardware costs. However, once purchased I expect to use that software in that form forever. If it is updated to correct problems (things which it was documented as being able to do but doesn't or changes made necessary by bug fixes in the target units) I expect the update to be free.

If the software is updated to allow it to work with new units or to take advantage of new (not bug-fix) capabilities in the target units then I expect to pay extra for that.

As a customer I should be expected to utilize the manuals and a customer's help forum. If documentation is well written then calls to support for help using the software should not be necessary.

However support calls which are needed because of aspects not covered in manuals or on a companies forum should not be charged.

[Peter Nachtwey]

Well, sir, with all due respect to a senior member of this forum, in case I wasn't clear before, it all depends on who is doing the programming. ;)

Yes, I know.


What I've seen so far is that PLC "programmers" aren't really programmers. They may be quite expert in the other things related to what the PLCs are connected to, but REAL programming is very rapidly becoming a lost art. And I don't mean jokes like "Real programmers don't blah, blah, blah".

The PLC programmers do the best they can with the tools they have. The PLC language constrains their thinking. However, there are some real practical considerations. For instance they can't put break points in their code and stop the controller for single stepping through some code, at least not while the machine is on-line.


I've been working with PLC "programmers" that don't understand they can skip rungs (eg. a Jump), that don't understand a latching relay (or the fact that it's actually a flip-flop), etc., etc.

You will find some good PLC programmers here.


Oh - but I digress. The software I'm thinking of writing really has nothing to do with PLCs directly. It would be a file format converter so that ladders could be managed using readily available standard programming tools.

You would need to have one for every type of PLC. Every PLC manufacturer file format is different and even different between PLCs within the company. There is no such thing as a standard zipped XML format.


Now if I were to try to write something to totally replace WindLDR, that's a bit bigger. Might take me a whole year to do it right.
I would like to see that. WindLDR looks like a good start but that is for a brick. You know that adding more options will make the design exponentially more complicated.

There is a cool little micro controller called the propeller chip, that has 8 cores, in search of PropPLC software. You can write it. Imagine being able to run 5 or 6 ladder programs truly in parallel on a $8 chip. This is an opportunity. No one has done it yet.

[SimpleSimon]

FrancisL: Love your Sig (check my handle). ;)

I expect to pay for a piece of software which programs certain units. It costs money to produce the software and one copy is frequently used with multiple units. I don't expect its price to be hidden in the hardware costs. However, once purchased I expect to use that software in that form forever. If it is updated to correct problems (things which it was documented as being able to do but doesn't or changes made necessary by bug fixes in the target units) I expect the update to be free.

If the software is updated to allow it to work with new units or to take advantage of new (not bug-fix) capabilities in the target units then I expect to pay extra for that.

As a customer I should be expected to utilize the manuals and a customer's help forum. If documentation is well written then calls to support for help using the software should not be necessary.

However support calls which are needed because of aspects not covered in manuals or on a companies forum should not be charged.Bernie: I only wish everyone had your attitude! Like your sig, too!

Yes, I know.


The PLC programmers do the best they can with the tools they have. The PLC language constrains their thinking. I agree wholeheartedly! However, there are some real practical considerations. For instance they can't put break points in their code and stop the controller for single stepping through some code, at least not while the machine is on-line.


You will find some good PLC programmers here. I'm thinking you're right! :)


You would need to have one for every type of PLC. Every PLC manufacturer file format is different and even different between PLCs within the company. There is no such thing as a standard zipped XML format. Yup - I figured that. My immediate need is for Idec units, but if I DO write this thing, it'll be expandable.


I would like to see that. WindLDR looks like a good start but that is for a brick. You know that adding more options will make the design exponentially more complicated. I'm not planning on replacing WindLDR - it's decent, just missing import/export and a couple of other features. I was just throwing an estimate (from experience) of what it would take to replace it. Depending on what I learn, I MIGHT end up writing an assembler/downloader.

There is a cool little micro controller called the propeller chip, that has 8 cores, in search of PropPLC software. You can write it. Imagine being able to run 5 or 6 ladder programs truly in parallel on a $8 chip. This is an opportunity. No one has done it yet.I've just heard of the Propeller. Exciting chip. I'll do some homework.

Looks like I found a good forum here! :)

[Rich1955]

My 2 Cents
As I was forced to change job (because of economy), I no longer have access to all the software that I use to have and working for a lot less for a small company. I am unable to troubleshoot problems with some of the equipment (no access to the program) because the manufacture is out of business or parts are obsolete. How do PLC manufactures expect people like me to compete when we use 5 or 6 different PLC in our equipment?
There should be a way that a company (like the one I work for) to access there programs with out paying thousands of dollars where we only use it a couple of times.
I can see that programmers that use it all the time need a better version but end users that need it once or twice should not be forced to pay full price to get access for limited time.

[SimpleSimon]

The issues you're seeing are not limited to just PLCs. There's all sorts of equipment out there that require special hardware/software to troubleshoot and configure. One example is the newer satellite internet gear. In the old days, it could be installed with only a signal detector. Now each manufacturer requires their own special unit. Fortunately, they aren't too expensive ($100 or so), but it still ticks me off.

I suspect they did this so that inexperienced people can do the setup, thereby letting them drop the install price (which is why I don't install them for a living any more).

[PLC]

You hire an integrator for a few hundred bucks to upload and print out your code

The same thing you do when you have trouble with your car. You don't have that diagnostic equipment either

[Rich1955]

You hire an integrator for a few hundred bucks to upload and print out your code


Do you really know the cost to back engineering a program? It's more than a few hundred bucks and the time spent on it. A person well qualified in programming could spend months on doing such a thing (I know I’ve done it).
When you upload a program from the PLC all you see is code, not much help when you are trying to find out what is not working on 1000s of lines.
My point is there must be a cheaper more economical way for the end user now that I’m on the other side of the fence.

[SimpleSimon]

Good post!

I'd like to add that it is often more economical to simply start over from scratch - and considering improvements in technology from the time it was originally done, you'll usually end up with a better product.

[Bob A.]

In my world, you pretty much get what you pay for. If software is being given away free, you have a good indication of what is being put into it. There is always a sound reason why a product has to be offered for free.

[Steve Bailey]

Stephen Luft, the original poster answered his own question in post #65, a year after he started the thread.
I will admit that our software is not cutting edge as some of our competitors offer, but when you are providing it to your customers at no additional obligation, you must be realistic in your expectations.

[jprindle]

You hire an integrator for a few hundred bucks to upload and print out your code

The same thing you do when you have trouble with your car. You don't have that diagnostic equipment either


Actually, there is a standard in the U.S. for the diagnostics on a car manufactured after 1996, so you can troubleshoot and get codes with a universal tester.

[ctilley]

This pretty much sums it up about AB for me.

-Joe goes to the local automation supplier and purchases AB PLC.

-Joe goes back to shop to hook up and program new PLC with legal copy of rockwell software.

-Joe runs into trouble connecting new AB PLC with laptop with legal rockwell software.

-Joe calls AB tech support for help.

-AB Tech support guy/gal: "Sorry Joe. We can't help you with your problem with your brand new PLC and your legal copy of RSLogix because you did not purchase our service agreement with your software. Have a good day. Bye Bye then." Click!

-This happened to a co-worker of mine and I have not purchased another AB PLC since. Bottom line. AB makes a good product in their software and PLCs.I won't deny that. But it has gotten to their heads and they have become flat out crooks.

In my book the only thing AB is good for is pushbuttons and pressure switches.

[ydtech]

-Joe calls AB tech support for help.

-AB Tech support guy/gal: "Sorry Joe. We can't help you with your problem with your brand new PLC and your legal copy of RSLogix because you did not purchase our service agreement with your software. Have a good day. Bye Bye then." Click!

Joe posts about his trouble in a forum and gets some suggestions which eventually sort it out.

Personally, I've never bothered with tech support, I RTFM, call colleagues, search the net and post it up, in usually that order. Always got it fixed, sooner or later.

[lectrofly]

As much as I would love to join in and beat up on Allen Bradley (Rockwell) products (and I certainly have good reason to do so), I will have to ask this instead:

Is there really anything out there that is so much more superior in capabilities, performance and price to the competition that it should be the obvious choice?

I'm guessing the answer is "no", yet I ask the question because I believe the users of this forum will come up with some creative and informative answers.

I've worked with a variety of plc's and I have never found one to stand out as a "shining star".

BTW: If Joe had gone ahead and paid for tech support, he would still have been better off coming here first.

[LadderLogic]

Is there really anything out there that is so much more superior in capabilities, performance and price to the competition that it should be the obvious choice?

Quite a few, actually.

[geoplc]

cap·i·tal·ismhttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/C0086100/capitalism) (kāp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

[cirtcele]

Ctilly
Joe should know that you get free 30 day support when you buy the software. Just called and started our 30 day support a year after the software was registered.

[ctilley]

I believe everyone seems to be missing the point. Joe could have done a lot of things different.He could have posted in a forum, asked a buddy, seen a physic, or prayed to the gods for help etc., etc. But why should he have to? He just purchased an overpriced piece of hardware for which he owns a legal copy of programming software(overpriced also).You would think that would be enough for tech support.AB/Rockwell in all their glory don't see it that way. And as a result,will eventually lose more customers such as Joe and myself. Like I said in the previous post, AB makes good stuff. But I haven't seen anything that I could do with AB that I can't do with Automation Direct or Delta at a fraction of the cost and heartache.

p.s. Joe agrees 100%

[Peter Nachtwey]

I know what it costs to make good software. It is expensive. It isn't any one particular thing that is expensive it is all the little things. You all know I have my complaints with Siemens software. My complaint with Rockwell software is that they should charge you for their bug fixes. Microsoft seems to understand this and distributes service packs for their software. I agree that one should be charged for new features and the ability to run PLC software on new operating systems. I don't think it is any PLCs manufacturers fault that you decide to upgrade your operating system.

I think most of you are weenies. You complain about the software's price but you have no clue about what it does for you. When you start a project you are 90% done. Do you think the few thousands you pay is more expensive than the time you would spend writing the code from scratch, IF YOU COULD?

I get upset when the PLC I am using is so awful that I could write the code in C, C++, Java, Python, and TCL in a fraction of the time I can using a PLC. I wouldn't use some PLC software unless forced to.

Some PLC manufacturers should NOT charge for their software. They should be paying you to use it. However, I have found that Rockwell software is a relative joy to use compared to others. I think a lot depends on what you are trying to do but Ethernet communications is one of the big things we get involved with. What ever company make Ethernet communications the easiest is our friend. Right now I think it is Rockwell then Omron.

In the end it is about the time you save. I place a premium on time. When you are at a start up you can have 20 people standing around waiting for you. This is a poor time to find our you have a time stamp that is out of date or need to do a consistency check.

[cirtcele]

IMO part of the reason Rockwell charges for support is they have so many units in service and alot of calls are coming from people who are charging someone else to fix a PLC problem. So why should Rockwell be denied some of that income. I'm just a novice when it comes to PLC's and i have programmed with Step7, RSLogix and DirectLogic for a novice RSLogix is by far the most user friendly IMO. It sucks that RSLogix costs so much but i'm happy with it, can't say that about any free software of any type that i've tried.

[PLC]

Small companies come and go.
I always look for a manufacturer that makes a complete
package (not some little niche controller)
You want a company that can support the whole line
PLC's, drives, motion controllers , motors

[milldrone]

I believe everyone seems to be missing the point. He could have seen a physic,


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physic
phys⋅ic

 http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P04/P0411000) /ˈfɪzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪk/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [fiz-ik] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA noun, verb, -icked, -ick⋅ing.Use physic in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+physic+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

See web results for physic (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=physic&o=100049)

See images of physic (http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=physic&o=100049)

–noun
1. a medicine that purges; cathartic; laxative.
2. any medicine; a drug or medicament.
3. Archaic. the medical art or profession.
4. Obsolete. natural science. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural+science&db=luna) –verb (used with object)
5. to treat with or act upon as a physic or medicine.
6. to work upon as a medicine does; relieve or cure. Perhaps I missed the point also.:D

[ctilley]

Perhaps I missed the point also.:D

Good job Buddy! You found a spelling mistake! Is there anything else brilliant you'd like to add to the discussion?

[shoelesscraig]

Is this thread a joke? I mean, "why pay for software?"...seriously, are we discussing this? Maybe I should ask, "why do you guys work for a living"? I mean, seriously, staying home is a lot easier...:bonkhead:

[pebhidecs]

Having scanned this thread a bit it seems that several people (and companies) are missing the point of what was intended when IEC61131 was introduced.

Scenario:-
You are a PLC programming contractor who is very adept at a certain type of application. Many of the PLC hardware systems will be suitable contenders for supply to the projects you do.

Customer 1 wants all AB in his plant.
Customer 2 wants all Seimens
Customer 3 wants Omron
Customer 4 wants Schneider
...etc.

With the PLC hardware suppliers holding too tight to the reins, the programming expert in this domain is rather hampered and hamstrung because he has to buy in a programming software for each and every different PLC he has to deal with.

Why not have just one (any one) of a selection of IDE's and buy in the plug-in module that allows connecting the favourite IDE to that PLC (a much smaller bit of software that could essentially reside in each PLC processor's memory as a free-bee). That way the domain expert only has to write the application code the once, maybe just apply a custom tweak here and there and he has finished the 2nd and subsequent projects in a much quicker time-frame.

My own situation is; I am at a site (embedded contractor) where there are a number of different PLC systems. To get one useful function from PLC-A to PLC-B (of different makes) should be a matter of extracting it from the site's library of code. However, for a large number of these systems it is still a case of obtaining the function print-out and re-writing it for the other PLC.

I would find a great benefit of having a common IDE for the site software development. Some others on site, I know, would be quite happy if that IDE was Eclipse (which covers most of the high end SCADA system software and in-house package development). I read somewhere that there was a move to incorporate IEC61131-3 into Eclipse and had some detail about compatibility, portability and compliance issues. The beauty is, Eclipse is available as a free download, with a number of free plug-ins but you can also buy specialised modules too. A nice mix and match solution. I just need to convince my colleagues that it is a direction we should look at.

[Devtron]

I guess there is a new wave in the industry which should concern
the big players. Japan might be trying to gobble market share.

I am a relative PLC newbie. Some very Limited Experience with WAGO, AB, Siemens.

I just purchased and set-up an IDEC Microsmart Pentra.

Software was completely free. Free upgrades, My vendor is also giving FULL, FREE Software development support at our factory. The basic unit was less than 250.00 US. included cables.

24 i/o's for less than 300.00, that is real value.

Not bad I think?

Siemens I believe has a the same unit in a different package.

[junior]

My problem with AB software is that it's not backward compatible. If I buy RSL5k today, I get version 18, but my clients PLC's are all programmed on V16. Yes I could go and upgrade their firmware version, but then my client has to go buy v18. In my opinion, v18, should open a v16 program and also be able to save it as a v16 program, so there's no need to upgrade the firmware.

[Paully's5.0]

My problem with AB software is that it's not backward compatible. If I buy RSL5k today, I get version 18, but my clients PLC's are all programmed on V16. Yes I could go and upgrade their firmware version, but then my client has to go buy v18. In my opinion, v18, should open a v16 program and also be able to save it as a v16 program, so there's no need to upgrade the firmware.

There is an option to install all versions onto your computer, so you are backward compatible.

No need to upgrade firmware, no need to track firmware versions, just check the box to install "all versions" when you install RL5k.

[Ken Roach]

It works a little differently (and better) than that, Junior.

If you bought RSLogix 5000 today, you would get a DVD with versions 10 through 18 on it. You can install them all on a single computer with Windows XP, Vista, or Seven* and run any of the editor/compiler versions at the same time. I support v13, v15, v16, and v17 ControlLogix family controllers every week.

My 4+ year old Dell D610 has software that can program everything A-B has made from 1978 to 2010, and do it all under Windows XPSP2.

If you need to go older than ControlLogix v10, you can install one version prior to v10 on an XP box; I have v7 on mine. Anything older, I'll probably need to run a multiboot environment and run Windows 2000. The oldest controllers I have run across in my region are v7, and I helped put them in in the summer of 2000.

RSLogix 5000 isn't perfectly backwards-compatible; I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to point out a glitch in the online books installation, or the switch between EVRSI and FT Activation affecting the ability to run non-FT Activation editors.

I make my living supporting large installations of automated controllers. You won't find a lot of agreement from me when people brag about their 24-point controller with free software and sneer at the support contract I charge for the dozens of controllers and hundreds of I/O racks that my customers tend to use. It's just a whole different ball game.

When the naptha system up at Tesoro exploded last week and killed four people, a TV reporter interviewed one of the guys who wasn't on shift and he repeated a common saying in the petroleum business: "we don't bake cookies, we boil oil."

I feel the same way sometimes on this Forum when besieged by the guys trying to make ten-year old software work under Windows XP2, and whining about how they can't afford or refuse to pay for a support contract, no matter what price it is, just on the principle of the thing, because to them a support contract is a "ripoff" or "extortion", or in one memorable instance, "rape".

Heavy industry isn't a hobby. It's complex, and it can be dirty and it can be dangerous. When you select your tools, you want products that can take a beating, and are sold and supported by people and companies who aren't amateurs. It takes money, sometimes a lot of it, to build and maintain a company like that. And it takes continuing money to keep it going. I'm just plain not going to be able to live for 10 years on the profit from a hardware sale when you built the plant.

I have avoided posting to this thread for a long time. It's just not worth the aggravation to try to defend my business and my career and my Company against guys who think that what I do has no value or "should be included".

I've got paying customers to pay attention to.

[JRW]

Ken,

Amen brother.

[bernie_carlton]

Here's an idea. If you control your whole plant with just relays, contactors, bellows timers and ratcheting wheel counters you wouldn't have to pay for software at all. Oh, and make sure to throw out all the informative monitors and SCADA computers. You don't want them messing up your non-software dream. Welcome to 1950.

[n_lev]

My 4+ year old Dell D610 has software that can program everything A-B has made from 1978 to 2010, and do it all under Windows XPSP2.

If you need to go older than ControlLogix v10, you can install one version prior to v10 on an XP box; I have v7 on mine. Anything older, I'll probably need to run a multiboot environment and run Windows 2000.
I can also recommend use of virtual machines.
Nature of my work requires to work with different PLCs, HMIs and SCADAs all the time. And all those packages sometimes are not very friendly to each other.
As a result I currently have about 10 different VMs and NOTHING on my base OS. Works a treat!

[pebhidecs]

I can also recommend use of virtual machines.
Nature of my work requires to work with different PLCs, HMIs and SCADAs all the time. And all those packages sometimes are not very friendly to each other.
As a result I currently have about 10 different VMs and NOTHING on my base OS. Works a treat!

Which, of course, takes a large chunk of resource just to contain the tools. This is the reason I am starting to get my colleagues interested in common tools that we can use across the site, which will deal with all the PLC flavours we have got. We are not standardised on one PLC make like some big outfits would be. We chose the best PLC for the task at the best possible cost.

A common toolset would allow the upper echelon of the design and development of new functions, maintenance of existing functions and allow a proper source-file VCS and problem tracking system to be deployed as part of the development process. The latter is often lacking in many PLC development packages and is sometimes difficult to graft in.

Plug-in modules to tools like Eclipse would give a very cross-platform multi-vendor capability which gives the developer a wide range of useful tools that assist for the entire design and development process, keeping evidential information secure and enabling full auditing capabilities to be integrated seamlessly into the overall environment. Although Eclipse started as a Java tool it has grown to include a wide range of programming languages, UML diagramming and a host of useful libraries of tools and techniques. Adding IEC61131 should not be too much of a problem and I am hoping to speak to our Eclipse expert next week to explore this thread further.

This sort of tool availability would actually ease the problems of the PLC hardware manufacturer as they would find it more useful to write and provide plug-ins that could be incorporated into Eclipse to allow their hardware to pick up whatever application it was required to run. Clients could find it easier to switch hardware supplier which improves the competitiveness of the manufacturers.

As someone stated yesterday, the big PLC makers might do well to consider this approach before the smaller guys throw in whole-heartedly and win out.

[harryting]

That sounds great in theory but is not going to happen in industrial control world.

Ask yourself one question, why do you still see 1980 era PLC in plants? The answer is part of the equation.

- It take 10+ years just to have a mini-USB standard for the fast changing world of Cell-phone and portable devices!

- You don't go upgrading your PLC just because a new faster one comes along.

- Process which requires validation and pass regulatory hurdle ...

[Paully's5.0]

Well said Ken!

I worked as "maintenance" for large manufacturing facility, and now I am with a Systems Integrator. There was a time where I too felt price gouged, and strangled because I didn't have the programming software to do my job, but as I have gained experience I appreciate the price tag that comes with a with it.

For small IO count, stand alone systems like the 24 point recently mentioned...hell find whatever is cheap and go with it, whatever it is controlling is certainly not that complex and if it does "down" costs are minimal. If needed it could be replaced down the road at minimal cost. It's very low-risk to experiment in that situation.

However, OEMs and SI's who have complex systems to develop and support certainly have to appreciate all the benefits that do come when paying for premium products such as AB. System downtime isn't an option, and if it happens the resultant costs make programming software look hellishly cheap. You pay for a reputable product you trust because your *** is on the line.

I've come to appreciate the indirect "Security" higher cost software provides (because of the extremely novice threads that appear on this forum, as well as extreme novice plant personal I encoutner). When I leave a site, and nobody can get online to make programming changes, helps me sleep at night. The minute I were to install a system critical PLC that has "free" programming software and the plant personal catch wind.....that's high risk for an SI, easy way to loss business when something wrong happens because someone got curious and made a change. That's an ugly battle to fight.

Also, the EXISTING install base of PLC's that require purchased software is huge, certainly anyone who is in the controls business understands that plant upgrades/retrofits need to be part of a business model, thus requiring the purchase of software. Sure you could re-design the existing PLC architecture and re-write the entire code using a PLC platform that provides "free" software, but at what cost in labor? Being able to reference/understand what is already in place at a facility prior to the upgrade has a rather large value, easily covers the cost of the software purchase.

[Homer_BL]

I do not pay for ANY automation software. Reason is this: with this software all you can do is program the hardware you already payed for. If you buy a car, car is ready to go, there is no need to pay anything else to be able to fill it with gasoline.
Omron is the best: PLCs have a standard RS-232 or USB ports, so you never need even an adapter.
Siemens is the worst: sometimes you need an rs232/PPI, sometimes usb/PPI, sometimes multimaster RS232/PPI, sometimes usb/MPI... For example, PC Adapter can be used to connect to S7-200, but not the first time, besause factory setting of ports is 9,600kbit/s, and PC adapter do not support this speed; you need usb/ppi cable to change port speed to use later pc adapter.. I think of this as a classic blackmail.. And to pay software then? No way!

[n_lev]

Agree with every Paully's5.0 (http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/member.php?u=16041) word.
I might be wrong but I'm under impression that the price of software is only an issue when people deal with small projects.
SIs that do projects with hundreds and thousands of I/O probably - completely different ball game

[pebhidecs]

Agree with every Paully's5.0 (http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/member.php?u=16041) word.
I might be wrong but I'm under impression that the price of software is only an issue when people deal with small projects.
SIs that do projects with hundreds and thousands of I/O probably - completely different ball game

When you are one site and have a massive I?O count then I agree that one supplier and buying in to his products might sound like a good thing. It would be nicer if the one supplier you are with had a consistency across all their product families so that you only had to buy one IDE from them. However, there are situations where the big plant has sub-systems that are a collection of smaller control projects and where a number of different teams have their favourite PLC family. In such an environment it seems crazy that there is as many differnt schemes for keeping track of the software as there are different PLC programming packages utilised to programme a wide mix of equipment.

All the above means is that you have to have familiarity with a very wide range of differnt PLC vendors products and that imposes an additional effort on the personnel looking after the systems. Cross-fertilisation of ideas is made more difficult and, in order to minimise the programming software licencing costs, it is sometimes necessary to use the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a peanut (as the "small brick" PLC module from a vendors family needs a different development software from the bigger unit). I have discovered this situation exists with the AB line. Their MicroLogix and their ControlLogix products require different programming software.

I think that the overall PLC market is about ready for a big shake-up.

[n_lev]

...where a number of different teams have their favourite PLC family.
Should I ever be an owner of the plant (probably never :-) ) ordering any control systems I would say that to the SIs that would work for me. "I don't care what is YOUR favourite PLC. You will deliver the system on the favourite platform OF MY MAINTENANCE" (Of course one of the big and good brands). Simply because after smartasses leave I'd be the one stuck with it and running it :-) And I'd want something widely spread, known to my electricians and engineers and with good support. And I would very much prefer same platform or at least same brand across all of my plant (to the extent where it is possible) as it will significantly lower my need in spares, training and downtime...
I have discovered this situation exists with the AB line. Their MicroLogix and their ControlLogix products require different programming software.

This is simply because the former is old and will be eventually replaced, wheres the latter is AB's future

[shirish_shrivastava]

I just want to say that their is no free lunches!!!!!!!!!!!!:
dance:

I buy the software because I can't program the PLC without it.
I pay the service fee to get "free" upgrades, phone support, and bug fixes (TANSTAAFL).

The old way was to buy a "Programming Terminal". Thank heavens no one does those anymore.

The usual spiel from the manufacturer is that the Hardware and Software Development Groups are two independant groups, and each are expected to be a profit center.

I can buy one programming package and program hundreds of PLCs with it. But the software development requires a bigger effort than the hardware (some of which hasn't changed in a decade).

And don't forget the body-blocks that Microsoft throws them - software that used to work, doesn't. But custonmers want it both ways - the lastest OS from MS, and software that works on it.

So I do see their point.

But you could always apply the Gilette business model ("Give away the razors - make money on the blades"). If I got RSLogix for free, I could only use it on AB PLCs. If I invest time making a program using it, I've committed myself to either discarding that investment of time (and money), or buy one of their PLCs.

So why doesn't someone try it? Shareholders. How would you justify giving away something that you used to sell?

[geniusintraining]

I do not pay for ANY automation software. Reason is this: with this software all you can do is program the hardware you already payed for. If you buy a car, car is ready to go, there is no need to pay anything else to be able to fill it with gasoline.


Has your car ever broke down? have you ever changed the tires? when you buy a car do you get a warranty?


Omron is the best: PLCs have a standard RS-232 or USB ports, so you never need even an adapter.


I sell about 10 different Omron cables



Siemens is the worst: sometimes you need an rs232/PPI, sometimes usb/PPI, sometimes multimaster RS232/PPI, sometimes usb/MPI... For example, PC Adapter can be used to connect to S7-200, but not the first time, besause factory setting of ports is 9,600kbit/s, and PC adapter do not support this speed; you need usb/ppi cable to change port speed to use later pc adapter..


Siemens has the one of the best supports around... and its free, you did not mention the 300's :)

Yes they do have a lot of cables....


I think of this as a classic blackmail.. And to pay software then? No way!

Long story short I do not agree :beerchug:

I just want to say that their is no free lunches!!!!!!!!!!!!:

Just got an email yesterday from my Siemens rep, they are giving away the Step 7 basic for the new line of PLC's (one copy per person at the event and free lunch :) ) if anyone is in SC and wants to go let me know I will have him send you the details

[jvdcande]

Just got an email yesterday from my Siemens rep, they are giving away the Step 7 basic for the new line of PLC's (one copy per person at the event and free lunch :) ) if anyone is in SC and wants to go let me know I will have him send you the detailsrotflmao Don't under estimate the Germans. They've already calculated that by giving you a free lunch you're going to do enough business with them to earn that lunch back many times. So in the end shirish_shrivastava gets his point: there are no free lunches. :lolis: But I do agree with you for the rest of the story.

As I see it, it is fairly simple. If you can do with a simpler system and free software: be happy about it. If you need a big system with all possible options and extensive support: pay for it. But in all cases: stop wining. And don't turn to piracy.

Kind regards,

[kamenges]

Originally posted by Homer BL:

I do not pay for ANY automation software.

That is incorrect. You (and everyone else, unfortunately) pay for the software with every component you buy from the company. Any given company will define an expected earnings level for a given year. Giving away software is a loss. So instead of giving it away they sprinkle the cost of software development across all their products. Just like the lights, taxes and building expenses.

As an OEM I think that is highly unfriendly. I am paying more for every component than I need to just so a single purchase end user can save some money. I would rather buy the software once and use it for 100 projects than pay for someone else's software because they bought a component once.

Keith

[Homer_BL]

Genuisintraining:
-my car is never broken, I'm driving Mercedes-Benz C-class, not Dodge :).
-'I sell about 10 different Omron cables ' - yes, but noone needs it to connect to PLC
-'Siemens has the one of the best supports around... ' - yes, but because they have most bugs in software and bad manuals
-'and it's free'? HAHAHAHA!

[Homer_BL]

Kamenges:
So, it software is already payed (calculated in components), when someone pay for software, he actualy pays for the second time? Buyer is an idiot?

[mer]

but if you'll look alot of automation companys are offering free software if you buy their product (click)just to name one im sure their is a long list of plc makers offering free software if you know of one post it ...........

[mer]

pico software is free!!!!!!!!!

[Steve Bailey]

I've said it numerous times. If you object to paying for programming software, there are several PLC vendors offering it for free.

The phenomenal growth in market share of those companies in recent years underscores the validity of that marketing strategy. A decade ago Companies like Horner and Entertron measured their market share in fractions of a percent and today....

[LadderLogic]

I'm driving Mercedes-Benz C-class, not Dodge :).


Should we assume the price difference between a Dodge and the Mercedes is the amount saved by using pirated software?

[kamenges]

Originally posted by Homer_BL:

So, it software is already payed (calculated in components), when someone pay for software, he actualy pays for the second time? Buyer is an idiot?

I don't think your translator did my post justice.

Companies that charge for software recover thier software costs and software profit from the sale of the software. Those that don't charge for software need to recover it through other methods.

Keith

[Homer_BL]

Should we assume the price difference between a Dodge and the Mercedes is the amount saved by using pirated software?


No, some money went for my beach house. With all that money I could buy an S-class, but I decided to build something for vacations :)

[PLC]

No, some money went for my beach house. With all that money I could buy an S-class, but I decided to build something for vacations :)



Do you mean build a bomb shelter in Bosnia?

[Homer_BL]

Let's go back to topic. When you buy a PLC, you pay for it. But, it is COMPLETELY UNUSEFULL without a software. So, you practicaly buy an UNUSEFULL thing, and you pay a LOT. It this correct from a PLC producer? They should not sell a PLC without software support included.

[Homer_BL]

Do you mean build a bomb shelter in Bosnia?

Oh, no; there is still an American Army ready to save our asses as they did many times during last wars :)

[PLC]

isnt a PC the same way?
The software I need is not on it either.

I think AutoCad should be free too. :)

I bought a car, the gas should be free also

[Homer_BL]

isnt a PC the same way?
The software I need is not on it either.

I think AutoCad should be free too. :)

I bought a car, the gas should be free also

When you buy a PC, you can browse internet, watch movie, listen to the musis (all included).
When you buy an AutoCAD, example, You turn your PC into work - like downloading application to PLC, but you got ALL YOU needed with PC, ready to install AutoCAD. But, You can not download application to PLC without a software.

PLC also need battery replacement, it's consumable, like a gasoline for a car.
But think about this: a new 'updated' gasoline is 'released' every 3 months; is it normal for You to go to service/mechanic EVERY TIME NEW GASOLINE IS RELEASED? And pay for it?

[cpmiller]

[quote=Homer_BL;369390]When you buy a PC, you can browse internet, watch movie, listen to the musis.

Only if it is a prepackage deal from a vendor. If you build your own out of parts(as we usually do in this industry) then you have to buy the OS and all the additional software that is rolled into the price of a package PC.

[TurpoUrpo]

When you buy a PC, you can browse internet, watch movie, listen to the musis (all included).


With free licesed os yes (you also need to have right to music etc. you are using). With Windows no.


When you buy an AutoCAD, example, You turn your PC into work - like downloading application to PLC, but you got ALL YOU needed with PC, ready to install AutoCAD. But, You can not download application to PLC without a software.


You have got it wrong, plc programming software is tool like screw driver is. plc programming software is used to use plc. Do you get free screwdrivers with screws? I dont think so.


PLC also need battery replacement, it's consumable, like a gasoline for a car.
But think about this: a new 'updated' gasoline is 'released' every 3 months; is it normal for You to go to service/mechanic EVERY TIME NEW GASOLINE IS RELEASED? And pay for it?

Most companys have free software updates, usually only major revisions cost. Sometimes its onetime bought licence then you get all future updates free. Some manufacturers do provide their sw licence with bought plc.

[Homer_BL]

No, I do not build PC form parts, I buy laptops with MS Windows preinstalled. Adding software on PC is like adding modules/cards to PLC, but you DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL SOFTWARE TO USE A PC!
See this: I worked before in traffic systems. To configure a SITRAFFIC C800 controller (intersection controller, price cca. 6000USD), you need software (VISSIM; P2; Sitraffic Control; Sitraffic service) worth 40.000USD. Is it OK, comparing prices of controller and software? How many controllers I need to configure before I start to make money? Life is too short. :)

[Homer_BL]

So, all of you who dissagree with me, uses ONLY licenced software?

[geniusintraining]

So, all of you who dissagree with me, uses ONLY licenced software?

Yes and sometimes its free :)

EDIT.... I also use demo versions :)

[TurpoUrpo]

No, I do not build PC form parts, I buy laptops with MS Windows preinstalled. Adding software on PC is like adding modules/cards to PLC,


Adding external hd, network card, ssd drive etc. is like adding modules to plc. Adding sw to pc is not same.


but you DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL SOFTWARE TO USE A PC!


No you need OS to use PC. When you bought your laptor with preinstalled Windows, YOU ALSO BOUGHT WINDOWS LICENCE!


See this: I worked before in traffic systems. To configure a SITRAFFIC C800 controller (intersection controller, price cca. 6000USD), you need software (VISSIM; P2; Sitraffic Control; Sitraffic service) worth 40.000USD. Is it OK, comparing prices of controller and software? How many controllers I need to configure before I start to make money? Life is too short. :)

Its their business model. It has nothing to do with you, or if its ok by you. If you cant make money doing it by law, Do something else.

[Homer_BL]

If you cant make money doing it by law, Do something else.

Yes, like a company Patria from Finland does. Only by law. :)

[TurpoUrpo]

Yes, like a company Patria from Finland does. Only by law. :)

And that has nothing to do with me, or this thread.

[Homer_BL]

And that has nothing to do with me, or this thread.

Like calling someone a criminal without proof, has nothing to do with good/nice manners.

[TurpoUrpo]

Like calling someone a criminal without proof, has nothing to do with good/nice manners.

You can PM me if you have something between your teeth. No need to **** on this thread.

[Homer_BL]

And that has nothing to do with me, or this thread.

And such word make You criminal :)
You see, it's a thin line between.. :)

[harryting]

...uses ONLY licenced software?I use only licensed software.

[Homer_BL]

I use only licensed software.


Let me put it this way:
How many of you ever bought a licenced PLC/HMI ssofware? Personaly?
It is one thing to use software that company (you work for) bought.

[Steve Bailey]

Let me put it this way:
How many of you ever bought a licenced PLC/HMI ssofware? Personaly?
It is one thing to use software that company (you work for) bought.
I don't see how that question is relevant given that we generally program PLCs or maintain them for our employers. If you're talking about using PLCs for personal projects, then by all means use a brand that gives away the programming software.

In my case, I am the only employee of my company. I only use licensed software. In some cases, I own the license. In other cases, my customer owns the license and I either use the customer's computer or transfer his license to my computer. When I have to purchase a license, every dollar my company spends on that license is a dollar that's not available to pay my salary. It doesn't make a lot of sense for me to maintain full function licenses for every brand of PLC so I have to pick a limited number and go after jobs where I can use them. If an opportunity arises where I bid on a job that specs a model for which I lack the license I have two options. I can add the cost of the license to the bid or I can decide to absorb the cost because I believe the license will be an asset that I can apply to future jobs. If I take the first option, I run the risk of being underbid by someone who already has a license for that model. If I take the second, I have reduced my profit margin on the job.

[harryting]

Let me put it this way:
How many of you ever bought a licenced PLC/HMI ssofware? Personaly?
It is one thing to use software that company (you work for) bought.How is it different? Enlighten us, does the licensing agreement exampt "personal" use? And why would someone buy PLC programming software for personal use anyway? Program your own garage door?

[Homer_BL]

Oh, it's easy to be 'galant' with someone's else money...

[robertkjonesjr]

And why would someone buy PLC programming software for personal use anyway? Program your own garage door?

Of course - haven't you? My family loves some of the automation stuff I've done. It doesn't save me money, but it makes the house more comfortable and the 'cool' :cool: factor is pretty high!

[Homer_BL]

As I expected to be... You just USE software that someone else bought (company), you are not buyers. From that position, it's not fair to tell anyone else what to do, buy or not..., or to judge anyone...

[TurpoUrpo]

Steve Bailey just told you, He is only worker in hes company, eg self-employed. He surely pays it from hes own pocket in sense that, its that much less he can pay for himself. Point being, he can be in business even tough he pays for the licences.

[n_lev]

As I see it, it is fairly simple. If you can do with a simpler system and free software: be happy about it. If you need a big system with all possible options and extensive support: pay for it. But in all cases: stop wining. And don't turn to piracy.

Kind regards,
Amen

[n_lev]

Let me put it this way:
How many of you ever bought a licenced PLC/HMI ssofware? Personaly?
It is one thing to use software that company (you work for) bought.
I don't program PLCs Personally
Only do it at work, so employer buys software

[n_lev]

It seems this discussion turned into socialism vs. capitalism war :-)

[Homer_BL]

n lev :)I hate fake moralism...Next they will say it that they have ONLY DVD-ROMs in their PCs, they NEVER burned CD, all mp3, avi, vob they have at disks, it ALL payed... :)

[dmroeder]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/carlos57775/SCobc6EL_hI/AAAAAAAABys/RG0y66Z3ZDY/s288/Don%27t%20feed%20the%20troll.jpg

[n_lev]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/carlos57775/SCobc6EL_hI/AAAAAAAABys/RG0y66Z3ZDY/s288/Don%27t%20feed%20the%20troll.jpg
It's fun sometimes :-)

[n_lev]

n lev :)I hate fake moralism...Next they will say it that they have ONLY DVD-ROMs in their PCs, they NEVER burned CD, all mp3, avi, vob they have at disks, it ALL payed... :)
I don't see how's that relevant...

[Homer_BL]

Try visiting an ocultist :)