Proficy ME 8.0 - same old, same old...

I have installed the latest Proficy ME 8.0. I'm surprised by the look of this software (reminds me of an old DOS software). I still don't get why when you close a project it will save it automatically, without asking if you want or not - unheard on any other software (there is an option to close project without saving...). Why a company like GE doesn't invest in having a truly Windows software in 2014? Just asking...
CoS

Here's my guess.

Most of the people learning PLC programming (at least here in North America) are learning it on Allen-Bradley PLCs. So there is more of a demand for Rockwell to make their software more Windows-like in functionality. In turn, this makes OEMs and service contractors like A-B more because there are more people available to program it and it's easier to use. I'm going to go out on a very short limb and say that RS Logix is THE most user-friendly PLC programming software on the market. I don't use Unity Pro but I've seen it and it might be a close second. But Proficy and GX-Developer-FX are ghastly when it comes to ease of use.

The consequence of this is that most of the guys who program GE were around the time when ALL PLCs were programmed with DOS-based software so it didn't matter all that much. So Proficy doesn't get a lot of complaints because the majority of the guys programming it are used to the DOS version anyway. In fact some of them still prefer using the DOS version. Mitsubishi software is the same way. Having to manually draw every single piece of a rung is ridiculous, but it hasn't changed in 20 years because the majority of the people using it now are the same people who were using the DOS software 20 years ago. The only reason it was ported to Windows in the first place is because you can't get laptops with DOS on them anymore.

When you ask for "truly Windows" software do you mean something that whenever a new version is released you have to relearn how to do everything you formerly knew how to do?

No, a drag and drop option on instructions already placed on the LL would be nice (without having to select the whole instruction plus the associated tags). Also, if you want to add a parallel branch, you will have to create space, the software doesn't do it to you (insert column/raw). If you move an instruction, you have to manually draw the wire... Many clicks before you can move something on the screen. And the fact the project is saved when you close Proficy ME without asking you kills me. I'm just curious if someone else finds this annoying.
CoS

If I were a betting man, I would say that it's a function of GE maintaining the ability for the software to convert original LogicDisaster/Versapro projects to Proficy ME. I would agree it's a shame they haven't improved upon the ladder editor (Granted the last version I've used was 5.5). It's virutally the same as it was in the LogicMaster days far as I could tell.

Once I started programming in AB, I've never missed GE.

Not a fan of GE here. IMHO its gotten progressively worse from the old dos programs, to versapro, complexity, and then proficy.

It is designed for those who know how to type, maybe not so good for mousers.
Get to know the mnemonics and type away, need only to stop and sip your coffee between breaths. This includes the expansion of rungs and columns.
Of course for those who think that every new package should be just like the last software they used it will leave a bit to be desired, but then most are except maybe the many CoDeSys derivatives.

And I loved DOS, don't go knocking it until you've tried it.

But let me give you a little advise when moving to a new PLC system.
Never think that it will work like anything you have ever used in the past instead look at its tools. Decide which ones you will need and learn their details.
Do a little research on how to use its desktop and online help.
I have taught dozens of people the basics of Proficy ME over the years and none have had any problems being productive programming with it. There are some programmers who know it and RS equally well who claim that PME is more productive and intuitve than RS.

YMMV

No, I have to agree with cstca, Proficy is a train wreck. Well, maybe not the train wreck that it once was...

Not as bad as VersaPro, and nowhere near as bad as LM90, but still no fun to use.

The shame of it all is that when LM6 came out GE had AB beat six ways to Sunday (remember having to use Updoc?, or whatever third party software you needed to document your ladder logic on a PLC2?).

LM6 didn't need overlays, third party software, or an industrial strength cassette player to store your programs, or a terminal that looked like a refugee from an early episode of Dr. Who.

I mean really, you could have done the same thing with a Timex Sinclair, a cassette recorder, and whatever Captain and Tennille tape that you didn't mind overwriting.

Not to mention that the hardware (the Series Six) was outstanding. Way faster than an AB, with an incredible amount of I/O that could be controlled by one PLC. We had one machine that had around 3,000 real-world I/O points on it, running at 70ms. Try that on a PLC5, let alone a PLC3 or PLC2. Good luck...

And cycling power on a Series Six to clear its faults was unheard of. You *still* can't say that of Rockwell. And faulting out your Series Six from some dumb programming error was practically impossible.

LM90 was basically LM6 for the 90/30 during a time in the industry where AB had caught up (some would say "bought up") and surpassed GE by bringing out a Windows-based environment. And to say that LM90 was LM6 for the 90/30, is really insulting to LM6. After all, LM6 worked...

LM90 was bad, way, way, bad. I complained to our in house GE people constantly, and all I ever heard from them was how LM90 cost 50 million to develop, and to get used to it.

And I suspect that AB took a look at what AutomationDirect was doing with their DirectSoft software and took the hint. They in no way led the industry in Windows-based programming software.

And to be fair, the early versions of Logix were buggy as all get out. But here is where AB and GE differ, AB fixed (most) of their bugs, and actively improved their software. GE's answer was to introduce VersaPro, which was Windows-based, but didn't follow the Microsoft GUI spec for user usability. Forcing us to do things in a non-Windows way is not going to score points with anyone.

Why would you force your users to learn a different paradigm? We expect a certain amount of intuitiveness within Windows, VersaPro and Proficy seem to go out of their way to make things unintuitive.

I can't say that this is the root cause of their problem, but I can say that I don't know of too many people that miss VersaPro. Nor do I run across too many fans of Proficy.

I will admit that ME has its faults and as far as Windows software AB has the edge.
But as far as PLC structure.....AB is horrific to me. To much file structure. N, F, B.....and so on.
It is a lot easier to understand that an "M" bit is a memory bit....but "B"? Plus in GE you can force anything including memory bits.
An " R " is far easier to understand as a register bit than N or F.
Sequentially numbering of bits in GE PLCs is far easier to follow than using decimal with all the backslashes and colons.

RussB said:

It is designed for those who know how to type, maybe not so good for mousers.
Get to know the mnemonics and type away, need only to stop and sip your coffee between breaths. This includes the expansion of rungs and columns.

Click to expand...

But the mistake GE is making is ignoring the fact that another generation of programmers is out there who grew up using a mouse. Don't get me wrong, people who are true programmers will use the all the keyboard commands at their disposal and become expert at the mnemonics however not all PLC programmers are programmers at heart (what maintenance tech is going to remember it all??) and will rely on the mouse/keyboard combo more often than just keyboard strokes. At least with AB you can pretty much use both methods efficiently. Double-clicking an instruction to configure it is pretty quick. Compare an MSG instruction from AB and an Comm_Req instruction of GE. The Comm_Req configuration is not intuitive at all to program (Maybe that is a poor comparison, as I mentioned before it's been a few years for me).

Is the ladder editor still limited to 10 columns(I think that is what it was)? In this age of wide-screen high resolution monitors it has to be as much of a hassle as working on an InTouch application with a low-resolution.

Again, I think it's all built on the original MS-DOS based software and they are at a brick wall. An over-haul means you probably lose that nice ability to port old projects to the new software. No doubt people will be upset when that happens.

NetNathan said:

I will admit that ME has its faults and as far as Windows software AB has the edge.
But as far as PLC structure.....AB is horrific to me. To much file structure. N, F, B.....and so on.
It is a lot easier to understand that an "M" bit is a memory bit....but "B"? Plus in GE you can force anything including memory bits.
An " R " is far easier to understand as a register bit than N or F.
Sequentially numbering of bits in GE PLCs is far easier to follow than using decimal with all the backslashes and colons.

Click to expand...

I disagree. You have to use a % as a prefix for everything. %Q = Outputs? Only makes sense because an O and 0 would be harder to decrypt visually..%O00001 versus %Q00001. At least with AB the structure has obvious meaning:

B = Bits
I = Input
N = iNteger
F = Float
T = Timer
C = Counter
O = Output

How do you organize %R memory locations when they can be used for INTS, DINTS, REALS, TIMERS, COUNTERS? Especially when you consider that it all depends on what you use it for as it may require 1, 2 or 3 sequential registers? If you fudge up, you can easily overlap. Compare a timer instruction, AB by default has .Preset, .Accumulated, .Timer-Timing Bit, .Done Bit, .Enable bit (and its obvious!) for GE you have 3 Registers, and you have to remember the order to know which is the preset and which is the accumulated then you need to manually program equivalent TT, DN and EN bits (if you need them) and assign a completely unrelated %M bit to each.

Comparing memory schemes "now" is pretty much a wast of time as everything is moving towards a tag-based system, it doesn't matter. I left the GE world right as the RX systems where making headway, and I believe they added a tag-based system for those processors but I'm not that familiar with it. IIRC it was more of an "alias" system as the %M, %R, %I, %Q...memory structure still technically existed?

Anyway, having to organize your memory based on any structure is 10yrs in the past. Now-a-days make whatever structure you can imagine.

EDIT: I will say, I always like the overall programming environment of Proficy, just cringed when I had to use the ladder editor.

You make some valid points. I guess it is because I grew up on GE PLCs and only occasionally did AB, Honeywell HC900, Modicon, Siemans.....etc in that order.
Now I find myself doing more AB and Honeywell HC 900, then GE followed by others.
I like the power of ControlLogix and CompactLogix is pretty strong. and RSLogix 5000 is pretty easy programming environment to get around in.

I am pretty sure the RX3i and RX7i support tag names. Isn't that standard on a PAC controller?
I have done about 5 RX3i systems but they all involved conversions from LM90, and that went very smoothly. The RX3i is a nice PLC, and almost all the 90-30 I/O modules are compatible.