hidden tags in predefined data-types

In RSL5K, I've concluded that the PID_ENHANCED data-type holds errors under hidden tags from previous executions of a PIDE instruction (... PV-Sp errors that is). I'd like to expose those hidden tags, or at least be able to move values to/from them. Is there any way to export them, or make them visible/accessible?

The reason being... I'm trying to "multiplex" 28 controls under a single PID_ENHANCED data-type and single PIDE instruction.

I'm trying to "multiplex" 28 controls under a single PID_ENHANCED data-type and single PIDE instruction.

Click to expand...

The PIDE and its associated control block are designed, tested, advertised, and supported to be used with a single instance of the control block per instance of the instruction.

While you might have an enjoyable science project going on investigating the inner workings of the Logix OS and its instruction set, from a practical standpoint you should abandon it and use the instruction as it is designed.

Ken Roach said:

The PIDE and its associated control block are designed, tested, advertised...

Click to expand...

Not so much "advertised" or I wouldn't be asking. ;-)

Ken Roach said:

While you might have an enjoyable science project going on investigating the inner workings of the Logix OS and its instruction set, from a practical standpoint you should abandon it and use the instruction as it is designed.

Click to expand...

That's a nice recommendation, but you're not answering my question. I can successfully multiplex it as long as I set my P & D gains to 0, eliminating the need to accommodate previous PIDE error. Of course, that's unacceptable... hence my question.

Sometimes you have to be impractical to achieve efficiency. As Gene Kranz said from Apollo 13: "I don't care about what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do."

You are correct that I am not answering your question, but rather arguing against its pursuit.

I have attempted to do similar things, and encountered similar problems, and chose to abandon the process in favor or a more practical and less efficient approach.

Forgive me if I sounded cross or gruff; I don't know you or your application and am probably reading in some history and subtext that is not present.

Good luck with your project !