+ or - for Logix5000?

Rob D. · May 22, 2002

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

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

Any comments/inputs are welcome!

Peter Nachtwey · May 24, 2002

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

I like

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

What I don't like

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

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

JDW · May 24, 2002

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

akreel · May 24, 2002

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

DON'T GET ME STARTED! banghead

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

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

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

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

AK

rsdoran · May 24, 2002

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

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

93lt1 · May 25, 2002

Re: Re: + or - for Logix5000?

akreel said:
DON'T GET ME STARTED! banghead

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

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

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

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

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

AK

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

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

akreel · May 29, 2002

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

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

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

AK

akreel · May 29, 2002

Re: Re: Re: + or - for Logix5000?

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

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

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

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

AK

Ken Roach · May 29, 2002

The Demo Fairy

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

www.software.rockwell.com/forum

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

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

Eric Nelson · May 29, 2002

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

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

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

-Eric

P.S. AK, how 'bout this one?

rsdoran · May 30, 2002

Well Ken reckon our debate/disastification is on again.

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

YOU are the exceptions in most cases.

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

I appreciate that.

Ken Roach · May 30, 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

akreel · May 30, 2002

Eric Nelson said:
P.S. AK, how 'bout this one?

YES!!!! That's it!

jvdcande · Jun 11, 2002

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

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

Why the need for non-deterministic behaviour?

Ken Roach · Jun 11, 2002

Watch those decimal places

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

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

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

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

+ or - for Logix5000?

Rob D.

Member

Peter Nachtwey

Member

JDW

Member

akreel

Member

rsdoran

Lifetime Supporting Member

93lt1

Member

akreel

Member

akreel

Member

Ken Roach

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

Eric Nelson

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

rsdoran

Lifetime Supporting Member

Ken Roach

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

akreel

Member

jvdcande

Member

Ken Roach

Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator

Similar Topics