Why does everyone hate Connected Components Workbench?

One specifically is a 'cookie cutter' panel and program. Some PLCs have had multiple faults while others work fine.

To me that sounds like a install/grounding issue, not the PLC, I have install/sold a few hundred (maybe 400) and never had a issue faulting
 
I called it the iTunes of Automation.

My shared opinion as well for this big clunky slow software. Take a look at rslogix 500 and CCW in the task manager process tab and see which one is worse...

Addressing to the real world IO isn't in any INT structure, comments on tags don't show up properly and the rest of the user interface leaves some to be desired. It kind of brings to mind the CLICK programming environment.

For the cost of the compactlogix L16 I'll convince the customer to have a hardware upgrade if it needs more than 16 in/16 out. Plus I've got boatloads of sample code already written that makes the end cost a bit more reasonable.
 
We've been using CCW and both the Micro800 / PV800 for smaller projects for a number of years now, having done at least 100 projects.

At the start it was very frustrating, but things started getting a lot better a few years ago with the software updates and introduction of key features like online edits.

Over all I think the platform and software is great, we've done some basic programs and also some very complex programs with high speed counters, analogs, PIDs, motion control, vision systems and all types of comm's from 232 serial, to Modbus TCP and even Ethernet open socket communications.

They are very flexible and affordable controllers.

My only gripe is the software is still quite slow to compile, download and push online edits. We can definitely program faster in Studio 5000.

I'm betting that this will improve in the next few revisions though, they've been focusing on features the last couple of years and I feel they're where they need to be in terms of feature set now, so hopefully they can start working on optimising the software.

I'd be happy to recommend this platform for smaller projects.

However if budget permits I would always say to go with the Logix platform.
 
Rockwell definitely has a policy to make sure that its low end offerings don't compete with their more expensive products. They generally do this by crippling the functionality. Products that are configured exclusively with CCW have this in spades. They also have the added bonus of CCW being incredibly slow and buggy.
 
My main issue is that it's a completely separate platform and it doesn't at all relate to their big brother (Studio5000).



Other companies will have one programming environment for their entire range of PLC's and limit the functionality based on what the processor is actually capable of doing.



Then there's the Rockwell representatives that tell you to download CCW instead of Studio5000 to get an understanding of Rockwell's offering in the PLC world.
 
i used the earlier releases and it was very clunky at best, it put me off forever.



i like the ABB AC500 range, full suite of software languages (no add on languages like rockwell) at no charge, no licensing (unless you want to use distribute I/O i think) so install on as many machines as you want. I/o is very well priced, embeaded java scripted HMI on board a LOT of bang for your buck. and it just works nicely.


oh and 3S CoDeSys programming interface.


anyone else use these?
 
I've used CCW since version 1. It has come a very long way, but still has flaws.

If you have used Allen Bradley processors in the past, and used CCW, there are many things to dislike. For example:

1. For some unknown reason, the comments don’t attach to the ladder. Yes, you have aliases, but you don’t have actual comments.
2. Even though you can alias, you can’t alias anything at the bit level (for example bit 3 of a DINT) which makes using INTS/DINTS useless for grouping bits together.
3. The timers use a special TIME variable for the values – which is kind of nice for programming. However, you have to convert the values if you plan on using anything in the HMI.
4. The actual timer tags are all local and not global. If you use a timer in one ladder rung, you can’t reference it in another unless you move the timer into another global timer tag. (I haven’t found a way to just use the global timer in a ladder yet – maybe someone has a suggestion)
5. No timer timing bit (but you can make your own if you want)
6. For some reason, the help ‘hover’ disappears after about ½ second. No human can read that fast.

There are other things I’m sure. This is just off the top of my head. They are making some efforts to bridge the gap and have started to include some logix-like features.
If you have worked with other software (such as Siemens, etc) then these probably don’t seem like limitations. However, since you are using an ALLEN BRADLEY processor, you would think it would follow their 500 / 5000 standards.

In order to make the processor ‘usable’ for my customers, I have to use global tags for everything. I use something like Q10_0 for the first bit of an output DINT. This means I have hundreds of tags, even for small projects. I use one ladder rung just to move all of the I/O into the new tags so you can look at the ladder and actually understand it. (By treating the alias like a comment)

I’m sure there are many features I’m not using properly. But it is what the plant guys understand. Because it has the Allen Bradley name on it, I have an easier time getting it accepted, and it is a perfect cost / feature ratio for the small machines we do.
 
Rson, I’m developing my first project with ccs and didn’t think about the timer values. How to you convert them to be changed by an HMI with like a mov instruction?

As far as the comments, do you mean you cannot make rung comments? I discovered by double clicking on the space above you symbol/instruction it opens a prompt above and you can type it in there. It doesn’t give you any indication by right clicking anything! It’s a left click in the space.
The TT bit is an annoyance but as you said there are work around and maybe a best user created sample code out there that includes it in the block.
 
Rung Comments you can make. It is the comments on each bit/instruction that you can't. I understand that since it is tag based, you can make descriptive tags, such as "MOTOR STARTER". However, whatever comment you put on the 'MOTOR STARTER" tag will not show in the ladder diagram.

For the timers, you don't use the mov instruction. There are conversion instructions to convert one variable to another and place them in a location. HMIs (at least that I've used) tend to only grab global tags, so I recommend naming it something like HMI_N1_0 or something to that effect (HMI - Numbers 1 - number 0) It makes filtering the global tags much easier. Then use the Alias as a comment - and since Aliases show up in the ladder you can understand it.

For timers, I typically use T10_0_PRE, T10_0_ACC, T10_0_DN etc. Like above, if you use the filter, you can find all the bits associated with timer 10.0
 
For a cheap little plc the software it’s fine. Takes getting used to, but if you can’t adapt to new things then you’re really not a very good controls guy.
 
3. The timers use a special TIME variable for the values – which is kind of nice for programming. However, you have to convert the values if you plan on using anything in the HMI.
Rockwell has some nice UDFBs in their sample code library to help with that

6. For some reason, the help ‘hover’ disappears after about ½ second. No human can read that fast.

that is a complaint of mine as well, ive actually had to resort to recording the screen with my cell phone and playing the video back and pausing it. Absolutely obnoxious feature of the software.
 
I know this post is old but just wanted to Add to Rson's Post.

In 2. Even though you can alias, you can’t alias anything at the bit level (for example bit 3 of a DINT) which makes using INTS/DINTS useless for grouping bits together.

It actually can be done and is very Odd, Only reason I knew how to do it in CCW was from Siemens TIA Portal. When an Int/Dint is created such as "Oneshot" I would reference that dint in a bit format as "Oneshot.%X0" For bit 0 and so on.

Just for everyones Information.
 
Since this is bumped, I found something I really like with the Micro 800 series and CCW. An array doesn’t have to start with [0]. You can make an array with dimensions [10..29,1..22] to correspond to addresses 1 through 22 in nodes 10 to 29.

I was excited to find I can use meaningful numbers and not have to ‘waste’ the words down to [0]. That’d be kinda cool if I could do that on ControlLogix.

I’ve been using V12 over a year and have had no stability problems.
 
I was excited to find I can use meaningful numbers and not have to ‘waste’ the words down to [0]. That’d be kinda cool if I could do that on ControlLogix.

I’ve been using V12 over a year and have had no stability problems.

I'm quite curious about this. Did you check that the program doesn't create these words rather than hide them from you but still use up memory?
 

Similar Topics

So, I'm really just trying to get some experience by practicing with arrays. I'm using studio 5000 v33. I have one rung with an XIC bit that's...
Replies
5
Views
156
I tried researching but I still don't quite get it. As far as I understood, it's used after a function is called in STL and then if the function...
Replies
1
Views
128
Today I was trying to install firmware update to new out of the box CompactLogix processor. CompactFLASH dialog box did not show any revisions...
Replies
10
Views
233
Hello Friends I am trying to connect to a Zebra printer. I can print the label with hyperterminal both by RS232 and TCP/IP. Now, I am trying to...
Replies
7
Views
228
My PLC (S7-1200) and HMI (KTP-1200 Basic) has been delivered on-site to the customer. To be able to do "off-line" updates to the code, I am using...
Replies
4
Views
199
Back
Top Bottom