OT: Are control systems stuck in the 90s

LadderLogic said:

That would be nice if only the software for variable-based programming supported some features that help entering variable names, like in-place search upon the first few characters typed and such. Most if not all of it would not even correct the variable case to match what was declared!

At some point memorizing the hard-coded addresses is easier if you choose them smartly.

Click to expand...

Again part of being stuck in the 90s. Most all modern IDEs for computer programming has correctly working autocomplete etc.

Just trying to make it a few more years.....
Personally my company keep my free time filled going back to legacy systems that have "features" that never worked properly.
Like redundant PLC5-80E
Redundant Cimplicity servers.

I feel that I have done my job when the operators really don't have much to do.
Techs either.

Simple, robust, easy to troubleshoot.

Now when I retire those same techs that don't have the time to learn the system and study how everything works together might have just a little problem when something does fail.......

It isn't the technology. There is much more capability now than in the 1990s. It is how it is implemented. I find most PLC IDEs painful to use. PLCs still don't have very good debugging capability.

But PLCs and communications networks are much faster. They can transmit much more data.

If you think about it a PLC provides 98% of the program and I/O configuration. That is why PLCs cost so much. The hardware isn't that expensive.

Most new PLC hardware is expected to be available for 20 yrs. So many SLC and GE 90-30 still going strong never mind PLC5 etc. Because of the longevity it means the software is slow to evolve but FBD and SCL etc have been around a long time to supplement ladder

Epy said:

Most all modern IDEs for computer programming has correctly working autocomplete etc.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe. Not TwinCAT though.

In the 90s, I was still dealing with a system with one line of FORTRAN code ON EACH PUNCH CARD and graphic that doesn't update unless the operator press <refresh>. I was also wearing a pager and none of those fancy flip-phone for me.

I say we came a long way.

JesperMP said:

The other big thing is "reusable code". This is a huge timesaver for me, and again also cuts down on typing errors that occur when you do the tedious copy-paste-then-modify of coding in the old way without reusable code.

As for the HMI programming, I think that not much has happened in the last many years. Something has become better, but not much. I miss a really simple (I stress the "simple" bit) "reusable graphic objects" system, similar to the coding of function blocks with instances.

Respect from here.

Click to expand...

I agree with you Jesper,

For me when developing standards i consider two things engineering and operation. As much as we develop the interface for the end user and controller, we also have a responsibility to the engineers/technicians that will be maintaining the code. Re-usability cuts dramatically on engineering on follow up development projects as function block and objects are trialed and tested. It makes rolling out simple and straight forward.

Pireciter said:

I think the newer folks will slip into working with the technology easier than the folks who were around when it first came out. Since they have been exposed to it all their life, it may come more naturally. They just need to be careful not to rush through things and still apply those critical thinking skills.

Pi

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, one of the many challenges we have with younger engineers /software programmers is for them to comprehend the potential impact of the equipment that they are programming for. Another aspect is support and they need to understand one of the many hats that were mentioned earlier might have to support their source code.

As SCADA software have become more integrated with various add ins and active x controls and so and so forth, i find parts of my application developed by youngsters that have no idea what we are doing on site, they add tremendous value and give the application a fresh look with excellent functionality.

Before i engage them on any project i try and do a site trip and let them see the equipment run , let them meet the support guys so they can understand the complete concept a bit better.

Although i am a fan of keeping an application simple there are too many limitations in most software packages and the value they add overall is massive.

Pireciter said:

I think the newer folks will slip into working with the technology easier than the folks who were around when it first came out.

Click to expand...

This old phart is still making the technology you kiddies will be using for the next 10-20 years.

Only those with retired brains will have difficulty.

Since they have been exposed to it all their life, it may come more naturally.

Click to expand...

What? The technology wasn't as advanced but the old guys have experience. They know what works and what doesn't. ( unless their brain is retired ).

Another thing to consider is the reliability of the control system you are installing.
Think about how long that cell phone or that home automation system lasts before you have to call tech support. Now, how long does that PLC last?

Click to expand...

Old technology is very reliable. There are a couple of things that I see that have hurt reliability.
1 ROHS
2 Surface mount devices with ever smaller gaps between runs.
3. Smaller or denser chip technology.
4. The market changes faster. There is huge pressure to get new products out the door quickly

Solder whiskers or bridges are a huge problem. Solder whiskers grow over time.
The gaps between runs on a circuit board are closer now. It is too easy to get shorts between runs.
We have had problems with memory chips from different manufacturers. The chips and boards pass burn in and test but fail after 3-5 years because the someone wanted to use a smaller or denser technology and the insolating silicon between vital areas break down.
Look at the latest Samsung Note 7.
Mitsubishi GX Developer 3 is not ready for prime time either.

I'd rather have the RIGHT data than MORE data. I think more effort needs to be made to really determine what data is required before polling every parameter under the sun just because you can.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is important to get the right data and know how to make use of it.

It's the "magic box" effect. Back in the day, you got a blaring siren and a pilot light on a big alarm panel telling you where the problem is. You called maintenance or fixed it yourself. Now you may still have the siren, but your alarm panel is on that flashy HMI screen. Gotta call the person with the "magic box" because it must be a program issue, never mind the timing belt on the floor or the "factory smoke".

Click to expand...

This is a training or ignorance problem. It is not a technology problem.
I understand that PLCs or motion controllers can fail but most of the time it is a human failure that is the problem. I see way too many times that people blame the PLC or motion controller just because it is there. It really p!$$e$ me off that people think their one of a kind machine is perfect and a product that is sold many thousands or 10s of thousands of time doing the same job is flawed.
People are the number 1 problem.

Plus, I think it ties back to "Big Data". You got 40 million parameters that you are told to poll every second and not only record it, but alarm if any one of them wanders out of a safe zone. When only 10 of them are process critical and/or a true alarm...

Click to expand...

Again, this is not a technology problem. I think it is great that so much data is available to be captured but I also agree that many have unrealistic requirements.

Our experience is MUCH different. We provide the ability to record lots of data a 1 millisecond or faster rates yet often we get tech support calls and they say "its broke" but can't describe how or often can't describe accurately because what they think they are seeing isn't what is really happening. Yet they are too lazy or don't know they have a tool that can record the motion and send it too us or we can even use Team Viewer or Goto Meeting to see directly our selves. I prefer seeing directly ourselves because then we don't need to rely on the customer's interpretation of what is happening. When debugging, data is good.

PLCs do need to improve their debugging capabilities. What do you do when there is a serious problem that only shows itself every 3 or 4 days? How do you capture the event with a PLC? This is a serious deficiency.

Reliabilty has already been named here in this thread. Clients often asks for 20+ years of operation in a plant, you cant go around changing the control system every 2-3 years - as one would if compared to usual private consumer cycles.
We need reliable technology that has been well tested. Just look at how many Siemens S5 that are still pushing on nearing 30 years of operation.

For HMI/SCADA we should not forget the simple truth that they are made and developed to replace panels. Boring panels with buttons and dials dont need flashy HTML5/JS/Material design/Metro UI/whatever to replace them.
The more we will complicate things, the more complicated the trouble shooting will become when **** hits the fan.

I say, if it aint broken - dont fix it.

ojz0r said:

For HMI/SCADA we should not forget the simple truth that they are made and developed to replace panels. Boring panels with buttons and dials dont need flashy HTML5/JS/Material design/Metro UI/whatever to replace them.

Click to expand...

This mindset is what keeps control systems feeling like they are "stuck in the 90s". You can make the argument that basic HMIs replace buttons on panels, but saying that for SCADA systems....I don't think so.

There are way more machines with a basic HMI then there are SCADA systems. Those basic HMIs out number SCADA systems something like 10:1 and they have evolved in very different ways.

ojz0r said:

For HMI/SCADA we should not forget the simple truth that they are made and developed to replace panels. Boring panels with buttons and dials dont need flashy HTML5/JS/Material design/Metro UI/whatever to replace them.
The more we will complicate things, the more complicated the trouble shooting will become when **** hits the fan.

Click to expand...

HMIs are being used by machine builders where time and cost matters a lot. And they rarely have a full-time HMI person; Paully's list of "hats" he gets done before lunchtime.
It's easy to see why HMI screens haven't changed much in 15 years; we can't afford the costs to do a lot better.

Paully's5.0 said:

This mindset is what keeps control systems feeling like they are "stuck in the 90s". You can make the argument that basic HMIs replace buttons on panels, but saying that for SCADA systems....I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that new SCADA systems are getting a lot more advanced. But those companies have time + money for it.
A better control system makes them more money.

Are you talking about 1890 s

Just shows the advances.

In the 1890s, Morse code began to be used extensively for early
radio communication, before it was possible to transmit voice.

Peter Nachtwey said:

PLCs do need to improve their debugging capabilities. What do you do when there is a serious problem that only shows itself every 3 or 4 days? How do you capture the event with a PLC? This is a serious deficiency.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said, but PLCs ARE getting better.

For example, the S7-1500 can have delayed trigger traces (wait until trigger occurs, then display x amount of time before, Y amount after, and data can be recorded at the update rate of any OB, which could be 1ms or less). These are configured and viewed in the programming software, but executed in the PLC, and then you only need to bring the PC out afterwards to upload the data.

Paully's5.0 said:

I am always amazed when someone says PLCs aren't "modern" nor SCADA graphics...

Not sure what platform you are using, but a ControlLogix PLC gives you a whole bunch of "Modern" features, far from the 80's or 90's that's for sure.
-

Click to expand...

Agreed! Just take a look at the new AB L8X series. Quad core processors with built-in gigabit Ethernet. Far from archaic.