FTVIew Studio for ME 6.1 security headache

Howdy all,
OK FTView Studio ME 6.1, Upload program from PanelView Plus 6 in 5.1, convert to 6.1, make changes, create user accounts with Factory Talk for security (make same accounts that were in there but do not upload), Save the file as 5.1 runtime, load back into same panelview plus 6 and the security does not work. I can log in but do not have security access as expected. Its as if I never logged in. All security codes have been checked for the users but can not access any of the set up objects.
Any ideas?
I suppose I should add that I also have the latest Factory Talk Directory installed to load 6.1 and this prevents the restoring of the factory talk directory from the 5.1 conversion. Why oh why is Factory Talk never backwards compatible???????
I fear I need to remove Factory Talk and FTView, Reload the last version and then restore the existing FT directory from the uploaded file in order to make a change on an older version of PanelView Plus program.
Any one out there know of an easier way to do this?

I can't understand why you are attempting to run and maintain a FTView 5.10 application inside a runtime and editing environment that supports the newest 6.10 releases. Do you also have to run this same application on terminals that aren't PV+6 ?

I had an issue with similar symptoms, though not the same hopscotching between revisions, a couple of weeks ago. All my configuration looked fine, and I was able to log in on the Development PC correctly, but not on the PV+ terminal itself.

My fix was to manually add all my Users to the Administrator group, the remove them. Somehow that re-set something in FactoryTalk or the Registry or elsewhere.

Well... the existing panelview plus programming was done in 5.1. I have installed on my machine 6.1 and have been developing SE as well as ME in 6.1. When I encounter an earlier version than 6.1, the Factory Talk Directory will not restore because the version needed for 6.1 gets in the way. This is very frustrating. I have not encountered this in earlier versions. Security was a bit simpler in the days of old (before 4.0)
I did, by the way, try as you did by just recreating the user accounts and they appear to be working on the terminal once re-loaded in 5.1 runtime but I have no access when logged in.
I fear there may have been some macro that writes to one of the PAC tags to enable security once logged on but the behavior does not resemble this and I can find no other reference to any such tag in the PAC. But alas, when I restore the runtime 5.1 version and open the development file in 6.1 the security user accounts do not view correctly because I can not restore the Factory Talk Directory for this file due to the new version of Factory Talk Platform. I'm probably grasping at straws and overthinking it with this thought but I'm getting frustrated.

Since you have re-created all the user accounts and verified the security codes are all present and accounted for then I would say a missing macro is a very real possibility. Do you have any macros that show up blank when you open them in studio? If so, and you don't have an .apa file instead of a .mer, then you may need to look at the same macro in an earlier version of the application, if possible.

When you say that you don't have access to some objects, are you saying you get a security warning when you click/touch secure objects, or certain objects aren't visible? Is it possible the PLC is supposed to call certain screens, rather than a security level being met?

I won't be near a development cpu for the rest of the weekend, but if you can post the .mer file and/or the plc program, we may be able to sort out your problem. Even some screenshots of the error messages you're getting, and the object properties of what you're unable to access at runtime would go a long way.

Thanks all for lookin'.
I found the bit, wrote a macro and it works. Now it's time for a beer or three.

ltfordnr said:

Thanks all for lookin'.
I found the bit, wrote a macro and it works. Now it's time for a beer or three.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear you got it working. I'm curious to know more about what the bit was you found, and what kind of macro you had to write to fix it. Care to elaborate a little? Enquiring minds want to know