S5 Functinoblock Question

Terry, it all depends on what you learned and what you are used to. For me (and most of the rest of the world), S5 and S7 are perfectly logical, and it's just a matter of understanding the language.

It's sort of like a foreign language: Until you learn it, it makes no sense.

As for the European way of looking at things, there is definitely something cutural there. From my experience, the Germans build machines that are mechanically almost perfect. They are mechanical marvels. But their software? God, I see some sloppy stuff that I could never get away with over here, and the machines require much more operator input and are less fault tolerant than an equivilent machine programmed here. Then again, I am not called in to look at machines that are running great, so I'm probably exposed only to the bad apples.

JIMCON said:

Ok do I have to create this DB ? Or is it created..

Click to expand...

Data blocks can be created and deleted at run time, or you create them and download them to the plc. The more usual case is that they are created as part of the project and downloaded to the plc. The DB's should exist in your Step 5 project and the S5 to S7 converter will generate the source code for the DB's as well.

Important note - if you look at my post giving the example of the convertor, you will see that Step 5 DW 1 translates to Step 7 DBW2.

How exactly are you doing the conversion ? I use the complete Step5 project as the input to the convertor. After resolving duplicate block names I perform the conversion which generates a large AWL file. I insert the AWL into my Step7 project (which contains no blocks initially) and then compile the AWL file. I then have to resolve each issue that will prevent successful compilation.

I use the coplete S5 project .AWL file. I import this source file into S7 and compiles it. but then I only get a source code file with STL code. it doesnt creates any DB´s or FB´s or FC´s ??? I have created the FC´s etc. by my self and then i copy the code in the source file into the FC´s and FB´s. Is this the wrong way of doing it ?

Terry

As S7Guy has said there is definitely a cultural influence involved, and it's no small thing. Despite being a small island off the West corner of Europe, I think some of the mentality of the automation/controls business in the UK is closer to the US than continental Europe. And the consequences are mixed ...

In the UK if someone at a dinner party says they are an 'engineer' chances are they'll get asked something at the level of "oh, can you do an oil change for me?" Engineering (of any description) is not seen as a high-status occupation. Nor is the full extent of engineering appreciated. A similar admission to being a medical doctor would probably result in a follow-up question about what kind of doctor they were - surgeon, neurologist, paediatrician, etc. Few people are aware of civil, mechanical, structural, process, software etc as different engineering topics. An engineer is just an engineer. If there's any status to be had you'll probably find it grabbed by architects, so-called 'designers', etc. On the other hand a lot of PLC people have no formal training in the topic - they just kind of drifted in to it as the industry changed around them. Their background may have been electrical, mechanical, or just about anything. I include myself in this category. I don't know if this applies to the US or not?

Compare and contrast this with say, Germany or Italy. There you'll find people whose business cards include the title 'Ing.' (short for Ingenieur) just like you would have 'Dr.' or 'Prof.' So Ing. Schmidt has a far higher status and will in all probablility have had tertiary education in a specific engineering discipline. As a result German software tends to assume a far higher level of knowledge or competence on the part of the user or maintainer. The issue that S7Guy makes about "...more operator input and are less fault tolerant ..." is probably because the original designer only worked on the basis of a perfectly-defined system. Conceptually he/she probably can't stretch their thinking to consider the consequences of badly engineered or worn parts, or operators who make errors, or the unsaid or unwritten what-ifs that form part of everyone else's thinking.

There's no doubt that when you assess S5-speak these days it's not just a foreign language, it's like the mediaeval precursor of a foreign language! I got to know S7 before I got to know S5 (yes, I know that's kind of backwards) and I stumble over it as well. And yet, I have to accept that things like S5 had proper structured programming 30 years ago when the American stars like Allen-Bradley, TI etc produced yards and yards of wallpaper-roll code - you just kept unwinding it and finding new things added on at the end.

I suppose as we all get older things change and never for the better. "Give me back the PLC I learned on", we all cry, "I understood that one."

Regards

Ken

JIMCON said:

I use the coplete S5 project .AWL file. I import this source file into S7 and compiles it. but then I only get a source code file with STL code. it doesnt creates any DB´s or FB´s or FC´s ??? I have created the FC´s etc. by my self and then i copy the code in the source file into the FC´s and FB´s. Is this the wrong way of doing it ?

Click to expand...

When you compile the source code, there is an error window at the bottom of the window. You may need to drag this up so you can view the contents. This section will show you the errors in the compilation.

Terry, this could be clobalisation. It works as well here. Some bigger buy some smaller, exploits their know how, switch light off and close the door of smaller company.

Seppo...

Were you drinking some Finlandian beer?

I have no idea what you were trying to say.

And what the hell does "clobalisation" mean?

Coud it be that you mean "globalization"?

Even still, what does your post mean?

Well, dammit, isn't this just the kind of cultural problem I referred to?

Come on Terry, I could tell what Seppo was talking about! Is that because he and I share some common European genes and thought processes?

The issue of spelling "clobalisation" was pretty minor - let's face it, we've seen a lot worse (and I mean a lot worse) in this forum from some of the tired, poor, huddled masses on your side of the pond.

And Seppo's message was exactly in line with your thinking about how Siemens have treated the TI acquisition. They've bought the business, took the bits they wanted, and shut down the rest (and the whole issue of globalisation is not to blame Siemens themselves - let's face it, the proud American company TI were pretty happy to accept that big bundle of Deutschmarks all these years ago.) It happens everywhere in every industry. I do believe some American companies might even be involved in it now and again.

We've got to keep lines of communication like this open, Terry. Otherwise who knows where a forum like this would end up.

Regards

Ken

Hmmm... I wonder how that happened?

When I opened the thread by First New Post it went right to Seppo's post. I wasn't aware of the responses between my original post and Seppo's post.

Now that I've gone back and seen those posts... Seppo's post makes sense. So, Seppo... nevermind!

With respect to the comments about the software...

Looking at S5 coding always reminded me of the difference between TI Calculators and HP Calulators.

The TI Calculator "spoke" English (or your chosen human-language). I say "English" in that entering "2 + 3 =", in that order, will produce a result of "5". You can read this, out loud, as you are entering it, and it sounds just like you are speaking to another human-being. That is, of course, unless your language happens to be Reverse Polish Notation (RPN).

The HP Calculator "spoke" RPN... not exactly "English".
Something like... "2 Enter", "3 Enter", ADD or "+"... it's been too long since I turned my back on RPN... at least in terms of calculators. I do recognize that PLCs require somewhat RPN-type thinking for preparing data for manipulation. However, once prepared, any decent PLC will then allow you to "ADD this-to-that and put the result here." ...much like human-speak.

The point is that TI went out of their way to make their calculator "intuitive". The HP folks apparently said... "Hey, it's a computer, a machine... so let's all learn to speak like a machine."

The difference between S7-2XX and S5 is very similar, in scale, to the difference between the TI and HP calculators.

However, there isn't much difference, if any, between S5 and S7-3XX or S7-4XX. About the only similarity between S7-2XX and S7-3XX, -4XX is that they are all brick-types.

In this day and age, there is no need for a compiler of any kind to require that programmers speak in machine language.

My attitude is, the more we can make machines learn English, rather than us learning machine-talk, the better the chance that the technology becomes available to the masses.

As I worked my way through the High-Tech World in Technical Writing, Customer Service, Field Service, Technical Support, and finally attaining an Engineering position, I always believed, and I still do believe, that the primary driving force in my career is to put myself out of my current job by creating and implementing a variety of tools that help to make what I do... transparent. There are always other things to move on to.

And, of course, in a field like this (Engineering), things are changing so fast that I'll never get to the point where I have to close the patent office 'cause it's all done... in a dynamic field, it's never done.

Terry

Message coming through loud and clear! And I agree with everything you said. All the TI stuff I ever came across was a model of what software gurus would nowadays call 'human-centred design'. Twist the machine to fit the user rather than the other way around.

There are too many companies today (and I don't just mean in the PLC world) who maintain a Procrustean approach to their products and users.

regards

Ken