I was wondering what Beckhoff would do with the end of Windows CE support. I guess that is the answer.
Siemens does something similar, but changing to a Linux distro instead.
Beckhoff vs. Allen Bradley... who is better?
- Thread starter lunenburger
- Start date
Siemens does something similar, but changing to a Linux distro instead.
geniusintraining
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
LadderLogic
Member
I always thought that in systems like Beckhoff, Windows is just a shell while the runtime is a real-time core running with a higher priority and it would stay running even if Windows crashes to blue screen?
TurpoUrpo
Lifetime Supporting Member
No its not separate.
Does anyone know how the current Siemens soft plc's have been realised? I think the WinAC or something like that was the same as beckhoff. Crash the windows, crash the plc. Does AB have something similar?
I like beckhoff mainly because of the programming side and the io side, the plc itself has some quirks you need to take account into because of the IPC nature.
Does anyone know how the current Siemens soft plc's have been realised? I think the WinAC or something like that was the same as beckhoff. Crash the windows, crash the plc. Does AB have something similar?
I like beckhoff mainly because of the programming side and the io side, the plc itself has some quirks you need to take account into because of the IPC nature.
This will be a little off-track because of its not a compression of Beckhoff Vs AB. I have done countless of projects with the Siemens ET200SP PC Soft Controller CPU.
As for Windows being separated from the soft controller itself, Siemens uses a supervision system called, Hypervisor in their ET200SP PC Controller. The old controller used W7 while the new one runs on IoT W10.
What happens to the CPU if the Windows Crash?
The CPU will continue to run.
If you would like to know more about the Open Controller Just send me a PM and I will answer all your questions
//V
What happens to the CPU if the Windows Crash?
The CPU will continue to run.
In addition, if you reboot Windows, the PLC keeps going, too. The PLC doesn't stop unless you actually shutdown windows.
the hypervisor coordinates the cpu usage. 1 core is dedicted to the linux with 1505s open controller 'plc'. the remaining cores are ssigned to windows.
linux with the 1505s open controller continues.
no. start a new thread. dont keep things secret.
winac was the previous generation soft plc. it runs under windows with socalled 'runtime extensions' which ensure that the plc runs even if it has a bluescreen.
the current siemens soft plc is the open controller which runs under linux.
they used to have something called softlogix.
kolyur
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
It's a toy because it runs Windows? The Beckhoff controllers I have used over the past 5+ years run Windows 7 Embedded. This is not the home version that people associate with blue-screen-of-death and buggy Windows updates. It has all the bloat removed and is optimized for stability, provided that you don't put it on the Internet and load it up with junk. We have a number of machines that have been running 16 hrs per day, 6 days per week for years with zero software issues. Admittedly I don't have experience with the Windows 10 runtime but it is actually Win 10 IOT which is (I'm told) comparable to 7 Embedded.
In 5+ years of use (TC 3.1), this has never happened to me. Can you share which Beckhoff controller and version of TC you are using? Please tell me you aren't putting TwinCAT runtime on some dumpy old laptop and then comparing the performance to a $10k AB controller.
I've been told that TC 3.0 (first release of the Visual Studio version) was quite buggy. I didn't start using it until 3.1 and have found it to be extremely stable in both runtime and development. Definitely fewer crashes on my system than Studio 5000 in the same period. I'll admit that Visual Studio is a bit bloated but no worse than 5000. Care to elaborate on the "huge bugs" you refer to?
That may be true, and I'm not aware of AB's capability in this regard, but just the idea of multiple users being online and doing edits at the same time seems fraught with problems. If one user makes a change, the others would have to see that reflected immediately on their systems to prevent discrepancies. And what if another user is simultaneously working on changes in the same area... is 5000 able to handle all of this? If so, color me impressed. A few Beckhoff features I like that I believe AB is missing: (1) You can download code without overwriting your persistent variables, and (2) you can go online without having to download code changes--useful if you're in the middle of making offline changes and the tech across the room yells at you to force on an output.
That is totally untrue. I happen to be using a Red Lion HMI speaking Modbus TCP to a Beckhoff CX and it works flawlessly. Adding more units would be easy. Beckhoff also released their own HMI addon which is HTML-based and designed to work with multiple clients.
Well I haven't worked with the devices you mention but I see nothing "ludicrous" about byte-based addressing. Memory can be addressed as bytes, words, or longs, just like any other IEC61131-based controller.
You haven't provided anything to support that statement. Every brand of PLC has its pros and cons. To quote Steve Bailey, "none of these companies would remain in business long if they didn't make decent products." My latest Beckhoff project has 15 axes of fully integrated motion and the scan time of the entire program is 0.25 milliseconds. Yes it could have been done with a ControlLogix but it would have cost a lot more and in my opinion wouldn't be near as flexible. However, I'd give AB the upper hand when it comes to having more polished documentation, a better programming environment (if you're into ladder), and more support channels due to its ubiquity.
TurpoUrpo
Lifetime Supporting Member
LadderLogic
Member
They say on the site for Q4/2020, so I would say soonest Q2/2021
That is soooo Beckhoff ))) And COVID will not make it easier.
CapinWinky
Member
This is an interesting capability and I think people don't appreciate how good and terrible this feature is at the same time and how different platforms approach this capability.
First, let me address the Rockwell implementation, which is that multiple people can connect to the same PLC in run mode and make online edits at the same time without any interaction or confirmation from each other. There is no notification about what others are changing, you are completely blind to it. If anyone goes offline, then back online without making any changes to their version while offline, it will sync back up automatically in some cases (if not, you just upload from the PLC). No one can make and transfer an offline change without overwriting everything that changed after they went offline (a huge weakness of Rockwell in all circumstances, not just simultaneous user situations). There also isn't a realistically decent way to get offline changes from one person to someone that already online for them to transfer; they just have to recreate the changes by hand if possible (so no UDT, AOI, or hardware config changes).
From a version control and quality control standpoint this implementation of simultaneous online editors is awful. However, you don't have to plan ahead to spread out the workload; you just dive in and start editing routines with as many controls engineers as you want.
Compare that with something like B&R's Application Modules. You can independently develop and transfer each module simultaneously while the PLC is in Run mode, but you must have laid out the program into modules to begin with. The source code for each module is separate, so two people aren't editing the same source at the same time, but that also means that you can only have one person per module online at a time. However, keep in mind that B&R project files are fully text based (including the HMI, excluding images), so you can do all the modern version control branches and merging with git to allow multiple developers without having laid out the project into modules (or multiple devs per module). Also, B&R has the advantage of being able to make offline changes and transfer them to a PLC in run mode seamlessly without taking the PLC out of run mode, so you can technically have one guy connected pulling in all the changes from multiple people and testing it live; it just isn't as seamless as the Rockwell approach.
Basically, if you want the master copy of the code to live anywhere besides the PLC, then Rockwell's approach to this is terrible, but if you want to throw bodies at a problem at runtime without forethought, Rockwell is your platform. B&R shines if you want to actually keep the master code and version control it.
Multi User
Quote:
This is an interesting capability and I think people don't appreciate how good and terrible this feature is at the same time and how different platforms approach this capability.
It's not just 'interesting' it's absolutely essential & with competent teamwork there's nothing 'terrible' about it at all.
Consider this machine, a single work cell contact lens tray transfer system with a 1756-L72S ControlLogix PAC & a Mitsubishi robot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XZBidLM-yI&t=30s
I was assigned to program the rotary inverter & the tray pick & place. Another colleague did the Mitsubishi robot interface & FactoryTalk SE HMI. Another programmed the robot itself. We therefore had specific routines to work in. If there was a question or concern about an online edit you simply ASKED. You make such a big deal of this that I can only surmise you don't architect your programs logically, divide your tasks well or that you have interpersonal communication issues. Since simultaneous editing became a standard feature around 2005, I've never had an issue with this. All it takes is proper planning & communication.
Without simultaneous online editing it would have literally at least twice the engineering hrs. for commissioning, debug & FAT.
Now, take another project I worked on, a 12-cell machine that assembled residential water filters. This machine had a 1756-L85E, an L72S (the safety partner for the 85E wasn't out at the time) with 4 Ethernet/IP cards, 1 for HMI, 1 for I/O, 1 for servos & 1 for safety. It had 5 Fanuc robots, dozens of servos, SMC pneumatics, Cognex vision systems & a massive SE HMI with thin clients. It was routine to have FIVE controls engineers online editing concurrently on different work cells. Unless you write perfect code ahead of time I don't see a better way of accomplishing a startup such as this. Do you?
I'm also baffled as to why you think having the master copy of the program on the PLC is such a horrible thing.....unless you don't realize that all of the comments, symbols & descriptions are there too. Anyone with Studio5000 & an ethernet cable can walk up to a ControlLogix PLC & upload a completely documented program. This has been true for years. I also back up daily to the network.
Finally, as to how B&R does it, I.don't.care. Companies I work with have controls specifications that require either Allen Bradley or Siemens. In 25 years of doing this, I've run into exactly one company that uses B&R standard & that's Krones. And they only use them because their servos are cheaper. Siemens PLC's are still the masters in their machines. Not to mention the fact that PowerLink is an utter joke of a network. They still use HUBS?! Ask the Communist Chinese how standardizing on PowerLink is working out.
Have a nice day
Quote:
This is an interesting capability and I think people don't appreciate how good and terrible this feature is at the same time and how different platforms approach this capability.
It's not just 'interesting' it's absolutely essential & with competent teamwork there's nothing 'terrible' about it at all.
Consider this machine, a single work cell contact lens tray transfer system with a 1756-L72S ControlLogix PAC & a Mitsubishi robot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XZBidLM-yI&t=30s
I was assigned to program the rotary inverter & the tray pick & place. Another colleague did the Mitsubishi robot interface & FactoryTalk SE HMI. Another programmed the robot itself. We therefore had specific routines to work in. If there was a question or concern about an online edit you simply ASKED. You make such a big deal of this that I can only surmise you don't architect your programs logically, divide your tasks well or that you have interpersonal communication issues. Since simultaneous editing became a standard feature around 2005, I've never had an issue with this. All it takes is proper planning & communication.
Without simultaneous online editing it would have literally at least twice the engineering hrs. for commissioning, debug & FAT.
Now, take another project I worked on, a 12-cell machine that assembled residential water filters. This machine had a 1756-L85E, an L72S (the safety partner for the 85E wasn't out at the time) with 4 Ethernet/IP cards, 1 for HMI, 1 for I/O, 1 for servos & 1 for safety. It had 5 Fanuc robots, dozens of servos, SMC pneumatics, Cognex vision systems & a massive SE HMI with thin clients. It was routine to have FIVE controls engineers online editing concurrently on different work cells. Unless you write perfect code ahead of time I don't see a better way of accomplishing a startup such as this. Do you?
I'm also baffled as to why you think having the master copy of the program on the PLC is such a horrible thing.....unless you don't realize that all of the comments, symbols & descriptions are there too. Anyone with Studio5000 & an ethernet cable can walk up to a ControlLogix PLC & upload a completely documented program. This has been true for years. I also back up daily to the network.
Finally, as to how B&R does it, I.don't.care. Companies I work with have controls specifications that require either Allen Bradley or Siemens. In 25 years of doing this, I've run into exactly one company that uses B&R standard & that's Krones. And they only use them because their servos are cheaper. Siemens PLC's are still the masters in their machines. Not to mention the fact that PowerLink is an utter joke of a network. They still use HUBS?! Ask the Communist Chinese how standardizing on PowerLink is working out.
Have a nice day
Windows 10 was never designed as an RTOS (real time operating system)
Allen Bradley PLC's OS is. AB Controllers run VxWorks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxWorks
If all you are doing is small stand alone non-critical apps, Beckhoff is probably a good choice. After all, the software is free. The structured text editor is actually really good. The ladder editor however blows goats.
Not sure why you're going to considerable expense? Plenty of free tutorials for TwinCat
Similar Topics
Hi guys, I'm looking to design and program a robot pick and place cell. I'm in between using a Beckhoff or Allen Bradley. I like the Beckhoff...
Hi,
I would like to know what are the basic things we should consider before start migrate from the AB PLC to Beckhoff Controller? Is ther any...
Hi everyone,
This is my first time posting, so please forgive any omissions or mistakes.
I am attempting to control the velocity of a stepper...
Hello
sameone have Beckhoff PLC Siemens Sinamics V90 configuration example?
hello, I am using Beckhoff with TwinCAT3 and when I change or add some new hardware or for any reason, there is a mismatch in the real hardware vs...