Testing a AB L83E Program without controller

Hi,

I have a program I need to modify offline and test prior to commissioning.

Its developed in Logix V30. I have no L8x controllers available and the emulator is not an option when I attempt to change controller.

Is there anyway I can convert this to download to a L7x controller?

Unfortunately, Rockwell offers no path back to a differnet controller once converted to 5580 or 5380 controllers. If you were to create a blank project that is a L7x contoller and a blank project that is a L8x controller, you would find only a few differences between the L5K files. So similar to moving a project down in revision, you could edit the L5K to change it to a L7x controller. I have done this successfully with simple projects.

I don't know why they insist on this restriction. They are perfectly capapble of moving a project to the L8x platform, they have all of the information and expertise to move back, yet here we are.

Create a new project with the Emulate Controller.

Export your MainProgram from your existing project, and import it into your new Emulate project... but... you'll have to remove your I/O mapping routine because the real hardware won't exist.

I wish they just had a PLCSIM for rockwell, it would make life so much easier!

Rockwell really sucks with emulation.

I had to create a new project. Paste all the UDTs, AOIs, tags, tasks in. Remove all IO references before I could download to an L7 or an emulator.

Rockwell really sucks with emulation.

Click to expand...

They had it better in RS Logix Emulate 500. You just opened the same file (.RSS) as the program, and go online and test - done! Newer is not always better.

MorphuisOGrady said:

Rockwell really sucks with emulation.

Click to expand...

Wash your mouth out with soap, AB is the best and never does anything wrong, we just don't know how to use it properly, just ask them:nodi:

Do they even have an Emulator yet for the 5580 series?

The answer is no.

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=124287

Going backwards is non trivial; the new generation of L80 controllers support features that the older L70's don't.

Philip Wilkie said:

Going backwards is non trivial; the new generation of L80 controllers support features that the older L70's don't.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, it would be trivial for them to do this. Just like it would be trivial for them to allow you to save as older revisions. The fact that you can start a project with the older architecture controller and just import everything from the newer architecture should tell you something. The software could and should do this.

I just took a functioning project with about 20 devices in the tree, edited about 6 lines in the L5K, plus 1 line per device in the tree (search/replace). I now have a project that was a L310ER, now is a L33ER.

Edit. I suppose you could have been using unsigned types that are only supported on the newer platform and run into trouble there, but they could certainly flag this and allow you to fix it. If you are intending ongoing back to an older platform, you intend not to use unsigned types.

dmroeder said:

Nonsense, it would be trivial for them to do this. Just like it would be trivial for them to allow you to save as older revisions. The fact that you can start a project with the older architecture controller and just import everything from the newer architecture should tell you something. The software could and should do this.

I just took a functioning project with about 20 devices in the tree, edited about 6 lines in the L5K, plus 1 line per device in the tree (search/replace). I now have a project that was a L310ER, now is a L33ER.

Edit. I suppose you could have been using unsigned types that are only supported on the newer platform and run into trouble there, but they could certainly flag this and allow you to fix it. If you are intending ongoing back to an older platform, you intend not to use unsigned types.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Simple yet effective revenue generation strategy.

PreLC said:

Agreed. Simple yet effective revenue generation strategy.

Click to expand...

I'm not that cynical, I think it's just being out of touch with users. I can understand how it happens in a huge organization.

Philip Wilkie said:

Going backwards is non trivial; the new generation of L80 controllers support features that the older L70's don't.

Click to expand...

Non Trivial? That statement is complete bollocks.

dmroeder said:

I'm not that cynical, I think it's just being out of touch with users. I can understand how it happens in a huge organization.

Click to expand...

I'm very new to this field, but I really think that these are conscious decisions.

I remember asking you for the RSLogix Upload/download tool a while ago. I conducted some successful testing to use it as an automated 'Build' tool with my git repo. When I wanted to standardize it across my company, I wanted to officially get the tool from Rockwell. My pathway was to initially contact the support line. They emailed me back saying "We like to ask our customers for more info when requesting this tool".

I emailed them our requirements, clearly stating that I already had AssetCentre, and wanted to have an independent pipeline for my git repository. They were really not satisfied with that one apparently, as the next thing I know, I got an email invitation from Rockwell for a meeting with 4 big-wigs from the AssetCentre development/Logix Designer development team.

I was like sure, let's see what awaits us here. It was an hour long meeting, and I was expecting some positive response from that, but it just turned out to be a lengthy advertisement for AssetCentre. Again, this was after I told them that we already have a multi-10s-of-thousands-of-$$$ license for AssetCentre.

I really believe that they want to control the narrative. It's a deviation they do not want, why? I don't know the goals apart from $. If it was possible, they'll give out APIs for "Component of logix designer" executables they use for uploading from the AssetCentre Disaster Recovery Agent. The user already bought Logix, they shouldn't wall the full usability, at least not for the pro edition.