![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() This board is for PLC Related Q&A ONLY. Please DON'T use it for advertising, etc. |
||
![]()
|
New Here? Please read this important info!!!
![]() |
#1 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Northern rivers
Posts: 4
|
Controllogix processor tag names changed problem
HI all.
We have found a weird issue with our 1756-L72 controllogix processor. After it was opened the other day and closed, (we guess this is when it happened because of the automatic backup timestamp) the local data tag names changed for some reason. and example is BR1:11:1.Data.1 became BR1:11:1.point_1. the tag also does not show the description linked to it. The system is all running fine with no errors which is even weirder as some remote devices get information and still work. When we open our saved project file everything is fine, but when we go online we are prompted to upload due to program differences and and this is when we see the difference. We are going to download the original back into the processor on Saturday. I am unsure if this is actually in the processor or something in my studio 5000. I have attached images to show what I mean ![]() ![]() Last edited by Glenn Mac; December 7th, 2017 at 06:01 PM. Reason: Images not showing |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 363
|
What version of Studio?
I encountered this junk (alias tags on rungs being auto-magically replaced by the aliased I/O point's name - how useful!) on v24. Never saw it again on v29. ![]() Last edited by JeremyM; December 7th, 2017 at 10:17 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Northern rivers
Posts: 4
|
Hi Jeremy
It is :V28.00.00 (CPR 9 SR 8) Built on: 11/10/15 19:26:17 |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Detroit, SouthEast Michigan
Posts: 3,302
|
First example is how the s/w handles a device that it doesn't have the eds definition installed for; it doesn't know what it is so it treats it as generic. The second time the s/w uploaded, it found it had the eds installed and was able to apply the eds definition.
__________________
"You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred." Woody Allen |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
|
This is probably related to how Aliases work, not EDS files or Studio 5000 revision levels.
When you upload from a controller without a matching project file, it's well known that you won't get the Tag Descriptions or the Rung Comments. What's less well known is that because Studio 5000 is creating the Tag Database from scratch, it "collapses" Aliases and reads the base tag. I'm most familiar with how this works if you have multiple levels of Aliases, where an Alias tag points to another tag which points to a Module-created base tag. I'm not certain what's happening here. I think to investigate it, we should start with a description of the I/O platform whose tags were "converted" in format. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Detroit, SouthEast Michigan
Posts: 3,302
|
The second example doesn't show as an alias so that can't be it. I've confirm what I described.
__________________
"You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred." Woody Allen |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
|
Interesting... I wonder if it's a matter of a Module-Defined Data Type that came from an EDS-Based Module Profile.
I can't figure how it would happen on the same computer, though; EDS files and Module Profiles should be registered no matter if the user is uploading into an existing project or an empty one. It's interesting that the Tag Descriptions for the non-Module Defined tags like BR1_B27[x] appear to have been retained. Maybe there were never any Rung Comments. That's consistent with the "upload to correlate" step. |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Detroit, SouthEast Michigan
Posts: 3,302
|
A project I was working was started by an associate and they used some EDS files for some Atlas Copko nut runners. I uploaded the program directly out of the processor and I got generic modules in place of the nut runners. I was able to edit online just fine. I was NOT able to download from an offline file until I resolved the missing EDS file issue. When I later installed the EDS file, everything came into place.
__________________
"You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred." Woody Allen |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Northern rivers
Posts: 4
|
Quote:
Interestingly, when we used a backup that was created just before the last "save and close", it was fne. We used that backup to upload to and then saved it as our new master project and the issue resolved itself. Quote:
Thanks for all the answers so far, I am continuing to investigate based on the replies to date ./scratch head |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
|
I'll re-phrase; what are the I/O modules whose tag format changed ?
Are they 1734 POINT, or 1794 FLEX, or 1769 Compact or 5069 Compact ? The type of module might help us understand the structure of the underlying Module-defined Tags. I'm sure an A-B tech support engineer would recognize them, but I haven't had to focus on low-level addressing in a while and I can't say what they are. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Northern rivers
Posts: 4
|
They are 1746 modules on remote racks.
Below is an interesting picture of when I expand the controller tags, it shows "dual" tags for the module. It does not do this for the 1769 main rack modules ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wa
Posts: 243
|
This is why you have an input routine and an output routine that maps to the IO.
NEVER use direct IO in code. If you have to I suppose... but make it a bit that turns on another bit in that routine so you can map the IO. This would be a non-issue. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 313
|
If you have more than one alias for a tag it will merge them all to one if you upload.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Lifetime Supporting Member + Moderator
|
Van, I don't think it's a functional issue. The I/O should still run fine, even though the address points to an alternate tag.
Glenn, thanks very much for the additional information. I think you've encountered an uncommon issue with an uncommon implementation. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that this is an issue related to how stacked Aliases work, but with the extra twist of a special Module-defined datatype for the 1746 modules in the 1747-AENTR adapter. The 16-point discrete input module datatype is actually 8 bytes long: ConnectionStatus is a BOOL that takes up 4 bytes. Data is an INT that takes up 2 bytes Point_0 through Point_15 are BOOLs that take up 2 bytes. The "Point_x" BOOL tags aren't a BOOL[16] array, but rather individual points. I think that's similar to how the discrete points are addressed in 5069 series I/O modules, but I have not worked with those yet. So they aren't "overlays", but they aren't "really aliases" either. The resolution of the issue might boil down to "use the BOOL tag addressing to avoid this upload database issue". It would be interesting to see what RA technical support makes of it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Member
![]() ![]() Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wa
Posts: 243
|
Oh, the code should be fine I was thinking more along if you have an HMI that was referencing the inputs. (Although find and replace would fix it on the HMI.)
|
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Problem connecting from PC to ControlLogix PLC | SirTrollsalot | LIVE PLC Questions And Answers | 6 | July 14th, 2014 07:40 PM |
ControlLogix 1757-SRM problem | ashley | LIVE PLC Questions And Answers | 7 | March 1st, 2012 07:52 AM |
RSLinx / Controllogix problem | mmw | LIVE PLC Questions And Answers | 7 | February 18th, 2005 10:50 AM |
Ab Plc5 Rio Problem. | fernandes | LIVE PLC Questions And Answers | 5 | March 7th, 2004 02:25 PM |
PLC5/40 Backplane Problem????? | Andrew Evenson | LIVE PLC Questions And Answers | 18 | August 24th, 2002 08:06 PM |