This board is for PLC Related Q&A ONLY. Please DON'T use it for advertising, etc.
|Try our online
PLC Simulator- FREE.
Click here now to try it.
New Here? Please read this important info!!!
|February 20th, 2004, 01:26 PM||#1|
I just got visited by the CLPA ( CC_LINK Partner's Association ).
Obviously they were trying to get us to support CC-Link with our products. I want to get opinions about CC-LINK, the more the better.
Just in case the poll options don't work, I would like to know:
1. If you are a Mitsubishi users.
2. Have you used CC-Link
3. Have you done motion control
4. Have you used CC-Link to communicate with the motion controllers.
5. Is CC-Link easy to use?
6. Would you rather use Ethernet?
CC-Link looks like it would be simple enough to implement. I just wonder if it is suitable for motion control. Sending a command with position, speed, accelreation and deceleration would require a couple of stations and the parameters would need to be transfered using the transient messages.
|February 20th, 2004, 03:30 PM||#2|
4. Not yet (but it looks like I might very soon... )
5. Yes (* - when planed well)
a) Manual sucks. Just half a page in decent english would be
way better. My local (Toronto) distributors and Mitsubishi
Tech Support were not (are not) helpful. Only guys who
ever managed to answer any question are from Tech Support
b) Pass through connection doesn't work 100% with everything
unless master and slaves are same family (it does work
for PLCs to exchange data but Mitsubishi's own ActiveX
doesn't work very well).
c) Very limiting mapping scheme. On one project I was forced
to connect couple of existing systems which were done by
different vernors. I couln't make it work until each PLC
had same amount of free devices (ok) in same range
(what the hell!? ).
Problem was that two machines had their memory use pretty much
maxed out. Free range on one of them was around D1000
(with total of some 2000 D-words), while the other had
everything pretty much used up until D20000.
Maybe there is a way to it, but I didn't have time to
investigate too much. It was faster to remap some of the
used devices in one of the machines.
Also I've found some discrepancies with the manual.
(well, manual sucks anyway... )
btw. what are your products?
|February 20th, 2004, 04:48 PM||#3|
I thought everyone knew.
We make motion controllers that fit in PLCs or communicate over a field buses such as Ethernet, Modbus Plus, Profibus DP and RS485 etc.
To be succussful as a third party supplier one must be as compatible with other products as possible. That is why I am interested in CC-Link, but I would much rather be able to communicate with the Q series using Ethernet. Unforutunately, Mitsubishi has kept their Ethernet protocol proprietory.
|February 21st, 2004, 05:38 AM||#4|
Lifetime Supporting Member
I have use CC Link several times. The biggest problem I have had is failure of the CC Link master module in the PLC to communicate with the remote devices. 2 CC Link masters in the rack. One stops communicating with the remotes. Swap the masters over and all is well. Very puzzeling. Our local Mitso distributor at a loss. I might add that they are very good but could not solve that one. Some time later loss of communications again. Swapped the CC Link masters and all was well again. Bit of a worry. Would rather use Device Net. Do not like Ethernet but would probably be OK for this application.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Mitsubishi FX2N RS485 Link with Intouch Wonderware||Steve Cheung||LIVE PLC Questions And Answers||1||November 25th, 2008 04:32 AM|
|mitsubishi trivia||Goody||LIVE PLC Questions And Answers||1||November 1st, 2004 02:45 PM|
|PLC Student - Mitsubishi.||henryhughes||LIVE PLC Questions And Answers||0||October 5th, 2004 03:18 PM|
|Profibus to CC Link||Guest||LIVE PLC Questions And Answers||2||May 6th, 2004 11:13 PM|
|Mitsubishi Sucks...||Eric Nelson||LIVE PLC Questions And Answers||8||June 7th, 2002 02:35 AM|