Does anything beat Wonderware?

[arlenjacobs]

Imagine this scenario "Corp IT has mandated that all servers need to be updated to Windows 2012 R2, this includes all automation resources. "

Who panics because they are using Wonderware System Platform?
Who panics because they are using FactoryTalk View?
Who panics because they are using Ignition?

ouch. That was a low blow. I've quite enjoyed the 4+ hours it takes to install TIA Portal.

Goliath(s) of SCADA defeated.

 

[V0N_hydro]

It took me a solid 2 days to install Factory Talk SE the *second time* for our network distributed application. The first time we used windows server 2008 SP2 instead of windows server 2008 R2, had to start from scratch.

That being said I went down the road of using linux for SCADA/HMI platform in 2006-2010 and found that not as many people know anything about unix, so whenever anything went wrong it was a phone call to me. Had a hard drive die, luckily it was in RAID, but then google restoring RAID arrays in Ubuntu 8.04 and woops looks like mdadm was broken for many years. Windows 2000, windows 7, and windows 2008 server R2 have been totally fine for hosting SCADA and HMI. I wouldn't use linux again unless the organization had those expertise in house.

One more point against Allen Bradley and Schneider and Wonderware is that their walled-gardens for their support websites and forums irritate me. That is probably part of the reason we are all here.

 

[GaryS]

There are many HMI programs that are better then Wonderware
Just an opinion If I had a choice I would not use it at all. But some clients have been sold on it just like you.

 

[bluenoser337]

arlenjacobs...Pretty sure I would form the same thought you did but, all kidding and locations aside...my opinion actually comes from working over 32 years in automation and having dealt with RSView32, WinCC, Wonderware, iFix and others. I wouldn't choose anything over VTScada these days for SCADA and in-plant HMI applications. Still in doubt...go on the website and try the demo. Second to none in so many ways and continually adding incredible new features. No, I don't work there.

 

[FactoryTalktotheHand]

FactoryTalk View vastly improved after version 6. I'm currently using 8.1 and it took 10 minutes for me to install. It also loads faster. I think a lot of the complaints came from when 64-bit operating systems started becoming common and the transition was rough to say the least. Wacom SQL was a huge mistake on Rockwell's part. Hindsight being 20/20, they should have started the migration to MSSQL a lot sooner. But then again, they had no idea Wacom would go the way of the dodo, either.

That's why I keep a copy of FTView 7 installed in a 32-bit Windows XP virtual machine. It's an absolute necessity when you're supporting legacy hardware, since you literally cannot touch any project created on a 32-bit machine with a 64-bit machine.

I think Rockwell is learning that it's not a good idea to rely on third-party, flash-in-the-pan technology to be the backbone of your products. That's why I think they've got the Panelview 5500 running Linux and the latest versions of Viewpoint running HTML5 instead of Silverlight. They've realized open standards last longer than third party proprietary standards. I think the PV5500 is going to be a fantastic, stable product in a few years once the functionality loss from all the ActiveX extensions they were using is compensated for. Plus, anything they use, they'll have the source code for, so transitions to different architectures will be a lot smoother.

 

[OkiePC]

FactoryTalk View vastly improved after version 6. I'm currently using 8.1 and it took 10 minutes for me to install. It also loads faster. I think a lot of the complaints came from when 64-bit operating systems started becoming common and the transition was rough to say the least. Wacom SQL was a huge mistake on Rockwell's part. Hindsight being 20/20, they should have started the migration to MSSQL a lot sooner. But then again, they had no idea Wacom would go the way of the dodo, either.

That's why I keep a copy of FTView 7 installed in a 32-bit Windows XP virtual machine. It's an absolute necessity when you're supporting legacy hardware, since you literally cannot touch any project created on a 32-bit machine with a 64-bit machine.

I think Rockwell is learning that it's not a good idea to rely on third-party, flash-in-the-pan technology to be the backbone of your products. That's why I think they've got the Panelview 5500 running Linux and the latest versions of Viewpoint running HTML5 instead of Silverlight. They've realized open standards last longer than third party proprietary standards. I think the PV5500 is going to be a fantastic, stable product in a few years once the functionality loss from all the ActiveX extensions they were using is compensated for. Plus, anything they use, they'll have the source code for, so transitions to different architectures will be a lot smoother.

smdh

Red Lion or bust for hardware based HMI. Your forum handle says enough really but I am "in a mood":

I can download install and run the latest build of Crimson 3.0 in 3 minutes on my old slow laptop for absolutely free... I never have to worry about what firmware version is on the hardware, as I can update it along with the application in about the same amount of time it takes a PanelPuke to boot once. And after the firmware matches, I can update the application while the operator has her head turned and she might not even know anything was new. Crimson is not perfect. I can make a comprehensive list of its flaws. All six or eight of them have workarounds and recovery methods that take less time to document than it takes to bring up the 20,000+ reasons why the Panelview is and will always be junk in comparison.

You need me to read 1000 tags from eight new files and chart them in tabular form...that will take all of ten minutes with some array tags...Don't blink while I download or you might not see the "Updating Database" screen appear while you get your thousand new tags, scatter chart and table...You need to read Modbus from Oddball VFD version 98, swap bytes and stuff them into a Brand Y PLC? No problem. Gimmee an hour or two...done...

I'm off topic here , but the folks at Inductive Automation and Snide Err's wUnderWear should thank their lucky stars that Red Lion has not released a time unlimited version of Crimson Emulator that could basically wipe out their marketability. There's no money to be made in doing so, but I would pay a grand a copy for a Crimson Unlimited PC Edition.

FCTMeView will never catch up to the real market leaders. I have worked with version 8.1 and after doing all the fruit roll ups, the same crappy tag database is still the same crappy tag data base. The same "sometimes it's blank, reboot and try again" scenario persists. My PC registry did not turn to mush so I guess that is progre$$. Not MY PC, but the new PC we sold to a customer. I would never ever ever install that junk on my PC.

I like Ignition a whole lot for PC based SCADA/HMI. My earlier post about the limits of the Symbol Factory are because my customers do not have the funds to purchase the whole enchilada so we have (so far) gotten custom quotes for limited editions. I trained myself, and it did take some time but only cost that...my time. Being totally new to Java and Python, I still made an application that ran flawlessly for eight months until the IT department updated the policy to install windows updates. I got a phone call then, only because the system supervisor did not remember his password and the computer rebooted one night per the new policy. Templates with parameters rocked my world. I had 18 well sites and 5 booster pump stations, four water towers, and once I worked out the way to build templates, it was bang bang done.

My hat's off to Archie and his offering. One of these days, I will try it for real. I did download it on my old home PC but Visual Studio filled up my hard drive and bogged it down so I uninstalled it without giving it a fair shake. I put it on my boss's old 'puter at work one day and he played iwth it. He's pretty tech savvy but said he did not find enough documentation to help him figure out what to do, and told me not to spend too much of my hours on the clock pursuing it. I honestly beleive that if Advanced HMI was a $200 per copy license, and had a good pdf manual he could print out and stick in a binder, his opinion would change. When something is free, is is assumed to be amateur, half assed, worthless. Right or wrong, that is a popular (mis) conception. The best HMI software ever created is free (Crimson) but the hardware cost pays somebody to make it so dman good.

Sometimes I think Rockwell Software is following in the Bill Gates footsteps. Americans do not have enough conflict in their lives. Let us sell them a problem. A never ending jigsaw puzzle. When they spend hours and days figuring out how to deal with one little aspect of its fouled-up-ness, they will be hooked. When you figure out a way to make this garbage into a gem, you will feel like you accomplished something. Since it costs several thousand dollars, it better, by golly take a long time to get working right and be a big file size. It must have a bunch of pop up psuedo-dos windows to "do stuff" when you install it to make you feel like it is important to the computer at the nuts and bolts level. PAtch Roll ups. Yes, if it cost over two thousand dollars it needs to be patched with fruity roll ups. I still say it should ship with a bottle of Jack Daniels and a 40 ounce speaker magnet at that price. When your pc bombs out, strap the magnet to the harddrive and toss it in the dumpster.

One big pile of turds wrapped in bubblegum and band-aids, and they will eat it up.

Our Rockwell rep was bragging about the latest and greatest FCTMEView software and hardware (PanelPuke5500). I said if it doesn't boot and communicate with any PLC in seven seconds, don't even talk to me about it. Not interested. My time is too valuable to be playing with turds.

I used to be like you. I took the blue pill for many years. Then one day, after blowing off the Red Lion gear for more than ten years, I gave it a whirl and escaped the matrix. I left my blindness behind...saw the light... Never looked back.

 

[Archie]

I put it on my boss's old 'puter at work one day and he played iwth it. He's pretty tech savvy but said he did not find enough documentation to help him figure out what to do, and told me not to spend too much of my hours on the clock pursuing it.

He must not have had the Quick Start manual and the Basic Label Training Manual which are both printable documents. With the Quick Start, most people have their first application running in less than 3 minutes. With the BasicLabel Training Manual, you will get the primary concepts needed to put 80% of the software to use. I won't deny the last 20% does lack printable documentation and may require going to the Tips & Tricks forum section.

 

[Archie]

Topics such as these frequently turn into an argumentative debate based on each person's biased opinions of their preferred software. I am just as guilty as the next guy. So this got me thinking.... How do we turn this into a measureable set of performances to put each software package through? Car testers will use things such as 0-60 time, braking distance, and cabin noise. Computer testers use things such as hard drive I/O tests. These are objective measurements that cannot be influenced (or very little) by the bias of the tester.

This particular forum topic has largely debated the ease of use and speed of development when using different packages. How do you benchmark that? Count the number of mouse clicks and keyboard strokes to achieve a certain task? Measure the time it the takes for an expert and also the time it takes for someone that has never seen the software before to achieve a task?


My question to everyone is.... Can you come up with some tests to put the different software packages through that will produce objectively measurable results?

 

[Paullys50]

My question to everyone is.... Can you come up with some tests to put the different software packages through that will produce objectively measurable results?

I think it could be doable, if resources were easily obtained such as licensing and hardware environments needed.

I think one of the biggest problems is that everyone tends to lump HMI/SCADA into the same bucket, and you simply can't do that. You've mentioned the apples/oranges when it comes to HMI and SCADA software. To be objective, SCADA and HMI packages would have to differentiated, and while SCADA can be an HMI, an HMI package simply cannot be SCADA.

From a SCADA standpoint, much like PLCs, once one becomes fluent in a package, jumping ship to another is very hard due to the amount of effort originally put in. So people will always have the bias. I do think a number of things of a SCADA package are measurable:

1 - Platform features: Visualization, SQL interactions/transactions, Email connectivity, Alarming, Reporting, Voice notifications, Historian, MES, OEE, Track & Trace, Recipe Management, Batching, Redundancy,Deployment...etc

2 - Licensing/Support costs, compare 1 server, 5 clients. Redundant severs 10 clients, but tag based licensing really makes this a mess to compare.

3 - Software installation, configuration to get up and running

4 - Device connectivity, opc servers, PLC support

5 - Development: Tag generation/management features (UDTs, attributes)

6 - Development: Objects/templates/global objects

7 - Development: Redundancy configuration/fail-over

8 - Development: Historian logging/SQL transactions

9 - Development: Visualizations, Navigation, included objects

10 - Scripting: Library, language

11 - Security/Role-management, integration w/Active Directory

12 - Training services

13 - "Headache factor", how many support calls do you have to make, how many times do you have to start-over, bang your head against the wall to make something work?

I think all of these are measurable to an extent. However the amount of work and resources required to generate a measurable review is quite high.

 

[Paullys50]

12 - Licensing/Support costs, compare 1 server, 5 clients. Redundant severs 10 clients, but tag based licensing really makes this a mess to compare.

This category should also have a 'headache factor', as in how much time and effort were spent trying to figure out what the licensing requirements were needed given the application. Especially if you get into RDS (terminal services) and thin client architectures!

 

[arlenjacobs]

My question to everyone is.... Can you come up with some tests to put the different software packages through that will produce objectively measurable results?

Yes, a set of tests can be made but it's tough to make good ones.
Best SCADA? not possible to answer objectively.

SUM is the way to go. The more specific the question the better the result from the tests.
The PDF link on this Microsoft page is a good overview.
Warning: it's not exciting, no flash or wow. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading.
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/5877984.aspx


Usability tests (well designed) need a lot of thought, trials, data analysis and then a heated debate to review them = $$$$$

So why not go straight to the debate? which we can do here for free!

 

[Fullmanido]

Gave up on Wonderware and FTView, sorry folks....

Went to Ignition...no problems so far.

 

[DBLD99]

I am certified in RSview and App Server 2014R2 + Intouch - and we have used Igniton on 5 projects.

The only issue with Ignition is the Client side loading - I built my templates to use UDT's similar to WW App server - but at some point I am going to have to go back and change it to use indirect tags - as my screen load times are slow. When I built the templates I made them match our App Server objects - and Ignition was pushing the Drop target template and graphics for easy screen building - but they did not tell you when you have screens with a bunch of templates that it needs to bind to all tags in the UDT which makes screen call ups slow.

Thats my only complaint with Ignition so far - no one seams to complain about it so I thought I throw one out there.

 

[redbarron55]

Not getting into this pony race, but the only two facilities up here that had Wonderware switched to FT. I would like to try Ignition some day, but when you get older and can do much better things with your free time, Why?

I have to agree with the above.
Two years to 70 and I hang it up.
I still have enough problems with what I think I know from previous projects.
Now I spend my time trying to remember how I fixed problems when I was young to get the young whippersnappers out of trouble.

 

[FactoryTalktotheHand]

smdh

Red Lion or bust for hardware based HMI. Your forum handle says enough really but I am "in a mood":

I'm hardly a Rockwell fanboy. All I was doing was pointing out how much FTView has improved since version 6. And it has. That doesn't mean it's a great product. I personally think it's still overly-complicated and clumsy. Who's idea was it to make a HMI that was programmed like a SCADA? Not to mention the stupidity of tying a hardware HMI's security accounts to the Windows security accounts set up on the developer's laptop. At least they fixed that glaring flaw in version 8.0.

Like I said, all I'm saying is that it's better than it was. Not that it's a great product. Personally I think it's probably the poorest choice for hardware HMIs, and whenever I get to spec it out, I use Automation Direct C-More.

I like Ignition a whole lot for PC based SCADA/HMI.

I've also tried the demo for Ignition and am very impressed. Within half an hour I was communicating and creating working screens connected to an emulated PLC on my laptop. And this was the first time I tried using it, ever. No manuals, no classes. Literally went into it blind and got it working in 30 minutes.

Our Rockwell rep was bragging about the latest and greatest FCTMEView software and hardware (PanelPuke5500). I said if it doesn't boot and communicate with any PLC in seven seconds, don't even talk to me about it. Not interested. My time is too valuable to be playing with turds.

My Rockwell Rep flat out told me not to buy the PV5500 because it's not ready for prime time. The product honestly confuses me. It's like they can't decide where on the product line it fits. It's crippled like a low-end Panelview, but you can only use it on high-end Logix 5000 class processors. Who is this for? My guess is they released it because they got tired of people asking what happened after they promoted it in 2011 with a ton of fanfare and then pretended it never existed from 2012-2015.

I used to be like you. I took the blue pill for many years. Then one day, after blowing off the Red Lion gear for more than ten years, I gave it a whirl and escaped the matrix. I left my blindness behind...saw the light... Never looked back.

My user name is sarcastic. The only time I ever use a Panelview Plus is when my customers spec it. Otherwise I'm a C-More fan.