FTV ME Visibility Expression Troubles

[Snyd1]

Dabbling with some expressions in my OIT program FTV ME 9, not something I am that experienced with. Managed an If,then, else that works well for a multistate state indicator. Now I am trying to get one working for visibility during state 3.

State 1 is based on a limit switch being made, state 2 is based on a different limit switch being made and 3 is when neither limit is made.

During this state I would like state 3 to animate using visibility. So if neither limit is made and my bit that is running off a timer is made visibility will pulse with the timer.

when I run something like this. I manage the opposite of what I would like to accomplish, states 1 and 2 pulse visibility with the timer and 3 stays solid.

{::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.LIMIT1} AND
{::[PLC]Program:VISIBILITY} OR
{::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.LIMIT2} AND
{::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.VISIBILITY}

When I run something like this all three states pulse...

NOT {::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.LIMIT1} AND
{::[PLC]Program:VISIBILITY} OR
NOT {::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.LIMIT2} AND
{::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.VISIBILITY}


Is there someway to check the state of each bit using an expression, say
limit1 =0 and visibility =1
or limit2 =0 and visibility =1

Or maybe someway to use State3 of the multistate indicator in conjunction with my timer bit that would make the statement true that I just don't know how to write do to my lack of knowledge with expressions?

 

[Snyd1]

Managed to get this figured out, guess I just needed to spend a little more time at it before seeking help. The way I was trying to handle the logic was a little flawed and apparently parentheses help.

({::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.LIMIT1} = 0) AND
({::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.LIMIT2} = 0) AND
({::[PLC]Program:MainProgram.VISIBILITY} = 1)

Gives the desired effect!

 

[dmroeder]

Nice job figuring it out!

Personally, I do no logic in the HMI, it all gets done in the PLC.

 

[_Dock_]

Nice job figuring it out!

Personally, I do no logic in the HMI, it all gets done in the PLC.

I second this. If I am using an expression for visibility or state I will just use a binary bit. I then write that binary but with logic however I want in the plc.

Two main advantages to this.
One, the plc is more powerful instruction wise so you have more options
Two, if you need to make an edit you can do it online in the plc and the system can still run. If it’s done on the hmi then you have to re download the whole mer file to the hmi.

 

[dmroeder]

To add a Three to _Dock_, if you see "This AND That OR Those" in the HMI, you cannot see what the values are. You can in the PLC so it's significantly easier to understand why something is not visible if the logic is done in the PLC.

 

[janner_10]

Agree with the post above, a routine named HMI_Visibility is so much easier to monitor or change. Especially if the last guy put some long expressions on every single graphic.

 

[JZerb]

i third, or maybe its fourth (?), the above comments with doing as much visibility as possible in the PLC code and minimizing what youre attempting to do in the OP on the HMI side.

there are however instances where you cannot, for example if you want a certain user group to have a visibility for an object on the HMI. At least with FTVS ME the HMI user is a global connections tag but the user group its assigned to is not so you have to do it in the HMI.