Need help again, please.

[Lancie1]

I think MOST of the Rockwell software costs money. as far as I know, it is only the Connected Components Workbench for the micro800 line that is free.

The RSLogix500 Micro Starter Lite software was always free, but it only works completely with the Allen Bradley MicroLogix 1000 and 1100 models.

As for the Connected Components Workbench, I tried that out, but it loaded my old computer down to the point that it barely hobbled along. There is a tremendous number of Electronic Data Sheets in that program, and it requires the loading of other servers in order to operate. Just not my cup of tea at my stage of life.

I need to know so if I have the boss order the 1100 I will be able to under stand (write) how to program it sort to speak.

The ML 1100 uses the same RSLogix500 software that you learned to use. It also uses the version that has always been free, unless there is a recent change from Rockwell.

PS: There is no SLQ500 programmable controller, but there was a SLC 500 (Small Logic Controller 500). It is no longer supported by Rockwell.

 

[kolyur]

No problem being confrontational... that's what the Internet is for, right?

Perhaps unintuitive was the wrong word. Maybe "overcomplicated" would be better. I don't want to hijack the OP's thread but here are a few of my beefs:

Version maintenance. Sheesh, what a PITA. It seems like every time we get a new controller I have to upgrade my RSLogix 5000. Right now I have 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 on my laptop. Yes I know RSLogix switches automatically when you connect but it's still a half day affair and a few gigabytes every time I have to download and install a new version.

Tag based addressing. I'm not totally sold on this. I've heard all the arguments for it ad nauseum. Too often you end up with tagnames like DEBURR_WEST_HORZ_STOP_CYL_RAISED_PROX which hog all the horizontal screen space. I know you can add multiline descriptions but I rarely see this done and you still need a unique tagname. For me, an address based system makes troubleshooting easier because (1) I can immediately locate and see which addresses are used in the data table, and (2) physical I/O addressing is simpler ("I:1/5" is easier to remember than "Local:4:I.Data[12].5", not to mention more conducive to wire labeling).

Another example: Let's say I'm troubleshooting and need to quickly add a temporary timer to a rung (while online). In RS500 I just find an unused nameless T4 timer and stick it on a TON, Bob's your uncle. In 5000 I have to go through all the steps to create a timer tag and give it a name before I can use it. Then when I'm done and delete the timer, RSLogix won't let me delete the temporary tag unless I go offline and do it which would then require a download. (Deleting tags while online--is there a way?)

Some things just seem cumbersome to me. Like when you start typing a tagname into an instruction and it shows you a list of every single tag in your program and you have to drill down through them to get to the specific bit you want... not so bad with a mouse but difficult with a trackpad on a laptop.

I suppose I'm psychologically conditioned to dislike it just because I've used 500 for so many years. Add to that the fact that I spend more time troubleshooting other people's programs than working on my own.

 

[Ron Beaufort]

just to clarify ...

but there was a SLC 500 (Small Logic Controller 500). It is no longer supported by Rockwell.

the old original SLC-500 is usually referred to as a "Brick" ... it's old ...

but ...

the term "SLC-500" is still used by many (most?) people as a generic "family" term for ANYTHING in the SLC line of controllers ...

for examples:

SLC-5/01
SLC-5/02
SLC-5/03
SLC-5/04
SLC-5/05

again, in casual conversation, many people refer to ANY one of those models as an "SLC-500" type system ...

some of these are still being manufactured and sold – and are still being supported by Rockwell Allen-Bradley ... on the other hand, (as far as I know) the whole SLC line is no longer being actively DEVELOPED ... all of the new development seems to be focused on the CompactLogix and ControlLogix platforms instead ...

 

[Ron Beaufort]

(Deleting tags while online--is there a way?)

yes, at least with Version 16 up (can't remember trying the older versions) ... the main thing is that the tag must be totally UNUSED ... the "Show" setting at the top of the window usually helps ...

Like when you start typing a tagname into an instruction and it shows you a list of every single tag in your program and you have to drill down through them to get to the specific bit you want.

try turning off "Look Ahead" in the Options ...

not so bad with a mouse but difficult with a trackpad on a laptop.

actually I recommend that you NEVER use this software - even Offline - with a TrackPad ... it's too easy to "Drop" something onto a target (even one several inches away on the screen) - and alter the program function ...

watching people use a TrackPad on RSLogix5000 reminds me of seeing someone "play" with a gun - even an unloaded one ...

here's an example from a recent post ...

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?p=610251&postcount=7

"I'll be waiting outside until you get through with that ... just call me when you're done" ...

I've shown that demo to a LOT of guys - who've said: "Yikes! ... And we thought we were safe to browse through the program as long as we kept the key in the RUN position." ...

I can't put enough lipstick on this pig to make her "pretty" - but I hope this helps a little bit ...

.

 

[Lancie1]

again, in casual conversation, many people refer to ANY one of those models as an "SLC-500" type system ...

Yes, but my point was about the lack of a "SLQ" type, not the "500".

I need the smallest PLC processor that I can use sort to speak, I don't know the difference in cost from a SLQ/5 to a SLQ/500.

I didn't want Rick to get embarrassed if he happened to mention a SLQ type to his boss.

 

[kolyur]

I can't put enough lipstick on this pig to make her "pretty"

Nice... I'll have to add that one to my repertoire.

 

[7romero1]

Thanks Lancie1 for letting me know about the SLC error and mostly for letting me know that the old type of PLC ladder logic that I use (the only kind that I know) will work in the Micrologix 1100 that is a very big help.
And Ron Beaufort I just figured out your sign out or at least I think I did, is "it too be or not to be that is the question", I could see that it was an OR gate and I didn't recognize the 2-B then I saw the Normally Open and the notted (I don't no how to spell it) normally closed then the question mark in the output parenthesis and then the idea light bulb came on over my head.
Thanks again to both of you for all the help.

Rick M.
4 NOV 14

 

[chadthede1]

I hated ControlLogix programing at first because I was used to the SLC Logix500 and Logix 5 way of doing things. After I worked with it for a while and learned it I never wanted to go back to a SLC or PLC 5 system. Now, when I go back to work on something that is not ControlLogix, the little things frustrate me. Why do I have to put the timer at the end of the rung? I don't want to. When I click "find all" on T4:2.DN why do I have to go to the search bar and delete the ".DN" and search again to find the timer? It is the little things like that that make ControlLogix easier and faster for me to use to troubleshoot a machine. I do agree that firmware revisions can be frustrating also, but are needed infrequently where I work.

 

[OkiePC]

I agree with John. I can even foresee the SLC modular hardware line receiving 3rd party support which might even increase as A/B may stop development and relax licensing restrictions on partners. I do believe the Micrologix lines are being actively supported. If you are not a software engineer you do not (i mean never, ever) need UDTs. I am sorry but that is the most abused feature ever conceived to allow you to shrink wrap your spaghetti.

RSLogix500 with Micrologix would be what I think you could carry on for ten years with and then gradually move on...All the hard work is done for you (memory tables, I/O mapping)...when it comes to motion control and huge systems, my attitude and opinions about RSLogix5k and Logix5000 controllers takes a sharp 180 degree turn.