PlantPAx graphics showing error on some multistate indicators

MoraleC2

Member
Join Date
Jan 2016
Location
East Coast
Posts
23
I have a project that was using PlantPAx version 3.0 and I upgraded it to 3.5. I updated global objects, faceplate graphics, the new PNG images, PLC AOIs, etc.

While my screen objects can read values from AOI instances, all of them are showing errors for at least one multistate indicator (see attached image), and I cannot for the life of me figure out why. Needless to say, this issue was not present before the update.

I have checked the expressions for the multistate indicator connections, and they are only addressing existing members of the AOIs. I verified that all images exist in the project. Is there anything else I can check to troubleshoot this issue further?

Capture.PNG
 
Last edited:
Update: Additional info

I noticed that the multistate indicators that are erroring out are all attempting to access the SrcQ member of the AOI instances. That member does exist in the PLC, however, so it should not have an error value (in theory).

There is also a Rockwell tech note that recommends putting parenthesis around if conditions in expressions. Doing this did not resolve the issue.
 

Similar Topics

Hello, i need to use P_Intlk and feed the Status interlock OK bit to a P_DOut block. However, there's 17 interlocks for this output. How can I...
Replies
1
Views
109
Hello All We have 3rd party vendors that run on older versions of PLC (Plc2.0) while we run the main system using plantpax and PLC 3.5-10. Plantpx...
Replies
0
Views
96
Dear Members, Hello, we are working on a project and facing an issue with the plantpax 5 PMTR library, we have a bidirectional motor, which has 2...
Replies
6
Views
248
The PMTR has a timeout parameter for run feedback during a start, but once the motor has been running for a while and loses that run feedback (to...
Replies
0
Views
225
Hello, I am upgrading some custom AOI's for a customer that was using plantpax 3.5 they are moving to Pax v5. In their old AOI's they were...
Replies
0
Views
536
Back
Top Bottom