What do you Think of the New Rockwell Compact IO System

[harryting]

I had some issues with reliability on Point IO and wouldn't use it for critical application anymore. Hopefully this will be better as AB surely see a tons of competition with more adoption of Ethernet/IP.

 

[Contr_Conn]

Anyone else on the forums headed to Chicago for AF?

I will be there

 

[rdrast]

I had some issues with reliability on Point IO and wouldn't use it for critical application anymore. Hopefully this will be better as AB surely see a tons of competition with more adoption of Ethernet/IP.

What issues?
For us, it is FlexIO that keeps faulting, or just giving incorrect readings (analog/TC modules). Since switching to PointIO, we haven't had any issues.

 

[FactoryTalktotheHand]

The idea being that you can build your program with any I/O, say Flex, then if a customer changes to Point, you won't have to rework your program because both data types will have the exact same structure.

Why would a customer make a lateral move with the I/O like that? The new structure of Flex won't retroactively upgrade all the old Flex I/O out there, and the same goes for Point. Basically, this is only an advantage if a customer has this new kind of Flex and wants to change it out for this new kind of Point. Why would this ever happen?

The only time I've ever seen a customer upgrade I/O is going from old, antiquated racks to the latest and greatest I/O. In order to have the advantage of the common data structure, all existing I/O has to be upgraded just to get INTO the new ecosystem to begin with. And once it's there, why change it to something else in the same ecosystem?

This makes no sense to me. Why does it seem a lot of Rockwell's new products tend to be solutions for problems that don't exist? Why do I always ask myself who these new products are for? Powerflex 527, Panelview 5500. Why do we need a device that's more expensive than other VFDs but not good enough to be a servo? Why do we need a touch screen that can only have 25 screens and no alarms?

I'll bet you anything this new unified standard is going to go nowhere. This I/O is a fad and they'll abandon the line within 10 years of it being released. Call me cynical but I've heard "this is the great new thing that will change everything!" from Rockwell way too many times.

 

[keshik]

What issues?
For us, it is FlexIO that keeps faulting, or just giving incorrect readings (analog/TC modules). Since switching to PointIO, we haven't had any issues.

I've personally had a few modules fail on the shop floor, before we even shipped the machine. No idea why. This is after running for a few months with no wiring changes.

 

[Donnchadh]

Hi

I saw a Document last week about the new L30serm looks really good
Safety compact logic plc with cip
I am heading to the fair all the way from Ireland 4 years ago was the last time I made it to it looking forward
Anyone anthing else I worth looking out for

Donnchadh

 

[dmroeder]

Why would a customer make a lateral move with the I/O like that? The new structure of Flex won't retroactively upgrade all the old Flex I/O out there, and the same goes for Point. Basically, this is only an advantage if a customer has this new kind of Flex and wants to change it out for this new kind of Point. Why would this ever happen?

I work for an OEM and we get customers that spec all kinds of stuff. Some want I/O in the rack, some want Point I/O and some want Flex I/O.

Who cares if they make products that you don't like or find useful, don't buy them. Others might find them useful. If nobody finds them useful then they won't sell them and they will go away.

The PanelView 5500 is limited at the moment, but future releases will bring them up to the capability that they should be. If you don' like the PV5500, just buy a PanelView Plus.

 

[mk42]

I think that standardization is usually good for its own sake, as long as your standard doesn't remove current features. Change sucks in the short term, but I'm almost always thankful for it down the road.

I agree that I'm sure the new panels will improve with time. I think the integrated programming software concept is a big improvement from the old model. Siemens has a couple years' head start, but they haven't worked out all the kinks yet, either.

 

[Contr_Conn]

New Logix5580 (L8) controller information is also posted on the front page of AB.COM
Here is more details:
http://ab.rockwellautomation.com/Programmable-Controllers/ControlLogix/5580-Controllers
http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/pp/1756-pp001_-en-p.pdf

 

[mk42]

New Logix5580 (L8) controller information is also posted on the front page of AB.COM
Here is more details:
http://ab.rockwellautomation.com/Programmable-Controllers/ControlLogix/5580-Controllers
http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/pp/1756-pp001_-en-p.pdf

As someone unfamilair with a lot of the details of the logix family, I'm a big fan of these two features, or at least what I hope they actually mean.

• Controller-based change detection and logging enable added security

• Provides role-based access control to routines and Add-On Instructions

Have these been around for awhile, or is this new? I'm used to a chunk of code being either password locked or wide open, with no middle ground. There is a lot of middle ground between no trust/full trust, and if it is all managed in the controller, that could be amazing for change control purposes (finding out who made that change at 2AM that shut the system down).

 

[Geospark]

Update...

...The EtherNet/IP adapter already has USB and an SD card and a small dot matrix display, suggesting that it might have the underlying hardware available for a CompactLogix CPU as well.

Very astute Ken!

The 5069 Compact I/O Platform, while at initial release just supported the newer ControlLogix 5580 Platform as a Distributed I/O option, was always intended to support, and be more closely aligned with, the newer CompactLogix 5380 controllers of which it can be used as both Local and/or Distributed I/O.

There are at present only two offerings at the L3 level, namely the...

5069-L320ER and the 5069-L340ERM

...which are indeed packaged inside the same architecture as the fore-released 5069-AEN2TR Ethernet Adapters.

Also interesting to note, as they continue to develop and release new Logix products, is the ever closer alignment of the Catalog numbering. Something we have discussed and speculated upon in the past here on the Forum.

A small mention here...

679011 - 5069 I/O Information
Access Level: Everyone

And some basic specs here...

772352 - CompactLogix 5380 L3 Controller family
Access Level: Everyone

Some slides on the T02 Automation Fair announcements that some of you attended...

http://www.rockwellautomation.com/r...ellautomation/noa/RAOTM Tech Sessions/T02.pdf

...Named "T02" as it's a 2-Year Term forward planning outlay.

Regards,
George

 

[Geospark]

...

• Controller-based change detection and logging enable added security

• Provides role-based access control to routines and Add-On Instructions

Have these been around for awhile, or is this new?...

These features...

Digitally-signed and encrypted firmware
Controller change detection
Controller Audit logging
Role-based access control

...were all released with the newer ControlLogix 5580 controllers of which you can only program with Studio 5000's Logix Designer v28 or above. These features are firmware dependent (r28 or above).

You can also only program the newer CompactLogix 5380 controllers using v28 or above.

Note: The xx8x in the above family numbers denotes the processor's architecture (Logix v8). Both the 5580 and the 5380 controllers are classed as multi-core High Performance processors. While the 5570 and 5370 controllers are quite capable, these newer processors are cutting edge and designed for use in the more demanding of tasks and applications. For instance, the 5580 L85E processor can handle up to 256 axis of integrated motion in a single controller.

These controllers are somewhat more expensive. So unless you are using them, the above features are not something that is procured by installing the latest Studio 5000 package. You must be using Firmware Revision 28 controllers to avail of them.

Regards,
George

 

[JeremyM]

Really liking it.

Having isolated field and CPU/backplane power terminals in one location on the rack is very welcome. No (general) need to wire a PSU to each output module, nor wire a common from an input module. Having field potential separators and distribution modules in the 5069 family is excellent, too. These should really help simplify cabinet designs.

So basically the best of CompactLogix and Point I/O.

Our nearby vendor gave us list prices on these CPUs:
5069-L320ER: $3600
5069-L340ERM: $8671

 

[JeremyM]

It's curious that there's no 1756-L8xER, since it appears Rockwell is otherwise incorporating the capability of participating in ring topology in products moving forward.