Any news on Studio 5000 Designer V34 yet?

Any news on Studio 5000 Designer V34 yet?

I assume it is going to be released late summer early fall. Has anyone heard anything about new features or changes?

No news here. I spoke to some Rockwell developers a few months back and they said that more “pure” object-oriented programming is eventually coming; being able to declare static variables and routines, create class members that are public, private, or friends, “is-a” and “has-a” relationships by inheritance, and so on. Part of an initiative within Rockwell called RAIDER (Rockwell Automation Integrated Development Environment Revolution). PlantPAX alone already demands it based on how some of its features are implemented in roundabout ways.

Would be great for v34.

Thank god for more actual object oriented features.

I have tried to get in contact with the 5000 Designer devs before but never had any luck. I created a long list of features that Designer lacked and needs to actually allow real object oriented programming, I gave it to my regional Rockwell rep and anonymous and completely nonsensical response to each of my items basically say that it can do all of that... it was such utter bull **** that I got mad and just decided that if they weren't even going to be honest I wasn't going to waste any more of my time with them.


For all I know some tech support guy in India wrote the response.


What do you mean by a static variable? You mean a constant? and what would a "Static Routine" be?

Also what would a "Private" be? That already exists as "Local" doesn't it?





What I would really like would be class (AOI) methods (Callable routines inside an AOI) like in codesys. Oh and a Reference type. I want something that is assignable at runtime. Public variables on AOIs would be great, InOuts suck because there is no way to access them from the AOI tag name, also allowing Strings and UDTs to be Input or Outputs would be awesome too. It wouldn't have to be done by value either it could be a reference that is not writable inside the AOI or that is not writable anywhere outside the AOI.

Inheritance and Interfaces/Contracts would huge.

Getting in touch with your local distributor is your best channel to developers. You almost have to be mean about it. Be persistent and tough. One reason I dislike Rockwell so much is i feel unheard. I wish they would adopt what inductive automation has, they actually listen to the user base.

Phrog30 said:

Getting in touch with your local distributor is your best channel to developers. You almost have to be mean about it. Be persistent and tough. One reason I dislike Rockwell so much is i feel unheard. I wish they would adopt what inductive automation has, they actually listen to the user base.

Click to expand...

Well I can be persistence as **** if I think I will be successful.

OK I change my mind. I am going to write a rebuttable to the nonsense response they sent me.

I RA guy I spoke to said that you will be able to edit more things online that you cannot edit today, hopefully that happens in v34.

JeremyM said:

No news here. I spoke to some Rockwell developers a few months back and they said that more “pure” object-oriented programming is eventually coming; being able to declare static variables and routines, create class members that are public, private, or friends, “is-a” and “has-a” relationships by inheritance, and so on. Part of an initiative within Rockwell called RAIDER (Rockwell Automation Integrated Development Environment Revolution). PlantPAX alone already demands it based on how some of its features are implemented in roundabout ways.

Would be great for v34.

Click to expand...

This sounds great in theory... in practice though, will we be able to change AOI's online? Or are they planning to create another object to represent a class?
If they plan on making the class implementation around subroutines, are any of those variable types internal to the subroutine?

Creating OOP concepts in the existing platform without addressing its most glaring shortcomings sounds like more grief for everyone.

cardosocea said:

This sounds great in theory... in practice though, will we be able to change AOI's online? Or are they planning to create another object to represent a class?
If they plan on making the class implementation around subroutines, are any of those variable types internal to the subroutine?

Creating OOP concepts in the existing platform without addressing its most glaring shortcomings sounds like more grief for everyone.

Click to expand...

Yeah Not being able to edit AOIs and UDTs online is a huge PIA.

I would still rather have more OOP Feature regardless but that is because I have the luxury of putting my PLC in programming mode to do downloads basically whenever I want. A lot of people I deal with do not have the luxury.

*Bump*

Any News, Any News???

I take it all back!!!!

I NEED AOI Online Edit, or at least import and overwrite.
I want to right now, have to manually edit 80 rungs to manually switch a AOI call over to a new version (that I renamed), because it is on a customers Main Plant PLC.


Kill me Kill me now.



Yes I know I am dramatic



If it was in ST I could atleast edit the entire routine all at one time. But not with Ladder....

P.S. I had 3 hours of sleep I would up all night watching a customer run their CIP. So I might be a bit cranky

[whisper]It's gong to be faster to make your 80 edits than it will be to wait for v34[/whisper]



I'll be surprised if you get what you want on this one.

dmroeder said:

I RA guy I spoke to said that you will be able to edit more things online that you cannot edit today, hopefully that happens in v34.

Click to expand...

I know online edits aren't possible, but is there a technical reason for this? I mean there has to be one right? Or is this just because "Ohh by my object oriented program" or "You aren't supposed to change it once it's implemented"?

PreLC said:

I know online edits aren't possible, but is there a technical reason for this? I mean there has to be one right? Or is this just because "Ohh by my object oriented program" or "You aren't supposed to change it once it's implemented"?

Click to expand...

I think it's mainly an implementation problem. I was under the impression that there was some major redesign that had to happen, which would allow more things to be changed online. Our local people suggested this was a big focus for future versions.

dmroeder said:

[whisper]It's gong to be faster to make your 80 edits than it will be to wait for v34[/whisper]



I'll be surprised if you get what you want on this one.

Click to expand...

To your first :angr: and to your second Hey don't spoil my dreams I prefer to be crushed later.



I was wrong it was like 120 rungs and probable 400 actually thinks that needed changed.

I realized though that I could edit an offline copy using Finde and Replace then import the routines back in that target the new Tags and AOI Types. Even the find and replace took like 20 seconds to execute. LOL It would have taken me like 2 days to do all that online LOL

PreLC said:

I know online edits aren't possible, but is there a technical reason for this? I mean there has to be one right? Or is this just because "Ohh by my object oriented program" or "You aren't supposed to change it once it's implemented"?

Click to expand...

Weelllllll, My wild guess is that it is not a logic editing issue, but rather memory editing issue, Tags are just references to memory addresses and reallocating space for a Struct/UDT while it is being accessed is probably is probably a lot more complex than doing it on a simple type.

dmroeder said:

I think it's mainly an implementation problem. I was under the impression that there was some major redesign that had to happen, which would allow more things to be changed online. Our local people suggested this was a big focus for future versions.

Click to expand...

Yeah but Sales guys lie all the time, it's there job to lie and get away with it..... wait did I say that outloud!!!!

theColonel26 said:

Weelllllll, My wild guess is that it is not a logic editing issue, but rather memory editing issue, Tags are just references to memory addresses and reallocating space for a Struct/UDT while it is being accessed is probably is probably a lot more complex than doing it on a simple type.

Click to expand...

My wild guess is that it's even more complex than that. In single rung mode, the PLC can assemble/test the logic while the routine isn't being scanned.

But with AOIs scattered everywhere throughout the code, when can that happen? How do you ensure that the scan isn't in the middle of an AOI call when it's paused, so that you aren't effectively causing BOTH pre- and post edits to solve, creating wild results that could break the machine?

Sure, caveat emptor on the programmer's part when he's making edits. But how many of us have hit "Assemble" only to go "Oh $#!&", and type as panickedly as possible to fix what we did before the fan got hit?

AOI are supposed to be solid, stable chunks of code, like the TON block or PAX's P_device, that one adds as needed. If you want to make them editable, use Event tasks with public parameters.

So as much of a PITA it is to not have on-line edits of AOI's, I can live with it.

I am solidly against OOP elements in Logix. The whole point of ladder logic is to not need a G** D*** CS degree to maintain it.


On-line edits to AOIs would be a wonderful feature. Even better would be on-line edits to UDTs and IO modules.