Vision system reccomendations

[tdoa]

Cognex, Banner, Keyence, OMRON, Festo, all have smart cams that may be able to detect your film, they all have smart cams, or you can grab a cam, lens, illumination, and grab Sherlock, MVTec Halcon and roll your own from scratch.

 

[the_msp]

I would go Keyence over Cognex. Used both, don't like Cognex "excel" style setup. This was some years ago, perhaps their modern day equivalent is better.

Keyence has free sample programs for CompactLogix etc on their website, if AB is what you're into.

 

[TheRooster]

Keyence is where it's at, especially in terms of ease of config. I'm also hoping to get a Keyence PLC to play around with, I've used almost all their other stuff and love it.

 

[hardaysknight]

+1 for keyence

 

[joseph_e2]

Keyence is where it's at, especially in terms of ease of config. I'm also hoping to get a Keyence PLC to play around with, I've used almost all their other stuff and love it.

Our local rep got us a very attractive deal on a PLC with IO modules, HMI, and software licenses for testing. So far, I've only managed to do a "hello world" type program where the PLC is flashing some bits that the HMI is displaying but that's due to time constraints. I'm looking forward to getting back to it soon.
Some things aren't quite as intuitive as I'd hoped, but I'm from mainly an AB/Siemens world. It may seem more familiar if you're used to other platforms. I'm also trying to pick up Beckhoff TwinCAT at the same time. Hopefully my brain isn't quite too old to stretch that far...

 

[Icemanwillis]

I would defiantly agree Keyence over Cognex. We utilize both is our facility. For what you are wanting to do an IV2 or CVX should work great. Getting away from Cognex style excel spreadsheet makes things much more user friendly.

 

[busarider29]

Some things aren't quite as intuitive as I'd hoped, but I'm from mainly an AB/Siemens world. It may seem more familiar if you're used to other platforms. I'm also trying to pick up Beckhoff TwinCAT at the same time. Hopefully my brain isn't quite too old to stretch that far...

The Beckhoff platform is light years ahead of the Keyence platform, in terms of PLCs. Just putting that out there. Keyence have limited I/O and only recently (last year?) came out with over-sampling tech (while beating their chest in triumph about it to their customers). Beckhoff has had over-sampling I/O for years. If you're just interested in learning Keyence PLC for the sake of learning it and having that knowledge, by all means go for it. But if you're looking for a platform to be "married" to, it's Beckhoff by 10 miles. Will have you covered in just about any scenario, so you're not forced to integrate 3rd party hardware/software. For instance, this thread here with the OP looking for vision cameras. Beckhoff has their own vision cameras available and it's fully integrated into the control system. You do all the configuration and programming in TwinCAT. No 3rd party software.

We recently had an integrator (DMC) program a Beckhoff machine for us. They told us that Beckhoff is easily number 3 market share in N. America, behind AB and Siemens. Because of that, I think learning TwinCAT would be time and effort better spent. Just my opinion.

 

[joseph_e2]

We have about 20 machines that came in from 1 OEM in Taiwan that use Beckhoff. Their code is locked but visible and they used their own proprietary HMI program. They're...ok. Our newest line (from Turkey) is all Beckhoff as well but at least they used the native HMI and left that part unlocked. It's a large system with a LOT of IO including a bunch of servo drives and 3 ABB robots and peripherals from 2 other brands (IPG and Danfoss) along with the Beckhoff servos. So, we definitely need to get a handle on it.

 

[busarider29]

We have about 20 machines that came in from 1 OEM in Taiwan that use Beckhoff. Their code is locked but visible and they used their own proprietary HMI program. They're...ok. Our newest line (from Turkey) is all Beckhoff as well but at least they used the native HMI and left that part unlocked. It's a large system with a LOT of IO including a bunch of servo drives and 3 ABB robots and peripherals from 2 other brands (IPG and Danfoss) along with the Beckhoff servos. So, we definitely need to get a handle on it.

So you're forced to call the OEM anytime there's a problem with one of the machines?? The company I work for is in that situation with MTS. With all of our MTS machines, the code is not accessible, and the GUI is proprietary so we can't get in there either. It's VERY expensive anytime there's a problem with one of the MTS machines. They quoted us $150k just to come in and upgrade two servo motors and drives on just one machine! This is why we started designing and building our own machines in-house about 9 years ago. My boss did a whole lot of nit-picking and comparing of the major vendors (AB, Siemens, Omron, Beckhoff) over several weeks, and then we ultimately settled on Beckhoff because their platform was capable of doing the things we needed, that the others couldn't do, particularly high-sampling frequency analog I/O, and real-time comms (EtherCAT). Since then, it's only gotten better with all the new I/O and multi-core CPU's Beckhoff has released since then. We've never looked back. TwinCAT-3 is where it's at though. TC3 was a game-changer for Beckhoff when it was released. I wouldn't bother with anything TC2. If your Beckhoff machines are >= 12 years old, then the software is likely TC2.

Apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread. Take a look at Beckhoff and their line of vision hardware/software (TwinCAT Vision). They've got cameras and supporting hardware (lighting) as well.

For anyone looking for an integrator for help in coding and/or full machine design and build, I highly recommend checking out DMC. They are a bit pricey compared to others, but you get what you pay for and they can deliver anything you need, on any platform (Beckhoff, Rockwell, Siemens, etc). We needed a highly specialized product testing machine to do high-frequency sound and vibration analysis. We also specified that the machine must be able to classify pass/fail using full-fledged machine learning and "learn" with each new part tested. Lastly, the machine must only use Beckhoff hardware and software in the control system, nothing else. DMC delivered within budget and on-time. I have no reservations recommending them.

 

[joseph_e2]

The CNC benders that use Beckhoff came in over the course of years, so the oldest are TC2 on WinXP Embedded. The latest are Win10 and TC3 with some Win7 in the middle.
We wanted our SCADA system to read data out but they were having trouble. I used Advanced HMI and couldn't get it to work either. As a test, I build a virtual machine running TC3 on XP and AHMI was able to read out of it with zero issues. The same setup couldn't read out of the machines. The OEM had something locked down in the OS. When asked, they offered to sell us their SCADA software instead, at a couple grand per machine. I understand wanting to make money, but I don't appreciate being held captive like that.

 

[TheRooster]

@busarider29 I have been thinking of learning a new system as I currently only really know AB and looking at TwinCAT it looks awesome! I'm also learning C++ because I thought a "real" language could be useful and lo and behold TwinCAT can be programmed in Visual Studio with C++. Very excited to dive into it thanks for the info.

 

[busarider29]

The CNC benders that use Beckhoff came in over the course of years, so the oldest are TC2 on WinXP Embedded. The latest are Win10 and TC3 with some Win7 in the middle.
We wanted our SCADA system to read data out but they were having trouble. I used Advanced HMI and couldn't get it to work either. As a test, I build a virtual machine running TC3 on XP and AHMI was able to read out of it with zero issues. The same setup couldn't read out of the machines. The OEM had something locked down in the OS. When asked, they offered to sell us their SCADA software instead, at a couple grand per machine. I understand wanting to make money, but I don't appreciate being held captive like that.

Your company should do what we're doing then, in regards to our MTS machines. We know how the machines work and what they do. Now just mimic the design in-house (or out-source it all to DMC and have them do it). Then the machines and the code are 100% ours and we can support it all, and we're not at MTS's mercy anymore moving forward.

Btw, in case you weren't aware, AHMI will not work if it's installed on the same IPC as the TwinCAT runtime. It needs to be on a different PC than what the PLC is running on. It's why we don't use AHMI too much around here. It's unfortunate because I like AHMI.

 

[busarider29]

@busarider29 I have been thinking of learning a new system as I currently only really know AB and looking at TwinCAT it looks awesome! I'm also learning C++ because I thought a "real" language could be useful and lo and behold TwinCAT can be programmed in Visual Studio with C++. Very excited to dive into it thanks for the info.

Yes, the PLC can be programmed using C++. You can also, among other things, import a Matlab Simulink model into TwinCAT. Then the Simulink file is converted to PLC code, so you don't have to write any PLC code. We have a subsidiary company of ours in Japan that does it that way with all of their Beckhoff machines. They write very little PLC code. They just get the Simulink model working and then import it to TwinCAT, and voila, the machine works! I'm just brushing the surface on what's possible. How about integrating a PS4 controller into the control system for use as a simple, cost effective robot teach pendant? Yes, that's possible too. How about microsecond PLC scan times? How about interleaving two 50 Ks/S channels to get 100 ks/S sampling? Yep, that's possible too. Try doing any of that on your favorite black box PLC. Won't happen. Again, I'm just grazing the surface on what's possible with PC based control (Beckhoff). We love their platform.

 

[joseph_e2]

Your company should do what we're doing then, in regards to our MTS machines. We know how the machines work and what they do. Now just mimic the design in-house (or out-source it all to DMC and have them do it). Then the machines and the code are 100% ours and we can support it all, and we're not at MTS's mercy anymore moving forward.

Btw, in case you weren't aware, AHMI will not work if it's installed on the same IPC as the TwinCAT runtime. It needs to be on a different PC than what the PLC is running on. It's why we don't use AHMI too much around here. It's unfortunate because I like AHMI.

I knew about that limitation. I had AHMI on my laptop. With Archie's help, it *should* have worked but didn't. When I asked the OEM about it, they insisted we buy their software.

... Again, I'm just grazing the surface on what's possible with PC based control (Beckhoff). We love their platform.

It's very powerful...but...dependent on the reliability of the hardware. We've had multiple hard drive failures on the CNC benders. We've always been able to get them back running by cloning a similar machine, but it's a pain and we lose data files. And we need OEM support to activate their runtime software every time. We try to keep up with data file backups but that department has had more turnover than average so it's hard. And the PCs can't be on the IT network since some of them are XP and others Win7 and,frankly, I've had bad experiences in the past with IT pushing updates that break things so I try to isolate them unless it's absolutely necessary. It's been an adventure. The newest line uses a compact Beckhoff IPC and we specified an SSD so that should be far less of a problem.

 

[busarider29]

It's very powerful...but...dependent on the reliability of the hardware. We've had multiple hard drive failures on the CNC benders. We've always been able to get them back running by cloning a similar machine, but it's a pain and we lose data files. And we need OEM support to activate their runtime software every time. We try to keep up with data file backups but that department has had more turnover than average so it's hard. And the PCs can't be on the IT network since some of them are XP and others Win7 and,frankly, I've had bad experiences in the past with IT pushing updates that break things so I try to isolate them unless it's absolutely necessary. It's been an adventure. The newest line uses a compact Beckhoff IPC and we specified an SSD so that should be far less of a problem.

We've had similar challenges from time to time, but nothing is perfect. The benefits of the platform far outweigh the drawbacks, and things are getting better. For instance Beckhoff is already addressing the Windows drawbacks that some customers have. They now have options for BSD or Linux as the OS for the TwinCAT runtime. You can still have Windows installed as a VM to run your HMI and other 3rd party software, which is absolutely essential for us. The Windows OS on the VM can be updated or even shut down entirely and the machine still runs.

We've had two hard drives fail on one machine in the past 9 years. That machine uses a Beckhoff CX with a CFast card as the HDD. I believe the CFast cards are more prone to failures than a typical SSD drive. Beckhoff recommends keeping a spare, cloned CFast card of the machine on hand, which we do for all of our CXs. Also, we've added a secondary CFast card slot to all the machines and have them all configured for RAID-0 redundancy, so that if the main CFast fails, the other is there and the machine keeps running. That's another precautionary measure and cheap insurance you can add. Lastly, you need to be aware of the amount of writes that you are doing, particularly to persistent variables. That is the main cause of the CFast failures, when/if they do fail.

My recommendations:

Get a spare CFast card for your CX's. Make sure they are the same size, make, and model that's in the machine. Then clone it, and keep it on hand if/when the CFast card fails in the machine. I use something similar to this SSD clone device from StarTech. The exact model I have (SATDOCK22RE V2) appears to be discontinued. You'll also need two "CFast card to SATA" enclosures for use with the cloning dock.

For more insurance against downtime due to CFast failure, you can get a CX2550-0010 and install another CFast in the CX and configure them for RAID-0 redundancy.