While a turnkey solution would be perfect, sometimes you just have to make do with what you have.
Can you provide examples of how to create an AOI (Automated Optical Inspection) system?
Is there a lack of guidance on scaling analog input or output within the instructions?
Jeffhavs inquired about the lack of instructions for scaling analog inputs or outputs. Is SCL the only option, as far as I remember, it is limited to function block usage.
Early on with Logix 5000, I noticed the absence of the SCP instruction. However, I found it simple to create an AOI to replicate its functionality, complete with thorough error checking to ensure accurate input parameter validation. Rockwell may offer a downloadable AOI for this purpose, but I have yet to explore it. It appears that Rockwell has incorporated scaling features into the analog module configuration pages, potentially reducing the need for an SCP instruction. Despite this, some analog modules still lack this functionality, leaving a gap that could be addressed.
Secure Containment Protocol (SCP)
Joseph_e2 pointed out an interesting realization about Logix 5000 - the absence of the SCP instruction. However, it was discovered that creating an AOI to replicate its functionality was a viable solution, with thorough error checking to validate input parameters. Rockwell may also offer a downloadable AOI, though further exploration is needed. This change may be due to the emphasis on scaling within analog module configurations, reducing the necessity for an SCP instruction. Despite this, not all analog modules feature it, leaving a gap that is regrettable. It is worth noting that SCL is a dedicated instruction for scaling within the system.
One aspect that fascinates me is the common assumption that a brand must offer instructions in every language to be considered feasible. It is surprising how easily existing limited programming language instructions can be transformed into an AOI without any coding. This revelation is mind-blowing to me, despite not being a Rockwell fanboy.
Cardosocea pointed out the fascinating notion that some brands neglect making instructions available in all languages, assuming it to be standard practice. This oversight can easily be rectified by repackaging existing instructions tailored to a programming language into an AOI without the need to code from scratch. While this may be surprising to some, it doesn't sway Cardosocea's loyalty away from Rockwell. Every brand has its quirks that can leave us perplexed. If we were to abandon a brand each time we encounter a questionable design choice or a missing feature, we'd find ourselves customizing exhaust components by hand. Although the absence of the SCP instruction in LAD may not be a significant concern when it comes to gripes about AB, it's worth noting. There's no blind acceptance here when it comes to evaluating AB and its offerings.
Certainly, humans inevitably face limitations when making decisions, especially when it comes to understanding all potential use cases for a PLC. Nevertheless, providing instructions in multiple languages is a fundamental requirement. This isn't limited to just SCP. When you create a routine in FBD, you will notice a plethora of instructions becoming accessible. It may be due to the constrained ladder representation (particularly when compared to Siemens) or the desire to upsell pricier licenses. The situation remains less than ideal, to say the least.
Cardosocea noted that humans are responsible for making decisions, and it can be challenging for them to understand all possible scenarios for a PLC. However, having instructions available in various languages is essential. This issue is not exclusive to SCP; when creating a routine in FBD, you will notice a wider range of instructions accessible. It may be due to the limitations of ladder representation or a ploy to encourage purchasing a pricier license. In my opinion, the need for an additional license is disappointing.
I believe having a Studio 5000 Pro license is essential for effective work on RA systems. It is a fundamental requirement for project execution and integration tasks. If your company employs automation engineers, having a pro license is a must. While some may find the cost of the license to be a business expense, it is relatively affordable compared to other software providers in the market. While I may not agree with the licensing model of all RA software, particularly Echo, having a few perpetual pro licenses on a maintenance contract is a reasonable investment for companies regularly dealing with RA control systems.
Over the years, our standard license has sufficed for our needs. However, with the recent additions of the multi-language pack and GuardLogix editor, we have found ourselves needing more advanced features. While most of us are familiar with LAD programming, we are considering adding another seat of GuardLogix. If we require more seats of the base software, we will likely upgrade to the Pro version. In my previous experience supporting AB and Siemens systems, I found that Siemens licenses were more costly than AB licenses. The addition of a new RSLogix 5 license significantly increased our expenses.
tlf30 mentioned that having a Studio 5000 Pro license is essential for working on Rockwell Automation (RA) systems. It is a fundamental requirement for project development and integration tasks. In-house automation engineers will definitely benefit from having a pro license as it is a necessary business expense. While some may find the cost of RA licensing for Studio 5000 to be high, it is important to consider that other vendors charge even more for similar software. In the UK, the TIA Portal license is offered at a quarter of the price of Studio 5000. Who else besides major players in the Distributed Control System (DCS) industry charges such high prices?
Our RA products are priced at a fraction of Siemens products, offering significant savings on both software and hardware components. This cost disparity flips the script in our favor, making our offerings more budget-friendly and cost-effective for customers seeking high-quality industrial automation solutions.
User tlf30 mentioned that their RA products are significantly cheaper compared to Siemens products, including both software and hardware. It may be worth reaching out to Siemens directly to inquire about switching over and getting a better understanding of the cost difference. It is important to compare prices before making a decision.
If you're considering switching to Siemens for your controller needs, it might be worth reaching out to them directly for a cost estimate. However, based on our experience, we have found that utilizing RA for large installations can be significantly more cost-effective than going with Siemens. In fact, in new project bids and migration bids, RA consistently comes in at less than half the cost of Siemens, making it a smart choice for companies looking to save on expenses.
tlf30 commented that they have begun migrating away from Siemens at one of their sites. They have been involved in various project bids and migration bids, and have found that Rockwell Automation consistently offers lower costs compared to Siemens for larger installations involving 20 or more controllers. In the UK, Siemens was initially more cost-effective and provided better customer service than Rockwell, though this may have been attributed to the specific account manager at the time. Despite this, Rockwell Automation's current account manager is helpful and accommodating. In a previous instance, Rockwell Automation quoted double the price of Siemens. Siemens even provided additional equipment such as a fully loaded Field PG and a S7-1500 rack for training purposes in TIA Portal at no cost. Rockwell Automation tends to pursue all projects in the UK, whereas Siemens typically focuses on larger projects exceeding one or two million.
cardosocea thanked for the feedback and shared their experience with Siemens and Rockwell in the UK. They found Siemens to be more cost-effective and pleasant to work with compared to Rockwell. However, this could have been influenced by the account manager they had at the time. In a specific instance, Rockwell quoted double the price of Siemens, who also provided additional training equipment for free. In the UK, Rockwell tends to take on all projects while Siemens focuses on larger, multi-million dollar projects. In contrast, in the USA, Rockwell is more aggressive in pursuing such projects. The speaker noted that many projects now specify the use of Rockwell Automation. It is interesting to observe how companies vary in their operations and pricing strategies across different regions of the world.
tlf30 commented on the unique dynamics in the US, where they work on multi-million dollar installations and upgrades. They mentioned that Rockwell Automation (RA) is commonly specified in company specs for their projects now. It's fascinating to observe how different companies price and operate in various parts of the world. It is crucial to clarify that the preference is for Rockwell to develop the solution, not just provide hardware.
cardosocea mentioned the possibility of having Rockwell develop a solution for us, but I prefer to handle all engineering and programming in-house. We do not utilize RA as an integrator for any projects.
tlf30 commented on the differences in dynamics between the USA and other parts of the world in terms of project installations and upgrades, particularly in the context of multi-million dollar projects. It is increasingly common for companies to specify the use of Rockwell Automation (RA) products in their projects. The disparities in pricing models across regions, such as Rockwell's regional pricing model, can sometimes lead to unexpected outcomes. For instance, a customer in Ohio found that the cost of purchasing Rockwell parts locally was higher than having the panels built in Mexico with the same parts, due to the significant cost advantage of Mexican suppliers. This highlights the importance of understanding how companies operate and price projects in different regions.