While a turnkey solution would be optimal, I have to do what needs to be done.
What are some instances of developing an AOI similar to that?
Are there any guidelines available for scaling analog inputs or outputs?
Jeffhavs inquired about the lack of instructions for scaling an analog input or output. Is it possible to use SCL for this purpose, or is it limited to function blocks only?
Early on in my experience with Logix 5000, I noticed the absence of the SCP instruction. However, I found it easy to create an AOI to replicate its functionality. I made sure to include thorough error checking to validate input parameters before any calculations were performed. While Rockwell offers a downloadable AOI that may be helpful, I have yet to explore it myself.
It seems that Rockwell's decision to forgo the SCP instruction may be due to the extensive scaling options available within the analog module configurations. However, not all analog modules include these options, creating a gap that I believe should have been addressed.
Secure, Contain, Protect (SCP) Foundation is an organization dedicated to the containment and study of anomalous objects and entities. The SCP Foundation works to secure these objects to protect humanity from potential threats.
During my experience with Logix 5000, I quickly noticed that the SCP instruction is no longer available. However, I found it quite easy to replicate its function by creating an Add-On Instruction (AOI) with thorough error checking for input parameter validation before performing any mathematical operations. Although Rockwell may offer a downloadable AOI, I have yet to come across it. It seems that Rockwell has integrated scaling functions into the analog module configurations, possibly rendering the SCP instruction unnecessary. Nevertheless, not all analog modules have this feature, leaving a gap that I feel should have been addressed. It is worth noting that SCL is a dedicated instruction specifically designed for scaling purposes.
It is fascinating to note the widespread assumption that a brand's failure to offer instructions in multiple languages is acceptable, despite the simple solution of packaging the existing limited programming language options into an AOI with no coding required. This concept is mind-blowing to me, although I do not consider myself a Rockwell fanboy.
Cardosocea raised an interesting point about the lack of universal language instructions from brands, highlighting the potential for easy adaptation into an AOI without coding. This overlooked aspect in consumer electronics is baffling. Every brand has its share of head-scratchers, but abandoning one for each design flaw would be impractical. When it comes to Rockwell, there are certain grievances, like the absence of SCP instruction in LAD, that users can't ignore. Despite this, blind loyalty towards a brand is not the answer.
Undoubtedly, humans are tasked with making decisions and may not grasp the full range of use cases for devices such as a PLC. Nevertheless, having instructions in various languages is a fundamental requirement. This issue extends beyond just SCP as utilizing a routine in FBD reveals a multitude of instructions suddenly at your disposal. It could be due to the constraints of ladder representation (especially in comparison to Siemens) or perhaps it's a tactic to push for pricier licenses. Regardless, the situation is far from satisfactory.
cardosocea noted that humans, being the decision-makers, may not fully grasp all potential use cases for a programmable logic controller (PLC). However, having instructions available in various languages is a fundamental aspect. This issue extends beyond just SCP; when creating a routine in Functional Block Diagram (FBD), a plethora of instructions suddenly become accessible. This could be due to the constrained representation in ladder logic, particularly compared to Siemens, or perhaps an attempt to push for more expensive licenses. This situation is less than ideal, and I am inclined to believe it leans towards the need for an additional license, which is quite disappointing.
Having a Studio 5000 Pro license is essential for anyone working on RA systems. It is a fundamental requirement for projects and integrations. If your company has automation engineers, they will definitely benefit from having this pro license. While some may find the cost of the license to be a necessary business expense, it is actually quite reasonable compared to other vendors' pricing. While I may not agree with RA's licensing model for all their software, having a few perpetual pro licenses on a maintenance contract is a small cost for a company regularly working with RA control systems, like many do.
In recent years, our software needs have expanded beyond the standard license we originally had. Now, we have added the multi language pack and GuardLogix editor to our repertoire. While most of us are only familiar with LAD, we are considering adding another seat of GuardLogix. If we require additional seats of the base software, we will likely upgrade to the Pro version. My past experience supporting AB and Siemens revealed that Siemens licenses were more costly compared to AB. The addition of a new RSLogix 5 license significantly increased our expenses.
tlf30 commented that the Studio 5000 Pro license is essential for anyone working on Rockwell Automation systems. Without it, undertaking any project or integration work would be challenging. In-house automation engineers would find the Pro license indispensable, as it is crucial for smooth business operations. While some may find the cost of the license a concern, it is significantly lower than what other vendors charge for similar software. In comparison, the TIA Portal license in the UK is priced at just a quarter of Studio 5000. Who else in the DCS industry charges exorbitant prices for their software?
Our RA products are now available at a fraction of the cost compared to Siemens, including both software and hardware. This flip in pricing gives us a competitive edge in the market.
tlf30 mentioned that RA products are significantly more affordable compared to Siemens, with prices often being a quarter of the cost for both software and hardware. If interested in switching, it may be beneficial to contact Siemens directly to inquire about migration process and pricing options.
If you're considering migrating to Siemens, it's worth reaching out to them directly for a cost estimate. However, based on my experience with new project and migration bids, I have found that RA tends to come in at less than half the cost of Siemens for larger installations (20 or more controllers). We are currently in the process of migrating away from Siemens at one site, and the savings with RA have been significant.
tlf30 mentioned that their company is currently transitioning away from Rockwell at one of their sites. In recent project bids and migration bids, Rockwell's costs have consistently been more than double that of Siemens for larger installations with 20 or more controllers. While working with Siemens in the UK, they found them to be not only more affordable but also more pleasant to work with compared to Rockwell. This difference could possibly be attributed to the specific account manager at the time with Rockwell. However, the current account manager at Rockwell is very helpful. In a past scenario, Rockwell's quote was double that of Siemens, who even provided additional training equipment for free. It is worth noting that Rockwell tends to take on all projects in the UK, whereas Siemens only focuses on projects worth over one or two million.
Cardosocea expressed gratitude for the feedback provided. In the UK, Siemens emerged as a more cost-effective and user-friendly option compared to Rockwell, possibly influenced by the account manager handling the situation at that time. The difference was significant, with Rockwell quoting double the price Siemens did. Moreover, Siemens generously included a fully equipped Field PG and an S7-1500 rack for training the instrument technicians in TIA Portal at no additional cost.
It is worth noting that Rockwell tends to take on all projects in the UK, whereas Siemens focuses on larger projects worth over a million dollars. In contrast, in the USA, where multi-million dollar installations or upgrades are the norm, Rockwell is eager to secure the projects. In many cases, there is a preference for RA based on company specifications, leading to a reduced need for competitive bids.
This highlights the diverse operating styles and pricing strategies employed by different companies in various regions worldwide.
tlf30 commented: It's fascinating to see the unique dynamics at play in the USA. All the projects I handle involve multi-million dollar installations or upgrades, so Rockwell Automation is highly sought after for the work. Nowadays, I don't even bother bidding on projects anymore because most companies specifically require the use of RA according to their specifications. It's always eye-opening to observe the diverse approaches and pricing strategies across different regions globally. Just to clarify, when I mentioned having Rockwell develop the solution, I was referring to utilizing their expertise and not just referring to hardware.
cardosocea stated that the intention was for Rockwell to develop the solution, not simply provide hardware. However, they clarified that they handle all engineering and programming tasks in-house and do not rely on RA as an integrator for any projects.
tlf30 mentioned the unique dynamics of working in the USA and the challenges of bidding on multi-million dollar projects. Despite the competition, most companies in the industry now specify to use Rockwell Automation (RA) products. It is interesting to observe how different companies operate and price their services around the world.
Rockwell Automation has a regional pricing model that can sometimes be perplexing. A customer in Ohio, who annually purchases millions of dollars worth of Rockwell parts, found that the cost of purchasing locally was higher than having the panels built in Mexico with the same Rockwell parts. In Mexico, the cost was significantly lower, making it a more cost-effective option for the customer.