Good afternoon! I've observed that the price of PanelView Plus 6 units has increased significantly. Can you confirm whether an application using a .MER runtime on a PanelView Plus 6 will operate smoothly on a PanelView Plus 7? Thank you in advance for your assistance!
One of the significant compatibility challenges with ActiveX controls has always been their dependency on the operating system (OS) and architecture. For instance, a project developed using FTView 5.0 and ActiveX components must be recompiled to function on a PanelView Plus 6 equipped with an updated ActiveX control. While both the PanelView Plus 6 and PanelView Plus 7 share fundamentally the same operating system—Windows CE 6.0—I have some reservations about whether the architectural differences (ARM for Standard models and x86 for Performance models) in the PV+7 will impact the functionality of ActiveX controls. However, if your project does not rely on ActiveX controls, you can expect it to run smoothly on the PV+7 with little to no modifications required.
Additionally, it's essential to understand the constraints of the PVP7 Standard in comparison to the PVP7 Performance model. A PVP7 Standard is designed to communicate with a single PLC and has restrictions on the number of supported displays and alarms. If your existing PVP6 setup interfaces with multiple PLCs or if your .mer file exceeds the display and alarm limitations of the Standard, it will not be compatible with a PVP7 Standard. However, if these conditions are not a concern or if you are utilizing the PVP7 Performance version, as Ken mentioned, then it should work as expected. For more insights, consider exploring the advantages of upgrading to a PVP7 Performance model for enhanced functionality and flexibility.
For many applications, this isn't a significant issue; however, the enhanced resolution does present a challenge. You’ll need to choose between using extremely small icons, allowing FactoryTalk to scale everything—which may result in graphics that appear poorly designed—or opting to manually redraw all elements for improved clarity and aesthetics.
Isn't it necessary to recreate the runtime file from version 6 to ensure compatibility with version 7, while selecting either the standard or performance settings? I wanted to mention that using at least version 9 is essential to access the standard and performance options available in version 7.
BlueAltezza inquired: "Isn't it necessary to recreate the runtime file from version 6 in order to successfully operate on version 7, ensuring that either the standard or performance option is selected?" I wanted to add that I needed to utilize at least version 9 to access both the standard and performance settings for version 7. Upon expanding, I found that I did not encounter any issues when importing a .mer file from the PVP1000 Compact version 6 into its equivalent, the PVP1000 Standard version 7. However, I did face a challenge due to the increased resolution of version 7, which resulted in the .mer screens only covering about 70% of the overall display area. Consequently, we had to resize the application and recreate the .mer file specifically for version 7.
âś… Work Order Management
âś… Asset Tracking
âś… Preventive Maintenance
âś… Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.