Gerry

I guess you mean 2 doughs in 1 pocket?? In the plants I've worked on, there wouldn't be room for 3 conveyors between the rounder and 1st prover. And I don't think the bucket loader was ever intended to operate at 7000/hr. I'm assuming this is a Baker-Perkins/APV plant, with the buckets indexing with a clutch/brake system. Here they used a capacitive prox to sense the dough piece and trigger the clutch. As the rate increases, PLC scan time, I/O response time, and prox switching time all become issues - not to mention the clutch/brake - due to their innate variations becoming more significant relative to the dough rate. I don't think those loaders ever perform 100%.  

In my experience, the divider drops 4 dough pieces at once onto a conveyor that is mechanically geared to the stroke rate of the divider. Are you trying to change the gaps between each of the 4? or between groups of 4? Again, from my experience, the dough pieces drop off the divider's conveyor onto a slightly faster conveyor feeding the hander/rounder. Don't understand how the gap is critical.

I'm guessing that the film feeding axis is configured as linear and you're using the MRP to avoid ever reaching the maximum length of the axis with repeated moves. If I'm correct, I recommend configuring the axis as rotary, set the unwind to some arbitrary value, delete the MRP, and make the moves with the MAM relative instead of absolute. You say the clamp and seal mechanism moves the film - is that by design? Or is that a mechanical problem? Generally not good practice to try to solve mechanical problems with software.  

If the devices connected to the outputs are electrically isolated from each other, then no problem. What I am pointing out is that if one side of two (or more) outputs are effectively tied together through grounded inputs (like the drive as shown above), then the outputs are no longer isolated. I'll leave it to others to analyse the interaction.

If you tie two isolated circuits to two non-isolated circuits (i.e. grounded), isolation is lost.

If you create a UDT with one member of type BOOL[64], then tags of that data type can be manipulated with COP or FLL. To do any masking with MVM, first copy the tag to an array of SINT's, INT's, or DINT's as you prefer.

There could be problems if you want to connect a second output to a second drive (or other device with single-ended input).

I suggest using the FSC command. expression: array1[x] LEQ array2[FSC_controltag.pos]   use the result to reference the particular value from array2  

First, it is not necessary to have an array as the source for the FLL - just enter 0 as an immediate variable. Second, as Joe E. hints at, the FLL won't work the way you're hoping. The instruction to use is FAL.  

Every motion instruction requires a control tag. So yes, you need a new tag. Simple questions get simple answers. But I sense that you have more questions.

But... beware that the COP instruction executes the copying one byte at a time and can be interrupted by higher priority tasks at any point. If the data being copied originates from I/O or DNet or ENet, etc. or from a periodic task, it is likely that it will change during the copy. If that matters to your application (usually would) use CPS instead of COP.  

BTR/W are implemented using MSG in Logix 5000.

Don't waste your time with an AOI for this simple task. Use bits in a DINT for the alarms and check the DINT for NEQ 0 to set the global output.

If you set up the UDT properly, a simple COPy from the raw input to an instance of the UDT is all that you need. Subroutine / AOI unnecessary.

Inputs IN1 and IN2 and output OUT1 are analogues. IN3 is a binary. When Select is '1' (set) then Select set input is transferred to Output. When Select is '0' (cleared) then Select cleared input is transferred to Output.  

Sounds like contacts are welding. Possibly from drawing inrush current for too long due to the valve solenoid sticking. Or possibly longer term overload due to solenoid not properly pulling in 100%. I can imagine a program cause, but would need to know processor type and I/O setup.  

If you're keen on using ControlLogix and your geometry isn't negotiable, then I think your only option is to use position cams. This would involve dividing each planned move's trajectory into arbitrarily short segments and then converting the cartesian co-ordinates of each segment to polar co-ordinates. Put the angles and lengths into two separate cam tables and slave them to a virtual master axis. Then, a simple move of the virtual master will drive your two axes in the desired way. Smoothness will be determined by segment length.  

The corresponding data type would be INT, not SINT. Also, the index variable should be DINT.

I guess the overwhelming response answers that question. First, they are not applicable in every situation. However, with the appropriate application, they are very helpful in program organisation and reduce or even eliminate tediously long and complex rungs full of interlocks since the sequence logic is embodied in the chart. They also aid maintenance, since it is immediately obvious where a sequence is hung up. Your idea to implement a state machine would be appropriate. I have used SFC's for bread mixers, shrink wrappers, carton machines and probably some less appropriate applications as well. My advice is don't try to incorporate  too much in a single chart. AB's initial attempt at implementing SFC's was with the introduction of the PLC5 (5/15 & 5/25) and was virtually useless. Likely, many people tried it out, found it useless and just stayed away. The second attempt with the 5/250 was a marginal advance but still too limited to be useful. With the 5/250, you were obliged to have a master SFC -- this typically ended up as a chart with one step that called a ladder file with all the logic. Finally, with the third attempt (5/20 /30 /40 /60) they came up with a very useful and powerful implementation. Diehards like myself started using them, but most continued to stay away. The ControlLogix implementation was a long time coming, but similar to the NP PLC5. And CLX introduced the capability to edit the chart online, though arguably that shouldn't be necessary.  

Probably easier to create a UDT to handle it.

two virtual axes: v-master & v-slave create your profile for MAPC as if master units are time jog, stop, start, etc. the v-master axis at "x" imaginary units per second with MAJ gear the PF527 drives with individual MAG to the v-slave axis  

The first 22 lines of your csv data show zero change in position with various velocities and accelerations -- that is not possible! Do you seriously need to make all the micro adjustments to velocity shown in your data? Regarding your other posts about MATC --- No, you can't pause it

Most manufacturers have drives that will take a +/- 10VDC control signal that is compatible with the 1756-MO2AE module. For Sercos or Ethernet control interface, I think you're stuck with AB.

More information would be helpful. What kind of machine or process are you trying to control? Are the two drives required to operate in some relation to each other or are they independent? If you actually enter a position profile for a MAPC rather than just reading about it, you will find that the software will display a velocity profile and an acceleration profile in addition to the position profile. Perhaps a sketch of the profile you want will stimulate more responses.  

Soft plc's were a fad about 20years ago that never gained popular use in industry. They can be useful for training purposes and experimenting, but reliance on Windows and typical PC hardware made them unsuitable for production environments. The only plus they offered was memory capacity. For most systems, the major cost is in I/O modules and their necessary accessories, making the processor cost relatively minor. And Softlogix is not free. And yes, you definitely need all the same software packages to communicate as would be required with a PLC.