MrPLC Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ekke

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Country Finland
  1. Thanks, didn't know this kind of tool existed. It was a bit extreme solution, but worked after continuing to Step 2.. Got the 1.053F installed, now just need to install the rest.  
  2. Hi! Tried to install GX Works 3 v1.053F, previous version was 1.040S. I got a BSOD when installing it, and now my GXW3 says version is 1.00A. Uninstall from Control panel says ”Other language product has already been installed. Please install GX Works3 again after uninstalling the installed product.”  and if I try to intall 1.053, it says the same thing. Any ideas what's "the correct way" to remove or repair this? Thanks!
  3. Yeah, still don't have a clear picture what are "limitations" with this system, or what kind those are. And don't have "specs to start with" since don't know what would be needed in, let's say, 5 years from now. Just don't want a system, that is too limited in some way and speed isn't top priority in this system. But surely it can't be "too slow", just don't know how slow is ok, and when we will hit that limit if doing this type of TCP-open-communicate-close network... 
  4. Bit to word

    In GX Works 3 this is quite easy..? Pic attached..
  5. Well, had some time to put effort to this again, and it seems that you can use one connection to access multiple PLCs in TCP/IP... Tried with 3x FX5, one as a master and used only 1 connection in that.. this might be one part of the solution   
  6. Thanks for the input again. Well, not 100% sure what we "need" but it would be nice to have some "futureproof" so we don't run out of I/O (well, mainly inputs) in the future.  Idea was to gather inputs from different places and show alarms/info in the HMI screen(s). Not very critical system, but a way to get info faster and in more usable form to users. We have quite good coverage ethernet in the factory, so it would be nice to use it, not to wire a second network "parallel" to it. Closest thing I have found is RJ71EN71 and socket communications (TCP/IP or UDP/IP), it allows these: P1 connector No. 17-64 connection P2 connector No. 1-64 connection  That would be plenty, my guess it that we need maybe 20-30 to cover most of planned alarms/info. Just no idea about the speed etc. but I think it won't be a problem since we don't have "that time critical" things happening so few sec delay would be ok. I tried Brainboxes ED-008 8xDI/O "remote I/O" option and connected it (Modbus TCP/IP) to FX5, it seems to work ok so it might be one cheap option to add I/O to this system.. (140 eur / 8 inputs is quite cheap but it needs 24V too). I still haven't wrapped my head around this, what limitations there are in different systems etc. But I think you are right, CCLinkIE Field might be the best option, but it seems to be a little overkill and costs might be a problem... our business isn't that big and only few workers :)  
  7. Finally did some "research" with this and it seems there are quite big limitations with FX5 and/or IE Field Basic, I think this is what you referred as "Simple". If I have understood right, IE Basic can have 4096 remote inputs (RX) and max. 64 stations. But that 64 is 16 stations in 4 groups. iQ-R supports groups, but iQ-F (FX5) doesn't. So it's down to 16 stations. And that 4096 remote inputs is actually 4x1024 so inputs are down to 1024 too. That's not really that much and surely isn't "futureproof". (As a sidenote, with FX5 as a master, there can be only 6 stations and 384 inputs). And then there is that IE Field.. that needs own cabling, so it kinda isn't what we were looking for (idea was to use network we already have) and doubles cost of every FX5. I'm not sure if we can use some other "communication method" and use those 2x64 connections that iQ-R offers, I think that would be enough for a future too.
  8. FX5U - High-speed counter+encoder

    Post your code? Are you using high-speed processing instructions?
  9. Thanks for the reply. I think SLMP is ok, but haven't really checked other options...  That FX5-CCLIEF about doubles the price of FX5, so would like to use plain PLCs... :) Well, maybe we will just start with some FX5s and try to solve problems when they appear.. :P For now, it's only planned to have "one-way-connection" so FX5s are just inputs.. and I think this will be just auxilary system to get alarms where they are needed, some buzzer screaming in the factory hall doesn't "always" tell what's the problem and where. So not very critical system, but really helpful if we can get everything to work as expected.  
  10. Hi! We are thinking to build an "alert system" to our factory by using iQ-F FX5 PLCs and HMI screens in locations where needed. All connected via ethernet since we have wiring for that in many places already. Might not be the best option available, but these PLCs are pretty cheap, familiar, scalable (we don't know yet how many I/Os, analog inputs, temperature sensors etc. are needed) and small enough. The plan was to use maybe just 5 PLCs to start with and then add more when needed. I think we need one master PLC to communicate with HMIs to "hold everything together". :) But found some "problems": There seems to be a limitation on the number of input/output points and it's "up to 384 points" in remote points (according to FX5 Hardware User's Manual). But those "points" are for CC-Link/AnyWireASLINK, so I don't know if that "affects" ethernet systems too? CC-Link IE? But there is max. 8 stations/connections limit for one FX5 master... Can this (or these) be avoided by using iQ-R PLC as a master PLC? RJ71EN71 ethernet module says "128 connections (connections usable on a program)" (64/ethernet-port). And I didn't find that kind of limitation in input/output points with iQ-R...  Is there some other thoughts & limitations we should consider? When we will hit the roof with this kind of system? Thanks!
  11. GX Works 3 - Online Program Change fails

    Ok, nice to know..   I have 1.047Z and since I divided program to several Program Pous, it seems to work better now. Thanks for the help!
  12. GX Works 3 - Online Program Change fails

    Description in 1.101 & 1.102 firmwares says "CPU serial 17X0001 or higher" and mine is 1660420 so skipped those.  Global label is 3896 and MAIN program 48564 bytes, so shouldn't be a problem. It's pretty odd that sometimes it handles a lot of changes, but sometimes fails at simple changes. Like.. adding OR-block with 2 labels (that already exists) without connecting OR to anything. And sometimes it works when adding more complex edit like several AND, SET, RST, MOV, comparisons and many labels. I have tried several thing to find what is causing it, but still no idea since sometimes (too often) it fails with simple changes... :) Maybe will still try to divide program to smaller pieces. Thanks for the help!
  13. GX Works 3 - Online Program Change fails

    Updated to 1.065, didn't help.. 
  14. GX Works 3 - Online Program Change fails

    1.030, maybe will try to update..
  15. Hi, Any idea what are cause for this message: Even simple change like a new Global Label might triggers this. Have used FX5 over 2 years and usually this start to appear after >10000 steps in the program, but in the newest project I get it from almost any minor change and it has less than 5000 steps... Any suggestions how to avoid this? It's getting annoying.. :)