Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Rsview32 Vs. Wonderware Intouch

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 RFurey

RFurey

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 22 February 2006 - 11:34 AM

I'm thinking about dabbling with Wonderware because of an increasing irritation with RSView and Rockwell. Anyone with any experience with both? Thoughts?

#2 run4suds

run4suds

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 22 February 2006 - 05:18 PM

Just a few comparisons between InTouch and RSView 32:

InTouch is based on Microsoft’s 1993 technology and must use wrappers and wizards to become compliant with the latest technologies . RSView32 is based on Microsoft’s latest & greatest technologies. InTouch does not have a traditional client-server solution. In their solution, runtime projects must be located on all clients. RSView32 can import tags directly from AB Logix databases eliminating the need to configure all I/O tags in the HMI. InTouch has no object model. InTouch uses a proprietary scripting language, only usable within the product. It’s relatively easy to learn, but also relatively limited in what you can accomplish with it. InTouch cannot extend applications beyond the boundaries of its proprietary scripting language like RSView32 can with VBA. Wonderware's Terminal Server solution requires the use of ‘special’ runtimes (InTouch for Terminal Server). These ‘special’ runtimes cannot be used as regular runtimes, with or without I/O.
Because InTouch is not based on Microsoft Foundation Classes & Templates (MFC&T), it is not an OLE/ActiveX container. InTouch lacks most development productivity tools included in RSView32 (Group Editing, Object Smart Path, Test Run, Wallpaper, etc.).
InTouch has many expressions available to it, however RSView32 has VBA which is virtually limitless.

You might consider RSView SE before you jump ship to Wonderware.
RSView SE has built-in, flexible redundancy , a fully distributed server, multi-client solution , direct referencing of AB PLCs (direct access to ControlLogix tags) , an open object model to interface with third party COM applications , a fully integrated VBA Programming Language , a more flexible Terminal Server solution , and is a true ActiveX and OLE container (InTouch must use wizards)


#3 Guest_HalBishop_*

Guest_HalBishop_*
  • Guest

Posted 22 February 2006 - 06:13 PM

Hands down.
No competition.

Wonderware is much easier for me to use.



RsView seems less stable in the part of the industry in which I am employed.

I have absolutely no use for RsViewSE or RsViewME.

#4 Wordman

Wordman

    Engineer

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 23 February 2006 - 08:35 AM

With my experience, RSView is crap.

Wonderware is great because it's easy to learn. If you are going to use anything with scripting or added functionality, i would step up to iFIX.

GE Fanuc's iFIX is my favorite, a tad harder learning curve, but much more versatile. It's environment is built around visual basic, so you can configure it to do almost anything. It is also great for any application with many networked clients and or servers.

#5 Guest_HalBishop_*

Guest_HalBishop_*
  • Guest

Posted 23 February 2006 - 11:27 PM

With my experience, RSView is crap.

Wonderware is great because it's easy to learn. If you are going to use anything with scripting or added functionality, i would step up to iFIX.

GE Fanuc's iFIX is my favorite, a tad harder learning curve, but much more versatile. It's environment is built around visual basic, so you can configure it to do almost anything. It is also great for any application with many networked clients and or servers.


Wordman is right about iFix.
It is very powerful and stable.
Much more so than the Rockwell products.
We have used iFix on several projects and have been pleased with the results.

He is right on the RsView subject, it is crap.
Just got through with a job using RsViewME on a PanelviewPlus.
What a pain that was.
RsViewME is bad enough.
Then throw in a PanleviewPlus!
It's enough to give a guy ulcers.
ME must stand for "Miserable Excuse".

Stepping down off the soapbox.

#6 hakko808

hakko808

    Sparky

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 24 February 2006 - 03:03 AM

I have had fairly decent luck with RSView32. RSViewME/SE is a different product and at best a beta version.
What little bit I have worked with Wonderware, I found it stable and fairly straight forward to modify but never had to start from scratch. Big disadvantage I have heard of is price.

#7 Philip Wilkie

Philip Wilkie

    Newbie

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts
  • Country:New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 24 February 2006 - 12:44 PM

Always hilarious to see some underskilled techie post a rant the first time he uses a product and demonstably fails to either seek help nor understand what he is doing.

I've used RSView32, RSViewME/SE, and Wonderware on multiple projects over the last 5 years.

They all prove stable and worked just fine IF you ensured that you had read all the instructions. Every single problem I have ever run into, in the end proved to be something I was doing wrong.

I've got an RSView Studio liscence at Ver 1.0 and all versions except 3.0 and to some extent 3.1, have proved perfectly ok. I've currently got 15 different PanelViewPlus projects at Ver3.2 running without missing a beat. And several of them are quite substantial applications with some very complex screens. The RSViewSE project was on one of the largest sawmills in the world. It was running a fully patched Ver3.1. They had some issues at the outset, but RS came through with all the required fixes. This again is a very large system...and it works pefectly well.

The problem that most people seem to run into with RSViewME/SE is getting their heads around setting up the comms. The whole point they struggle to get is that the local Engineering PC and the taget PanelView and the download paths, can be in a large CLX system all be quite different. Some people never spot the fact that from within the local RSViewME Studio, you can open up a local copy of ME Runtime, and connect to the PLC processor....and run the entire project EXACTLY as if it were running on the PanelViewPlus. Or you can simply test single screens directly from with RSView Studio....all WITHOUT have to compile the application and download.

Again I wonder how Mr Bishop failed to see how useful and powerful Direct Tagging is, or if he used Local Messaging, Parameter Files or Structured Tags. Once again I have to conclude that slagging off a system you have only used once, and barely understand...simply reflects more on the person opening their mouth, than any credibility they bring to bear on the topic.

RSView32 is a very mature and stable product, with plenty of power to handle very large systems. The largest I have worked on had 24,000 tags to four CLX processors with redundant servers and 6 clients. Screen updates were always less than 1 second and in the three years I looked after it, I never had a single unplanned failover to the secondary server. But again, we planned and structured these systems with an understanding of how to make the most efficient use of the system resources. Amateurs who blunder into these things make a mess of them.

My only big grumble with Wonderware is that it is still compiled code. Unlike RSView32 you cannot edit a project while it is running. The Archestra comms structure is the best aspect, as it gives excellent logging of all the system and comms status. It seems a much more recent piece of software than the rest of InTouch.

#8 Guest_HalBishop_*

Guest_HalBishop_*
  • Guest

Posted 24 February 2006 - 07:37 PM

Always hilarious to see some underskilled techie post a rant the first time he uses a product and demonstably fails to either seek help nor understand what he is doing.

I've used RSView32, RSViewME/SE, and Wonderware on multiple projects over the last 5 years.

They all prove stable and worked just fine IF you ensured that you had read all the instructions. Every single problem I have ever run into, in the end proved to be something I was doing wrong.

I've got an RSView Studio liscence at Ver 1.0 and all versions except 3.0 and to some extent 3.1, have proved perfectly ok. I've currently got 15 different PanelViewPlus projects at Ver3.2 running without missing a beat. And several of them are quite substantial applications with some very complex screens. The RSViewSE project was on one of the largest sawmills in the world. It was running a fully patched Ver3.1. They had some issues at the outset, but RS came through with all the required fixes. This again is a very large system...and it works pefectly well.

The problem that most people seem to run into with RSViewME/SE is getting their heads around setting up the comms. The whole point they struggle to get is that the local Engineering PC and the taget PanelView and the download paths, can be in a large CLX system all be quite different. Some people never spot the fact that from within the local RSViewME Studio, you can open up a local copy of ME Runtime, and connect to the PLC processor....and run the entire project EXACTLY as if it were running on the PanelViewPlus. Or you can simply test single screens directly from with RSView Studio....all WITHOUT have to compile the application and download.

Again I wonder how Mr Bishop failed to see how useful and powerful Direct Tagging is, or if he used Local Messaging, Parameter Files or Structured Tags. Once again I have to conclude that slagging off a system you have only used once, and barely understand...simply reflects more on the person opening their mouth, than any credibility they bring to bear on the topic.

RSView32 is a very mature and stable product, with plenty of power to handle very large systems. The largest I have worked on had 24,000 tags to four CLX processors with redundant servers and 6 clients. Screen updates were always less than 1 second and in the three years I looked after it, I never had a single unplanned failover to the secondary server. But again, we planned and structured these systems with an understanding of how to make the most efficient use of the system resources. Amateurs who blunder into these things make a mess of them.

My only big grumble with Wonderware is that it is still compiled code. Unlike RSView32 you cannot edit a project while it is running. The Archestra comms structure is the best aspect, as it gives excellent logging of all the system and comms status. It seems a much more recent piece of software than the rest of InTouch.


I have been using Rockwell HMI products since the early 1990's.
You have five (5) years experience?
I have been in the automation game since the the 1980's.
I have not and will not level any personal attacks against you.
I thought this thread was about HMI not about ME.
I guess you are missing the whole poiint of this site.
This is supposed to be about expressing opinions about the software.
You have unleashed an unwarranted and hienous attack on both my character and my abilities.
I hope the administrators of this site take note of this and perhaps remove your membership.
I expressed my honest opinion.
You just sling mud and call people names.



I guess it just a sign of class or lack thereof.



Oh, I forgot to mention the fact that you CAN edit InTouch while it is running.
I guess I could mention something along the lines of "underskilled techie post a rant the first time he uses a product and demonstably fails to either seek help nor understand what he is doing", but I will just let it go

Edited by HalBishop, 24 February 2006 - 07:52 PM.


#9 Philip Wilkie

Philip Wilkie

    Newbie

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPip
  • 8 posts
  • Country:New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 24 February 2006 - 08:47 PM

InTouch editing is done in the offline mode...and must be compiled before the Runtime Viewer will reflect the changes, whereas RSView lets you edit most components (except Channels) with the Runtime running concurrently and no "compile" process required.

All I can say is that in your original post all you could manage to say for all your "years" of experience was that RSViewME/SE was "crap'. Well that is such an erudite and helpful comment isn't it? It was just leading with the chin.

I've been in the automation field since 1981 myself, but I limited my background to my work as an independent contractor in the last 5 of them. Far too often I have seen people slag off products as you did without giving specific reasons...just a blow-off rant....to cover for the fact they probably didn't do their own job properly. Yet it in my experience, almost all the problems I have ever had with a product were of my own making; lack of familiarity, failure to read the help files, checkout the release notes, the Knowledge Base, or phone Tech Support or some combination thereof.

I've only once in my Internet life slagged off a product, and that was after doing the 5 day official Training Course, (where the Training Officer said it was crap), 4 months of struggling with it, and finally making it go despite all the obstacles. At the end I had 14 pages of typed notes detailing bugs and deficiencies that justified me calling it "crap". (It was not a Rockwell product and nor is it relevant to name it here.) My point is that if you are going to "get on your soapbox" and you do not back your claims with facts...then someone like me is going to call you on it. Fair enough?

Overall I've made 15 different ME projects go just fine and once I got my head around RSView Studio's way of doing things...it really is just a combination of RSView32 and PanelBuilder Classic, with some limitations due to the relatively limited CPU horsepower in the PVPlus...then it all worked just fine...and very efficiently I may add.

Your "crap" comment simply doesn't correlate with reality here buddy. Maybe you could consider the purpose of this site is to be a little more helpful than that?

#10 Chris Elston

Chris Elston

    Controls Engineer

  • Super Admin
  • 3063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 24 February 2006 - 08:47 PM

Dear Philip Wilkie,


Please do try and keep an open mind and we welcome your opinions about any products etc. But I ask that you REFRAIN from flamming members. If you have something to say to an individual, it's best to send a private message to that person, and then express your views publicly about the product, not the members of this site.


Thank you for your corporation.

Chris

#11 Guest_HalBishop_*

Guest_HalBishop_*
  • Guest

Posted 24 February 2006 - 08:57 PM

Amen

#12 Eddie Willers

Eddie Willers

    Automation Advisor

  • MrPLC Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 25 February 2006 - 12:16 AM

Hal, I encourage you to tone down your approach if you want to remain welcome, and to be taken seriously.

I know all about your experience, your influence, and your skills, but frankly I discount them all because your manner is so very unpleasant.

Lighten up !
Forum posts are not professional advice, are for educational and discussion purposes only, and are not a substitute for proper consultation with a qualified engineer.

#13 Guest_HalBishop_*

Guest_HalBishop_*
  • Guest

Posted 25 February 2006 - 12:24 AM

Cool!
I was expressing my opinion.
I did not respond to some of the posts above in kind.

Delete my account from this site.
I am done here.

#14 Chris Elston

Chris Elston

    Controls Engineer

  • Super Admin
  • 3063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Country:United States
    United States

Posted 25 February 2006 - 12:32 AM

Delete my account from this site.
I am done here.



He doesn't mean that.....This topic is not going anywhere fast.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users