PLCMentor.com

I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical question or not.  Pain the the neck usually causes downtime. Pretty easy to figure the return on downtime cost vs equipment/development cost.  I'm not really a fan of anything Mitsu - PLC's, displays, cars, etc.  Me and Mitsu just dont seem to get along.  The AB software is really expensive; however, it works.  It has a lot of features and they keep improving it.  I'll pay for quality.  Also there is a time component.  I can program twice as fast - maybe even a greater multiplier - in the RSLogx5000 platform versus most others.  Partially due to my experience with that compared to others, but also due to the structure and ease of programming in that package.  The hardware is also pretty solid.  Install and forget.  Let the spares gather dust.  Finally there is a sanity factor. What's left of my sanity after years in this business is worth paying a little more to me.  Most of the Japanese processors seem to target eliminating my remaining grasp on reality. 

I run the test versus a test document for functionality.  Retesting is a case by case basis.  Most of my logic is very modular so just rechecking the module will ensure good results.  I had full chemical plants come up and run perfectly after an I/O field checkout. Just don't see the need for a separate piece of software to do what is already manageable in the controller itself.  In addition it cuts down on training as engineers already understand how to program the Logix.  These other packages will need training and time to come up to speed on the simulation software configuration.  Simple is always better in my book.

This really does sound more like a recipe application rather than a new program situation.  Many places have a hard time keeping up with one application for a PLC.  I think you would find it to be an organizational nightmare to have several programs for a single machine.  Also keep in mind any changes to the machine would require changing all of those programs.  I think you want to avoid the multiple program path at all costs.

This is the way I have always done simulation.  Maybe every project I have done would be considered simple to people here, but I have simulated full chemical plants fairly easily with this method. Every program has logic that automatically puts all I/O into an inhibit mode when simulation is selected.  Simple items like valves, motors and drives have blocks that handle I/O transfer.  Simulation of that module is part of that block.  Batching, temperature control, flow, pressure, etc. are not really hard to simulate in a basic manner.  Generally the simulation is to wring out the program so I never had to actually model the process.  My purpose was not really to assist the chemical engineers in figuring out their process as it was to make sure my system could control the process properly when it was installed.  In addition to simulation, this allowed me to train the operators on the system before the actual startup.  I really never have run across a system that I could not effectively simulate this way.  Someone did mention servos.  That is an area I never had to simulate, but over the last 30 years I have put together some pretty complex systems and never found a third party system that added value to what I was already doing.  Most of my recent systems were Logix systems and they are particularly suited for this type of simulation.

If my memory serves me right (can be questionable), I think the only way you can connect to any of the emulate programs is via RSLinx.  You would need to setup an OPC connection from RSLinx to Wonderware.  You will need the version of RSLinx that is capable of this - not the Lite version.

Panic has many great points.  He hits on one of the areas of industrial controls that many just dont get.  You cant spend money in an industrial or even business environment with the same attitude that you would in your personal finances.  Most people's personal finances are on a fixed budget.  When you spend money it is an expense and generally is not going to affect your future income.  Very different in an industrial environment where saving money may cost you money in the future as Panic describes.  Especially if your cost savings create downtime in the future.  Two different mind sets.  The one thought that I would add to Panic's reply is that of maintainability.  If you put in an oddball application or controller into a facility, what happens if the facility needs outside help?  My mentality over the years was to only put in equipment and software that had a wide range of support available in the area.  As a contractor, I would tell my clients that I want them to return to me because I did a good job not because there was nobody else to support their system.  With that said, many of the big players in the industry have excellent support and also an ample supply of contractors familiar with their products and available to help if there are problems. 

Just noticed this comment.  Yes RedLion products are in wide use here in the US.  They are my goto for HMI (and yes free software but not my major concern) and they also own Ntron switches which I have been using exclusively for years. I gotta say, my work is all done in the industrial sector.  Paying for good software is not a big issue to me.  Paying $500 or $5000 for a piece of software that is going to be used on a $10 million dollar line doesn't seem a big issue to me as long as it is a good solution for the line.  There are too many people in the industrial world that treat things like this as if it was a personal expense.  If I can save an hour of downtime with quality software in an industrial environment, then I have generally paid for the software.  Just a thought.  Different mindset is necessary.

If you only have the standard version of RSLogix5000 then you can purchase a separate license just for FBD.  You can check with Rockwell or your rep to determine what your status of ownership is there.

I would suggest starting with the Ethernet I/P driver in Linx first as that is the easiest - if it works.  There are times that network hardware or other unknown gremlins tend to make that driver not work.  That's when I back off to use the Ethenet device driver that Joe describes.  In all likelihood that is why he first asks what driver you are using.  Many of us have learned that if you are trying to use the Ethernet I/P driver and its not seeing your devices to just bail and go to the Ethernet driver. 

Mike you may be interested in Inductive Automation's Maker edition.  They have just offered a freebie edition of their SCADA that looks really cool for playing with at home. 

Did not know that.  That would explain why when I was writing the post above I couldn't find the overhead settings on my L81.  Thats  a really nice feature!

Also keep in mind that the correct way to check for task timing is to go to the task properties and look at the monitor tab while online.  This will let you know the last scan time and the longest scan time.  There is also a count of task overlaps there. In addition there is a tool designed just for looking into task timing issues (task monitor tool).  Its odd that increasing your time period affected your communications.  I locked myself out of a processor once by setting the task time so short that there was no time for comms.  Had to take it to program mode to recover.  I think what happened in your case was you actually increase the number of times your task was scanned.  When there is an overlap, the next run of that task is canceled.  So if you run 150ms on a 100ms scan then you are actually operating every 200ms.  When you set yours to 150 then you had very little time left over for unscheduled comms.  Similar to what I did when I was messing around with that processor.  Keep in mind you can always get back on line by going to program mode, but not usually a great option with a running process.  I think when you go online and check the monitor tab, you will find you are having scans that are approaching your watchdog timer.  That probably is due to other tasks that are interrupting this one as other posters have mentioned already.  Could also be some loop that only operates sporadically.  That is actually how I messed around with scan time is by running a loop and just increasing the iterations to see the effects. 

I tend to prefer RedLion for most HMI applications.  That is using the classic definition of HMI that doesn't include data collection and manipulation.  Inexpensive hardware, free config software and generally can do what needs doing. 

If you are not sure, you can post a pic of the remote rack and we can move on from there.

That is a quite impressive bit of hobby work!   No that's just an impressive bit of work.  Well done!  You'll have to post some of your screen shots to let us know how you are incorporating your HMI.

As mentioned there are rotary switches on the module, but keep in mind that they limit the setup to a single subnet.  If the module you replace has something other than 999 selected on those switches then all you have to do is copy that.  If 999 is selected then you will need to go with the more difficult but flexible routes that follow.  Part of your determination of the path to reconfigure such a replacement will be what access you have to your processor on your rack.  If the En2t is the only interface to communicate with your rack, then you will need to configure it via Bootp.  The Bootp program is fairly simple and a good way to go; however,  I have had problems with it in the past so I will give a few alternatives.  You will need to know the MAC address of your new card as that is what you will see pop up in the Bootp program to associate an IP address with.  Keep in mind that if you set your IP address via Bootp, you will need to disable the bootp and dhcp afterwards or the module will drop your address the next time it is powered down.  There is a handy button to click on in the bootp program to disable both of these options once you setup your module.  Unfortunately that button only seems to work for me about 10% of the time so I have to setup the ip address and then go online with the processor and disable these options in the module properties, or right click on the module in RSLinx and configure these options there.  Alternatively to Bootp, if you have a DHCP server you can also connect the module to the network and let the server assign it an address.  The address assigned will be shown on the module display.  You can then go online using that address or use RSLinx to reconfigure the module as necessary.  Additionally there is the option of getting online via a serial port or other comm path then you can use that to modify your module settings. 

Mike, Sorry to be late getting into this but I dont think I saw where anyone mentioned online programming.  The 1100 and 1400 can and the 1200 and 1500 cannot.  Doesnt make much difference with your train at home but it can make a big difference when working on an operating piece of equipment or process.  Being able to make small changes without taking down a system has always been a must for me.

Seriously it is getting bad.  This could be the death of a forum and I hate to see it.  Are links on the forum setup as no follow?  This should cut down on spammers as there is no search engine benefit.    

I feel your pain!  I know from my website that it is a constant battle.  You already have the captcha for new account protection.  I would suggest contacting the creator of the forum software to see if they have any solutions available.  This kind of persistent hacking could really damage the forum and you guys have a great thing going here. 

Funny that this just came back alive today.  I just checked out my 306ER installation today.  I specifically need a separate I/O subnet and SCADA subnet.  I have flex I/O and an E&H transmitter on one port and SCADA and messaging to an old PLC5 on the other port.  Used to have to go up to the Logix to get multiple networks like this so it's pretty cool.  The money for the PLC5 upgrade is a ways off so I'm using the compact to bring in devices like the E&H transmitter over the network.  This will allow us to move forward on our near term sfield device selections that will integrate nicely with a new logix in the future. 

The difference that I was looking for was that the 306 has dual ethernet ports that can be individually configured.  This way I can separate my I/O network from my SCADA or control interface network.

Did you set the dip switches for voltage?  Default is current for the Analog inputs. http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/in/1762-in005_-en-p.pdf page 12 in this manual.

LOL spoken like a true Ham op!

Yeah I actually use the register method more than the counter method for keeping track of steps.  You see that Joe has each step 10 apart, ie,  10, 20, 30, etc.  Similar to the way we used to have to program in BASIC when you had to put line numbers.  That way you could insert lines without having to renumber your whole program.  The same applies in the code he has.  He can easily insert another step, say 15, without screwing up his whole numbering scheme.

Sounds like you are heading in the right direction.  As for sequencers, I am not usually a fan.  As I am generally programming in ladder somewhat because it's easier for the techs to understand, the sequencer flies against this logic.  I prefer to use something like a counter to step through sequence steps and operate logic based on what step I'm in.  This works particularly well with each of my equipment pieces being a looked at as a module.  So i might activate a bit that is defined as step 1 when my counter accumulator is 1.  I will use that bit in my valve, pump or other equipment logic to activate required equipment when the equipment is running in automatic.  It's very easy to see what happens in that step 1 with a cross reference of the address.  In addition when someone is looking at a valve operation (for example), they can immediately see that it is active in step 1.  Finally it is very easy to see what cycles the system to the next step.  I think it's more clear than a sequencer.  This is all programming preference.  There are times when I have used the sequencer when the end user preferred it.  PLC programming is very much programming to your audience. Program in a way that works for the expected user.