Program Structure Opinions

[boov 0]

My company has a standard for structuring programs a certain way for the sake of consistancy. This structure was partially based on the functionality and features of our most common programming software, which isn't Mitsubishi. In the past, on Mitsubishi PLC projects, we have used GX Developer, and we just set our standard structure aside. This caused programs to get more messy and cluttered than we like, and harder to follow because it wasn't what we were used to seeing. Now that we are using GX Works2 I think we need to re-visit our standard structure and see how closely we can make GX Works2 look like it. Here is a pictoral view of what our structure looks like: If you have any opinions on how to make a GX Works2 project look similar to this, I would appreciate it. Edited 29 Sep 2010 by boov

[Crossbow 297]

Should work fine. Use a structured project, and you can get away with any language you like. Create programs using the structured languages and you can combine them into tasks and then program groups.

[boov 0]

Yes and No. At the moment the biggest struggle is the scope of labels. It looks like they can either be local to one specific program or global to absolutely all programs. Is that a true statement?

[Crossbow 297]

Absolutely. Global labels apply to the entire project, and local labels apply only to one POU.

[boov 0]

This may be more of a recommendation for improvement than anything else. What I was actually looking for was something between local and global, both for tags and for programs. I would love to have the ability to create a group of POUs and assign a table of labels for that group.

[Crossbow 297]

The IEC standard defines local and global labels, not labels for a group of POUs.