NEW PLC NJ501-1500 machine controller

[Yair 2]

Hi All, I would like to know if any one has tried to use the new software Sysmac Studio and the new plc NJ501 This software will replace the CXONE .OMRON NJ NJ

[CX_Luigi 1]

from Omron Global IA site: Overview of NJ plc Overview of Sysmac Studio CX-Designer, Integrator, Protocol and Network Configurator also included in the package, that only supports the new controllers, so CX-One is still on for the foreseeable future.

[Berti Baker 7]

Er. Looks to me like CX-One is for programming CJ1 & CJ2, and Sysmac Studio is for Programming NJ501 ... so not a replacement. Also interested to hear from anyone who has used it... BB

[infoplc.net 0]

Hello No. Sysmac Studio it´s only to NJ Series, it´s diferent software than the CX-One

[PMCR 66]

Moving forward for the next 5 or 10 years, Omron will support 2 platforms: PLC: CJ2 / CS1 / CP1 with CX One MAC (Machine Automation Controller): NJ = SYSMAC Studio MAC = integration of motion, machine control, vision, and within 6 months, safety. The integration of these products is at the hardware level, and at the software level (IDE = Integrated Development Environment) Both hardware and software platforms will co-exist (an play nicely on the same PC).

[Yair 2]

NEW NJ 301 4 OR 8 AXES at 1 mili sec NJ301.pdf

[LuffyX 0]

Right. Sysmac studio is for the new SYSMAC NJ controller. In addition, NJ supports most of the CJ1 expansion/modules. I've already tried using the new Sysmac studio once, but am not yet used to it. One good feature for this new system is that you can have an in-line ST in your program which is very useful in mathematical calculations/comparison. Plus, instead of calling an I/O point, data memory etc. via their addresses you input/use them using variable name/tag names. Sysmac studio also has a 3D simulator good for viewing motion sequences using your traced data. However it's quite irritating when you program using the sysmac studio. You always have to right click on the rung and click add rung below/above just to have another rung. As of now, this are the things/features I have noticed/discovered in the new sysmac studio. I know it's only a little info. I have used it once yet. :)

[BobB 58]

A guy I know has always programmed with other brands of PLCs. He downloaded a trial version of CX-One and Sysmac Studio. His comments were CX-Programmer is brilliant - Sysmac Studio is a PITA! Will be interesting to see if the Japanese modify it to be as good as CX-Programmer.

[Michael Walsh 268]

CX-Programmer has been improved constantly over the last 10-15 years, so yes, it has been refined into a very nice / solid software package. Sysmac Studio is quite a bit different and very new. There are many, many programmers working on Sysmac Studio with a new update coming out nearly monthly. I expect progress and improvement on the software to move at a very fast pace (as it has to this point). The initial transition from CX-Programmer to Sysmac Studio took a bit of time. However, now that I am used to Sysmac Studio, there are many cool features that make implementation of complex motion and machine control quicker and easier. And as stated in previous posts, CX-One / CX-Programmer is definitely NOT going away anytime soon.

[SysmacUser 5]

Target for Sysmac Studio is to be the best tool for the NJ Sysmac Machine Controller. NJ Sysmac is not just a PLC. It is a Machine Controller: Including Logic, Motion, Information, Safety, Vision, HMI*, in same environment. CX-Programmer functionality is covered as one of the Sysmac Studio areas (with the natural improvements and changes due to the differnet nature of the controller (CJ series is memory based, NJ Sysmac is Symbolic IEC-61131-3). I can understand that first impression of CX-Programmer user in front of new Sysmac is to be overwhelmed, because of new areas and functionality native IEC-61131-3 based, but my experience is that after a short assimilation time, user apreciates the new features of the Studio environment, that drastically reduces the engineering time for the machine development, so will not go back to CX-Programmer... Best Regards *CX-Designer is provided in the package when NS Series HMI programming is required. Edited 11 Oct 2013 by SysmacUser

[BobB 58]

Still not impressed and will not use it by choice. Too slow - symbol based programming is a PITA to me - that is why I told Schneider to go away and leave me alone. The Schneider top software man in Oz took twice as long to write alarm routines as I did with CX-P. If you know where you are and where you are going nothing is as fast as number programming on the keyboard using shortcuts in my view. I downloaded the trial version of Sysmac Studio and gave it a good go - too slow - too hard too make money - have to get everything done fast or I lose money. Big difference working for a boss and working for yourself - every minute wasted comes out of your pocket! Fancy programming packages with symbol based programming and lots of mouse drag and drop take time - 1 less bottle of wine I can buy. I used to love the DOS software CAPS - keyboard only - quick and dirty - got the job done and made money. CX-P to me is still the best PLC programming software on the market - end of line! I have no desire to even get involved with IEC-61131-3 programming - it would cost me money! Edited 11 Oct 2013 by BobB

[Crossbow 294]

While I understand your issues with IEC programming, I have to say that it is the current technology. People only programming in ladder are going to be left in the dust. And for new programmers, it's a hell of a lot easier than learning cryptic memory maps with addresses all broken up into sections. I am confident I can write IEC code as fast as most programmers with a ladder background. I have done IEC programming on 4 PLC platforms in my career. Sysmac Studio still has some bugs, but the latest version 1.08 seems pretty good so far. The integration of the environment for motion and safety and PLC into one controller makes life much simpler. The fact that the software also does the vision systems and soon the HMI systems is another plus. I don't know why you feel you have to use a mouse. All the keyboard shortcuts are the same as CX Programmer. This was a design effort made to help people transition to the new controls with minimal learning curve. Having used both, I can say that Sysmac Studio still needs some work. But you also need to remember it's about 2 years old, where CX Programmer has had 14 years to get to the level it is at. I have provided feedback on some features to Omron from my use, and I must say, some of them have already been resolved in 1.08. I just did my first safety controller in Sysmac Studio and must say it wasn't as bad as I was expecting.

[SysmacUser 5]

There is strong trend in Europe to program using ST language. And NJ, as IEC-61131-3 system can be programmed seamless in ST and Ladder. My background is Ladder programming, but there are many situations where ST becomes best choice. Something particulary good in NJ is that Ladder and ST can be mixed in the same program in a very fluent and visual way, from my experience this is a very powerfull way of programming, and reduces engineering and maintenance time. The new NX Safety Network Controller (EtherCAT Safety) integrated in the Sysmac system closes the loop: Logic+Motion+Information+Safety in one single package, with EtherCAT and Ethernet/IP embedded..., so simple... In the past, I dedicated my time thinking "how to do it", now... I dedicate my time to "what I want to do", the... "how" is not a big issue anymore... Edited 15 Oct 2013 by SysmacUser

[BobB 58]

Still not impressed and do not really care about current European trends to FB, ST and the like. When a customer is in trouble a day away by plane it is easier to talk through ladder than FB/ST. Generally electricians can understand ladder - not the other stuff - saves me several days traveling in a plane and getting frustrated because I am wasting my time. Ladder and ST can be used in CX-P if you wish as well - my choice is to not use it as per above. The how was never a big issue with me - and still is not. Quite funny, generally typing in the tags takes me much longer than writing the software. Thank God for Excel! I guess it depends on what you do - I do not get involved in safety stuff or machine control as such although I do generator systems and the like. For generators I choose generator controllers that do most of the work for me. Saves me a heap of time programming stuff anyway. I have not as yet found an application for the NJ within my business. I would like the redundancy function - 2 wired Ethernet ports per card with EtherCat - to be made available for the CJ2 though - saves mucking about with Controller Link and fibre optics. IEC programming standards are not really relevant in Australia most of the time. If have found customers have specified all programming to be FB - I have told them it will cost a heap more. Saw a guy one day with one of these stupid specifications having to muck about and create an FB for 2 inputs and 1 output! Took him a lot longer than a simple ladder! He did this for days because everything had to be in FB! Relevant to your circumstances I guess. I grew up in the DOS days anyway and I do like to put my I/O and working bits and registers where wish - old fashioned? Yes! Works better for me. Not unfamiliar with the IEC way - have to go that way with Schneider - cost me money/time!

[SysmacUser 5]

I grew up with ZX Spectrum. MS-DOS was s'thing really modern to me. In the PLC world I started with AB's. PLC5 and still remember the transition to the IEC's Contrologix. Some ppl missed the memory adress programming, but solution is simple, create array of B. (Bool) of N (integer), of F (float) etc... i agree with you sometimes IEC uses complex aproach for simple problems. Then vendor speciffic addons make the difference: diffup,etc... SysmanNJ makes a lot of sense when you have servosystems or extensive information processing like databases, product trace, etc... Makes no sense to replace CJ2M with NJ InlineST is a good compromise for mixing ST in ladder programs.

[patoliyarj 0]

HI, Yes, Sysmac Studio is now upgraded & better compare to initial versions.. But still start-up time for software is still higher. Many new functions added, especially editor/variable management side & continuous improving. No comparision to Cx-P as completely different platform including IEC 61131-3. Most of Cx-P short cuts are as it is. Also you can configure the same like in cx-p. Using since ver. 1.01, updated to v1.09. Also robotics & Kinematic FB for Delta type parallel robot programming, if robot option is installed. Vision Camera series FH is on sysmac, so single software for PLC Logic/Motion/Vision/Safety/Robotics. Overall very good platform & something new in Omron's basket for tomorrow's Machine manufacturers...

[SysmacUser 5]

V 1.10 of studio is faster ( when firmware 1.09 is used in NJ ). For onlinedit And includes (amongst others...) 2 New Major Funcions: -integration of NA HMI -EtferNet/IP network datalinks configurarion

[IO_Rack 178]

Is this an integrated function of Sysmac Studio that replaces Network Configurator?

[SysmacUser 5]

Yes, when NJ system is used. If Orher PLCs are used then Network configurator is required

[patoliyarj 0]

Yes, Need not to go with Ethernet Configurator, But if you are used to do that then it's Ok. But, It's very simple & user friendly in Sysmac to configure Datalink for any EDS. I'm not sure, but "Create EDS" option is unique in Ethernet Configurator.