Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
juandelo

Panelview and devicenet

9 posts in this topic

I need to communicate 7 PV300 with a PLC 5 30 using devicenet. I need to know the criteria to address the tags in the PV 300. They have to be written as I:word/bit or O:word/bit. But no where is an explanation about what "word" we have to use. I appreciate any help ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First in the PV comms setup you must specify how many words of input data and output data will be transferred to/from the PV. If you specify 3 words input and 3 words output, your I/O data table within the PV would be: I:0   O:0 I:1   O:1 I:2   O:2 and you address as such....... Then in RSNetworx you will be mapping the data either into M1/M0 files or directly into PLC data tables. So if the 7 PVs are all going to be identical, but distributed operator interfaces, the exact same application can be used in each (except for the Devicenet Node) and mapped to different I/O tables within the RSNetworx (devicenet scanner card). Post with any further problems.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the part that always throws me:  "Which is I, Which is O" ? A-B has done a less than stellar job of enforcing the "Producer/Consumer" nomenclature in DeviceNet products.   RSNetworx itself, when you "Edit I/O Parameters" uses "Tx" and "Rx" for Transmitted and Received.   The PanelBuilder software calls the data connection "Input" and "Output". PanelView Input data   = 1771-SDN "Rx" Input data. PanelView Output data = 1771-SDN "Tx" Output data. The PanelView software is trying to help by referencing tag data as the PLC would see it.  That's fine on Remote I/O when the PLC address is necessarily the PanelView address, but when it's DeviceNet and the PLC data can be mapped anywhere in the scanlist, I personally think it would be better to stick with Producer and Consumer nomenclature everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you tell I do a lot of DeviceNet? Because you're using seven small PanelViews with one scanner, I suppose it's possible that you'll want to display a lot of the same system data on both.   While the 1771-SDN has a fairly big data area (352 words maximum, I think) it's both efficient and cool to use the Listen Only function on the PanelViews.   You can set up a traditional input/output polling connection to one PanelView, and several other PanelViews can Listen to that output data.   I think they can also have their own unique output connection.  That feature was added later than any of the PanelView terminals I have to play with.  :) Good luck, Eddie Willers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biggest problem is that panelbuilder software is written by AB and everything else is by Rockwell (I think). You really can tell the difference just by the look and feel. I welcome the day that rockwell rewrite PB32.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree.....I am used to PB32 now, but at first all of the little differences made for some long days.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alancase- It sounds to me like Rockwell is going to take over the programming part with the new PV plus. Sounds like RSView Studio will be much like RSView32. From what I have heard you will be able to use PB32, as well as RSView Studio to develop applications for these new Panelviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just heard today that the PanelView Plus program has been CANNED by Rockwell. Has anyone else heard anything along this line??  I wonder how this will affect the View Studio software  and Rockwell's whole ViewAnywhere strategy !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... if I was an "AB Distributor" I'd post that sort of thing anonymously too. I doubt strongly that Rockwell would "can" the PanelView Plus project, as it's been so long in development and is so close to completion.  But I can imagine a reduction in the breadth of the product line, even one that eliminated the PanelBuilder32 name. PanelView Plus is (was?) to be just another name, price, and boot option set for the 6182 Windows CE computers running RSView Machine Edition.   It did not, and does not now, make sense to me to continue the PanelBuilder32 product name and price and make it capable of compiling for both the proprietary PanelView OS and the Windows CE OS.  You're asking for a bloated PanelBuilder in the first place (for someone who just wants to program his 300 Micro) and you'd have to maintain two software editors for Windows CE targets:  RSView Studio and PanelBuilder32.    I've already had the nightmare of explaining to a customer in Brazil that yes, the bug is fixed in the English version of Logix 500 but not in the Portugese and won't be for six months.   I don't want to repeat the experience. But eliminating the Windows CE target for PanelBuilder32 leaves us with.... PanelBuilder Plus ?  RSView ME-PV ?  I doubt they'll roll a separate editor. I doubt A-B would scrap the PanelView trade name, as that's a valuable asset in and of itself... think of other OI terminals and whether you call them by name, or by the name of their manufacturers.  Quickpanel and PanelMate come to mind, but nothing else. It wouldn't hurt them to drop the PanelBuilder Plus or PanelBuilder32 trade names, though, and I think many users would not have to stretch their credulity to use RSView Studio with an inexpensive license option to program their PanelView Plus 750 terminals.   If anything this makes the RSView Studio project stronger by not trying to support two editions of the low-end software. But those are just guesses based on watching the news from the marketing department and drinking beer with the guys in Vancouver who are developing the Machine Edition runtime. Some of my distributor specialists are going to Automation University on Tuesday and I'll have them corner the product manager and find out. Cheers, Ken Roach Technical Specialist A-B Seattle kiroach@ra.rockwell.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0