Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jaccov

CX Programmer 5.0

38 posts in this topic

I just installed CX-Programmer V5, maybe there are people who want to share Function Blocks. Edited by jaccov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good idea when I figure out how to build them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not an encouraging statement. I am Jay's personal interrupter. That either means: A: "Shoot I've been so busy that I haven't had time to mess with function blocks" B: "Who the heck is gonna use function blocks anyway" C: "Man this function block stuff is for the birds, it's too hard" D: "They already released CXP 5.0 in the Netherlands, and Omron USA is still scratching our head trying to figure it out"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently CXP 5.0 has been released in the Netherlands. Here in the US we are still trying to figure it out. I'm sure Europe has more experience with Function Blocks as it is more prevalent there than in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been looking into them, and have been thinking..."What's the point?" They seem to do exactly the same things that my current ladder logic does, and with the relative level of difficulty in programming one (I tried but could not get anything to output), it seems I'll be sticking with the basics. However, if someone gets one (or more) to work, I'd love to see how it could possibly make programming easier. Tig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on CXP V5.0 and have a go at some function blocks. I downloaded an introduction to them from the Omron website, and they appear to be very similar in operation to function blocks used with Siemens. At least from what I used to use with Siemens Step5 anyway. If that is the case, then they will save me an awful lot of work and PLC space, as I can repeatedly call a common function block with different parameters to run very similar pieces of kit. Have toyed with the idea of using the MCRO function, but I don't personally like it as its not too user friendly, and I find it fairly difficult to see what is going on when monitoring a program. Oh well, that is just a couple of opinions on the subject from me. Feel free to agree/disagree etc! Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MCRO function works really well. It is not that difficult and once mastered is very easy to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the use of timers and counters in a MCRO cumbersome. No way to indirect address the current value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, has anybody had a go with any function blocks yet? If so, what is their opinion? Unfortunately, I am told CXP V5 is not being released in the UK until well into next month, and V3 PLC's sometime after that. Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cannot see the sense in function blocks unless one is using repetative code. Good then. Have used them with Siemens and Mitsubishi but not very impressed. Statement list (if you can program this way) and SFC appear to be more useful. Boolean is like statement list and is already available. Pain in the "A" quite frankly. Do not see Siemens as a guideline. Love 'em or hate 'em. I hate 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I for on welcome them because I do a lot of repetitive coding for alarms and on off temperature controls PID, cascaded pid. if you build up a library of them I think it could be quite usefull. Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, isn't that the whole point? Other than that, if a block of code that is doing a complicated job can be represented by a 'black box' with inputs and outputs connected to it, it is much more accessible to non programmers (eg. maintanence personnel) who perhaps have to monitor and interrogate a PLC. Assuming the internal code of the function block has been carefully debugged, the process of how the inputs control the outputs can be largely ignored by someone such as this. They will only need to know what to expect given a set of circumstances. Having worked on both sides of the fence, (maintenance and programming) it is easy to lose sight of the fact that other people may have to look through your code, and as such the KISS method is always a good thing. Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand it is useful for repetative code. However, I can use repetative code in ladder. Omron CX-Programmer allows you to save and import repetative ladder blocks. If using function block and it is written and commissioned properly, all is well. However, I was called in to trouble shoot someone else's program. Siemens also (my pet hate). The function blocks had not been commissioned properly and were, in fact, incorrect. Troubleshooting was a nightmare as there many of them to sort out. I can assure you that I wished for ladder that day, and a few more, like you would not believe. A really bad experience. Ladder would have been much easier. I have also been on both sides of the fence, and a few more, and still prefer ladder when in a maintenance role. I LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON!!! Edited by BobB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair point Bob. I guess it all comes down to personal preference in the end. Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A poorly written program is a poorly written program...no matter if it is ladder or function block....even if you can see what is going on...somtimes it is simply quicker to rewrite a bit of logic then to try an figure out what some idiot has achieved in a piece meal adhoc fashion.... Bring on function block......I say.... In Progogramming i follow a simple philosphy.... Just remember to plan before you just sit down and code..... Have a structure to the program ie All analogue processing in one section, all outputs in another section and so on..... Document document document the code with rung annotaions where applicable and have sensible symbol/tag names or comments.....That way if some else has to read/follow it that should be possible....more improtantly you will be able to decifer your old code when in a couple of months time the client just wants to add some other functionality.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. Aside of that, as everybody knows (I assume), a version 3.0 processor is required to use FB in a program. As a new feature, it is possible to transfer and store all program comments and data/io tag names down to the processor without the use of an additional memory card in it. Great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't know about that. Does that apply to all CJ1M V3 PLC's? If so, excellent! Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not know if is true for all of them. But at least, I have done it with the CJ1M-CPU13. I had transferred a full program with tags and comments to the PLC. Then, I created a blank new project on CX5 to upload everything from the PLC and it worked fine. It even retrieved Task names, and section names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any CS1/CJ1/CJ1M version 3 CPU when programmed with CXP 5.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just installed ver 5.0 and i love it! The function blocks will work great for the applications that we use, for example we have one machine that has 3 axis control, we use prox switches on the back of motors and then scale that to an inch value. Now we can use a function block to accept two inputs (prox switches)and then output a word (pulse value) and then scale it to the correct inch value. And now the program is much eaiser to look at with the function blocks. Plus that counting program just needs to be written once and then just place the function block were ever it is needed. ~Andrew Quadrature_Input_CJ1M_V2.cxt Edited by Fear_me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Guys...Those of you who are better informed on Function Block programming, what needs to be the best format for uploading CX Programmer function blocks plus documentation? Edited by Jay: Here's Andrew's code in Version 5 format: Quadrature_Input_CJ1M_V2.cxp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a screenshot of Andrew's Function Block:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the graces with FBs, is that they can save a lot of user memory in the PLC. That is, if an 'invocation' (the block you see in the ladder editor), uses the same 'instance' (the FB as registered in the Global Symbol Table) over and over again. This means that the memory assigned to the 'instance' is used again and again whenever the 'invocation' is encountered within the ladder. By the way, (and I hope I'm not teaching my Grandma to suck eggs) just as an aside, the terminology I've used here is - Body (or Definition) - the constructed FB. Until an 'instance' of this is entered into the Global Symbol Table, it does not consume any PLC UM. Instance - When a body has been registered in the Symbol Table, UM is assigned to it accordingly. Invocation - This appears in the Ladder, and uses the UM assigned to the instance. Therefore, if many invocations use the same instance, only the UM assigned to that one instance is used. Also, check out the FB library that I believe comes with v5.0 - loads of goodies in there...

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