entivity

[surfer 0]

is there many people out there using entivity or think n do programming

[Spanner 0]

I used it in College as an example for PC based control. Not the most pleasant tool to work with but I suppose at the moment, I'm using APT to program a Siemens TI555 PLC which isn't much better, Each to his own I suppose! You've a question about it I take it or just a query as to how many people use it?

[TimWilborne 108]

Used it once and wasn't very impressed. Plus a PC on the plant floor is just a little bit scary to me

[surfer 0]

a factory i do work at uses it it generally works well but relies on microsoft visio underneath for the graphics scada side of things doesnt seem to be a lot of use in oz wondering how much it is used in the states

[TimWilborne 108]

It was kind of a fad in the late 90s but most companies I know that had it have quit using it

[GerryM 2]

I used to use it in my testing applications. I had issues when they up/downgraded to V6.0. Ever since then the price tag doubled and it wasn't worth it. I went back to a PLC with a PC for data collection, calculations, etc. for my testing applications. I wouldn't use it on a dedicated 24/7 machine. It was a little clunky overall. I do miss the flowcharts though. I'm not a huge fan of ladder, even though that's all I've ever used.

[TimWilborne 108]

I have always used ladder too. I'm looking into the Function Block Add on for RsLogix 5000, but I still have sold myself on them being any better. Anybody out there diehard Function Block Programmers?

[Ken Moore 23]

I've done quite a bit of Foxboro I/A DCS programming, it is 99% function block programming. It's not an easy transition from ladder to FB, the DCS function blocks are very powerful, and can save a lot of time compared to doing the same task in ladder. However, from the demo's I've seen of the logix5000 FB, they have a long way to go, they are very basic compared to the ones I've seen in the DCS system.

[TimWilborne 108]

I guess my real question is what is the big advantage of function blocks. Where to they really make things easier. I've only used them one time

[GerryM 2]

I think FB are easier for data type applications, number crunching, PID, etc. Ladder is better for turning solenoids on & off, start/stop P.B.s, etc.

[jeffellis1 0]

Hello, do you know if I can find a demo of the Think N DO software? I really appreciate any help you can give me. Jeff Edited 20 Oct 2006 by jfls41

[BobLfoot 302]

Have used Entivity VLC on a couple of jobs and I can only say one thing. RUN DO NOT WALK AWAY. What takes 1 day in PLC takes 1 week in VLC to debug.

[TConnolly 13]

I used "Think & Do" ONE time. If I have anything to say about it that statement will never change.

[Peter Nachtwey 15]

I did a project using think n do. It worked well. The project involved controlling over 100 axes and some temperature PIDs. The performance was good. I wrote one chart that was activated once for every axis. I think you have to get the hang of programming using flow charts before starting a project. If you try using Think n do like a PLC you will be fighting it every inch of the way. What I didn't like was connecting the blocks and all the time it took to rearrange the blocks. There were about a half dozen other things that I found aggravating.

[BobLfoot 302]

Peter ism inserting a decision block and changing the order of blocks as time consuming and frustrating in Thinkand Do as I found it it VLC. Simple tweaks for a PLC became a major rewrite for VLC.

[Peter Nachtwey 15]

One could insert rows or columns but all the broken connections had to be rewired. It wasn't too bad. Honestly, I would have prefered to enter the data in text using a text editor and then let the Think N DO display the blocks after compiling. Often times our electric cad designs just put labels on the wires. All the wires with the same name are considered the same even though the wires don't look connected. I wish they had do that on the Thknk&Do.