Wenn ich meinem Kollegen über die Schulter schaue und das ETS3(KNX)-Zeug sehe,
wo es nichtmal online/offline Vergleich gibt,
wo copy&paste nicht möglich ist,
wo die Installation länger dauert als S7 und Flexible zusammen,
dann bleib ich lieber bei TIA und ärger mich ab und zu mit dem Support rum.
-V11 ist F-fähig mit Safety Advanced V11,
-zu verlässlich und korrekt: immer? nicht immer, aber immer öfter...
and we all support the team (S.King - Die Arena)
TIAP and the 1500 is not all bad, it's just that I would have expected more from S, and thus quite a bit disappointed......The system will surely become better after a few versions....
But in the meantime, what system to use? I'm looking at Beckhoff/3S but there are of course issues with those systems also... After fiddling around with the systems it seems like (put a little bluntly):
S has the money, but lacks imagination, BH/3S has imagination, but lacks money....and they are both ending up on half distance.....
It's just a question about finding the "best" system and that is not an easy task.....
Standards are increasingly being viewed as competitive weapons rather than as technological stabilizers. Companies use standards as a way to inhibit their competition from developing advantageous technology. As soon as technical activity is observed by political/economic forces, their interest rises dramatically because they see a possible threat that must be countered before it gains strength...... The result of this is a tremendous disservice to both users and consumers of technology. Users get poor quality technology, and because of the standards process, they're stuck with it! (J. Gosling 1990)
Tja, ich sehe es auch so, dass die Steuerungen und die Visu leider überhaupt nicht "state ot the art" sind.
Die Steuerungen sind jetzt vielleicht etwas weiter als Codesys V2.x.
Ich hatte mir da auch etwas mehr erhofft.
I've been working with S automation devices from the late 80ties (first one was Simatic C1 and S5-110A).
In the S5 world deficiencies like lacking IDB and local stack was easily circumvented with few lines of code......The problem there was memory and processing speed, and of course the notorious Siemens lack of QTV functionality.
The first version of S7 was ridiculous, but the system steadily improved. When the "half decent" SCL compiler emerged it was decided to standardize on SCL (due to portability, the AWL is not IEC standard, and the graphical languages are not portable) in 2000. CFC was standardized as a graphical programming/configuration/Quasi UML tool. Thus we now have our own PCS7 version, (the only PCS7 software remaining in the controllers are the module drivers), and a huge non PCS7 library suited for both process and factory automation tasks. As WinCC Flex is intended for small applications, and WinCC proper is difficult and costly to use outside a PCS7 scope, HMI systems from other suppliers was a natural selection.
We had a system equally suited for small and large factory automation and process automation tasks. Our SW would execute unchanged on all CPUs from the cost effective ET200S CPU to the 417 H/F (Except the PCS7 version of course)
For out high end object oriented PA solution with 100% event driven communication towards the HMI side, the smaller CPUs was unsuited (Required CPUs from 315 and up)
Now TIAP emerges and it is well neigh impossible to port any of our SW to the the new system, big disappointment, and it came as some kind of a shock to us......We thought at least that S would stay compatible with S.....
From my perspective of view the only advantage with the new system is the 64 bit extension (then our system identification SW would not end up with covariance matrix explosions any more, which would of course be nice).
As a sensible person would avoid any installation of any S SW on PCs intended for other purposes, the V5.5 SW is always installed on WMs, and then the WM acts pretty much like the TIAP..... With two or three 24' monitors working with V5.5 was highly productive, the only missing part was of course import and export facilities for RAD purposes (which seems to be no better in the TIAP?)
So our wish is that S keeps the V5.5 alive until the TIAP evolves sufficiently with respect to functionality and portability......
Our approach to TIAP was, again a little bluntly:
V 10.x: big laugh, morons....
V 11/1200: big laugh, morons....
V 12/1500: morons...and no laugh, because we are now in deep shit......
With a sigh!
Then at least 3S wouldn't get far.......