Re: [foxboro] Why are you staying with the DM? (was: 'Group' Visibility with DM)

Alex,
        You have heard this from me before but I have to give it another
try.
        We have a pretty large investment in IA and it is all built on
the UNIX/Solaris OS.  We currently have just over 9,000 unique graphics
that were built in the Display Builder.  I have run the DM to Foxview
graphic conversion on all of them and the results are underwhelming.
Because of the very inaccurate conversion of the default DM fonts to the
new Foxview fonts, it would require that we go in and manually adjust
all 9,000 plus display files, (and that is just to get a Foxview graphic
to look just like the current DM graphic). =20
        I have asked my friend and colleague, Duc Do, to post two
graphics on the Cassandra website to demonstrate the dilemma that
converting to Foxview would impose on us.  The first graphic is one that
was built in the Display Builder using the default fonts provided by
Foxboro.  Each line you see is "Normal Text" with black text on a white
background.  I placed this text on the graphic with the grid turned on
so I could space and align the text.  To demonstrate how poorly the
fonts rescale when converted to Foxview graphics, I snapped a rectangle
filled with red, (color#9), and moved it to the back of each text
element.  The rectangles leave an even amount of overlap on all four
sides of the normal text in the DM.  Check it out at:

http://www.thecassandraproject.org/temp/01_DM_Base_Graphic.gif

        I transferred the base DM/.pdf graphic from our UNIX workstation
to our AWXP and called it up in Foxview.  It did the conversion on the
fly and this is what it looked like when it was converted:

http://www.thecassandraproject.org/temp/02_FV_Converted_Graphic.gif

        I also used the canned conversion tool withing FoxDraw to
convert the .pdf to .fdf format with the same results.  Maybe I did
something wrong and somebody else can do it better.  If so, have at it!
It wouldn't take much expertise to see the difference.  Check out
dramatically different font sizes that now make the red rectangles
appear disproportionate to the fonts.  It is obvious that little effort
was expended to insure that the old Foxboro DM default fonts were
correctly mapped to the new Foxview fonts and that is a huge
disadvantage to users that could have been thinking about converting
from DM to Foxview.  I know I captured these graphics to .gif format to
minimize the file sizes and everything may not be totally proportional,
but it does demonstrate that text/fonts in comparison to drawing objects
are very poorly converted.  You UNIX/DM users can recreate this scenario
to see for yourselves.
        Alex, I brought this issue up and even sent you graphic samples
to see if your gurus might be able to resolve the significant
discrepancies and I haven't gotten any feedback yet.
        From our perspective, the graphic conversion is just the tip of
the iceberg when considering moving from DM to Foxview.  We have to ask
ourselves what we would gain if we convert to Foxview.  The
configuration tool is much nicer and allows true text editing along with
some functionalities that John Smith pines for in his note earlier
today, but in an existing plant where DM graphic elements are already
built and can be stored and imported and reconfigured with tools such as
d_edit, the Foxdraw tools aren't a major incentive to migrate.  Although
the 3D style elements in Foxdraw look nice they really don't add any
functionality that enhances operation of the plant and it would require
that we rebuild all of the graphics, (a monumental task in Display
Builder or Foxdraw), to use the prettier interface.
        MOTIF windows, such as Foxview and the Alarm Manager use, bring
their own unique problems to the Solaris operating environment.  Until
we started using the Alarm Manager on our WP51D's we never experienced
the keyboard lockups that are commonplace on our system today.  Yes, the
technicians now know that they can close their Motif Alarm Manager
window in order to regain the use of their alpha keyboards to enter text
and data in the Display Manager, but that isn't necessarily a good
reason to put even more Motif windows, (Foxview), in play in a Solaris
environment.  I know the pat Foxboro question is, why don't you put in
all Microsoft OS equipment?  It won't have those problems?
        The answer is massive amounts of time and money is required to
make the move and you would still end up with an HMI that is, (for all
practical purposes), limited to displaying the same object manager data
that can be shown by the existing Display Manager.  What's the point? =20
        We are waiting for an HMI that can easily and seamlessly
integrate and link data from multiple data sources in the same way that
browsers enable users to find what they want on the internet today.
Wonderware is Invensys best chance at delivering that type of HMI but
because of the proliferation of tools that allow seamless display of
data from disparate sources it is unlikely that they will be able to
"make a living" by just selling HMI licenses that have the limited
capabilities of Display Managers and Foxview Managers. =20
        Archestra is an organizational data framework that could allow
Foxboro and other Invensys companies to provide data, services, and
applications, which can meet customer needs in a cost effective way,
while, at the same time, providing an organized database structure that
advanced users can understand and optimize.  I'm pretty sure we'll be
able to recognize significant new value in the HMI arena when we see it.
We will continue to seek out and evaluate progress being made by Foxboro
and Wonderware but it doesn't seem to make sense for us to pour a lot of
time and effort into a product, (Foxview), that is, at best, in
transition, and at worst will be obsolete in a few years. =20
        As for the Invensys decision to sink all of their eggs in the
Microsoft .NET basket, the jury is still out.  I think it is a decision
that will make or break Invensys.  I suspect that it may cause them to
lose many of the customers that cut their eye teeth on the UNIX
offerings of Foxboro, but it could open up new sales markets that will
make up for those losses.  I know that the customers will demand
reliable and robust operation and if that is provided in an "all MS"
environment I believe the customers will accept it.
        As for me, I'll use the title of a great "U2" song to echo my
sentiment because.....  "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"

Cheers,
Tom VandeWater
Control Systems Developer/Analyst
Dow Corning Corporation
Carrollton, KY   USA


-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Johnson, Alex P
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:14 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] Why are you staying with the DM? (was: 'Group'
Visibility with DM)

All,

John Smith's question raises another one. Why do our users stay with the
DM?

We are interested in what would help people move off of the DM and to FV
and
I want to "hear" the reasons from a few users.

So, drop me a line on or off the list and let me know what the biggest
barriers are to moving from the DM to FV.=20

Thanks and regards,
=20
Alex Johnson
Invensys Systems, Inc.
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77063
+1 713 722 2859 (voice)
+1 713 932 0222 (fax)
+1 713 722 2700 (switchboard)
alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I hope to see you at the Invensys Process System User Group meeting
October
3-6 in Houston, TX -=20
www.invensys.com/usergroup2005

-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of John W. Smith
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 7:30 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] 'Group' Visibility with DM

I've got a graphic where certain pieces of equipment need to 'disappear'
when they are not being used and other pieces of equipment need to
appear in
their places when being used.  This would have been a piece of cake in
Foxview but I can't think of a good way to make it happen with Display
Manager.  I really don't want to set visibility on each line, arc,
rectangle, etc. if I don't have to.
Anybody got a better idea?

Thanks!

John W. Smith
Automation Engineer
Global Automation Partners

--=20
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005
=20


-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef
-- File: winmail.dat


=20
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
=20
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
to unsubscribe:      =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
=20

=20
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
=20
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin
to unsubscribe:      =
mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave
=20
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: