Rules of thumb are just that - rules of thumb not divine edicts and my opinions are just my opinions. On upgrades, ZCP makes a lot of sense esp. if you are upgrading CP60s. On grass-roots projects, there are many things to consider that IM(not-so)HO make the FCP the better offering. There are exceptions though - a really large unit with lots of FDSIs and tight control cycles might well benefit from the much more distributed fieldbus network. Still, I don't like placing FCMs directly on the MESH in the same broadcast domain as the CPs and workstations. When V8.x was released, there was no option if you needed plant-wide SOE or the Transient Data Recording/Transient Data Acquisition packages and wanted off-the-MESH FCMs. With the release of VLANs on the MESH, we have a potential solution to that dilemma (off MESH and all functions) though it does require more NICs in the AW running the SOE and/or TDR/TDA packages. Does this help explain my bias? Regards, Alex Johnson Invensys Process Systems 10900 Equity Drive Houston, TX 77041 713 329 8472 (desk) 713 329 1600 (operator) 713 329 1944 (SSC Fax) 713 329 1700 (Central Fax) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Corey R Clingo Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:35 PM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [foxboro] FCP vs. ZCP? (forked from: network storm) "As a rule of thumb, I recommend FCPs over ZCPs in almost all cases." Interesting comment. We are evaluating migration options here, and so far have been assuming ZCP270s. Aside from being able to use existing racks (which varies in importance from installation to installation, and may be superseded by other factors), the ZCP has a 100Mbps fieldbus. That's overkill for sure, but I was worried that the 2Mbps fieldbus of the FCP might not be enough for the full 60-FBM complement, especially if using many FDSI or DCI FBMs. The FCP advantages were simplified cabling and less installation space (since it mounts in an FBM baseplate or something similar). But your statement below, that the ZCP lacks some software functionality that the FCP has, is news to me. Are there plans to add it to the ZCP image? Is FCP going to be the future direction (and in the process, will ZCPs get end-of-life'd faster)? Are you going to have to keep them more environment-controlled than the FBMs (we have already seen by accident that the FBMs will not meet their stated ~140°F temperature ratings)? Also, what is TDR/TDA? Those are TLAs I haven't heard yet. Thanks, Corey Clingo BASF Corp. "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 02/06/2009 01:52 PM Please respond to foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject Re: [foxboro] network storm The FCP, ZCP, and FCM are designed to hold up under a storm though communications to the FCM from a ZCP if both are on the MESH will be impaired. Since FCPs do not use FCMs, they will not have an issue in the event of such a storm. They talk directly to the FBMs over an IEEE 1118 bus. In general, I prefer to see the FBMs off the MESH. It just seems prudent. The ZCP supports that mode of operation just as the CP60 did. However, you do give up the V8 SOE mechanism and the TDR/TDA support under the ZCP because it lacks those services in its image. The FCP does have them. As a rule of thumb, I recommend FCPs over ZCPs in almost all cases. Regards, Alex Johnson Invensys Process Systems 10900 Equity Drive Houston, TX 77041 713 329 8472 (desk) 713 329 1600 (operator) 713 329 1944 (SSC Fax) 713 329 1700 (Central Fax) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________________________________ 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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave * Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any associated files are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Further, this e-mail and any associated files may be confidential and further may be legally privileged. This email is from the Invensys Process Systems business unit of Invensys plc which is a company registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF (Registered number 166023). For a list of European legal entities within the Invensys Process Systems business group, please click here http://www.invensys.com/legal/default.asp?top_nav_id=77&nav_id=80&prev_id=77. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Thank you for your co-operation. You may contact our Helpdesk on +44 (0)20 7821 3859 / 2105 or email inet.hqhelpdesk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx This e-mail and any attachments thereto may be subject to the terms of any agreements between Invensys (and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates) and the recipient (and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates). _______________________________________________________________________ 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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave