Re: [foxboro] FDSI driver AB CSP or FDSI Driver Ethernet/IP
- From: Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:49:59 -0500
"I think I have been the only one of us asking for fewer blocks. It would
make a cleaner system. Let's ditch all the PIDs but the PIDA, get rid of
the CALC, and LOGIC and MATH block, put limit clamping on the CALCA and
that's what you use from here forward. MTR? VLV? Nope, go to GDEV."
You are not the only one. We have been doing just that as a local
standard here, due to our limited wet RAM and to lessen operator
confusion. Same with the redundant CALC* programming commands (IN/OUT
exclusively vs. LAC, STM, etc. for example).
"So either they development is doing something new and different, or they
are just lazy."
For the future, I hope it is the former, though the QC process is going to
have to get better along with that. IMHO I/A is already lagging some of
its competitors in system functionality. Several of those competitors
have already done a clean-slate reimplementation of their systems to
better accommodate current technologies and remove the shackles of their
legacy platforms.
In the past, I think it may have been the latter, or more likely a lack of
top Invensys management commitment to do what customers, and possibly the
development team as well, want and think is right.
Maybe it would be a good idea to get the Invensys CEO-of-the-week to come
to the Cassandra meeting. I surmise that (s)he doesn't read this list :)
Corey
"Johnson, David" <David.Johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
09/30/2010 10:02 PM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
"foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [foxboro] FDSI driver AB CSP or FDSI Driver Ethernet/IP
Kevin,
Years ago Chuck Jones wore a button to the users group that said, "You
guys start writing code, I'll go see what they want." I think we all fall
victim to that from time to time. But as you said, it has been a long
time since the FDSIs first came out. You'd think we could have most of
these issues resolved by now.
It wouldn't surprise me too much if development isn't working on a whole
new control package that fits in more readily with InFusion, and the
legacy stuff is being given short shrift. (Pure speculation on my part.)
They are dragging a lot of baggage with them from the old versions. I
mean you could take a control scheme from original CP10s, and rev it up
and run it without any real work at all. That's amazing. But does it
make sense? I think I have been the only one of us asking for fewer
blocks. It would make a cleaner system. Let's ditch all the PIDs but the
PIDA, get rid of the CALC, and LOGIC and MATH block, put limit clamping on
the CALCA and that's what you use from here forward. MTR? VLV? Nope, go to
GDEV. That's my idea. On the other hand I have had people wanting OR and
AND blocks, etc. so the blocks on a loop sheet would be a graphic
representation of what you are running in the controller. This would be
more like the Ovation systems I have seen. Of course t
ry doing real batch control with one of those. No better not.
So either they development is doing something new and different, or they
are just lazy.
I'm not sure which one I hope it is.
Looking forward to seeing you again in Orlando.
David
_______________________________________________________________________
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
Other related posts:
