Re: [foxboro] IACC
- From: Gregory A Hurwitt <gregory.hurwitt@xxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:28:55 -0500
Alex Johnson wrote on 04/18/2008 12:37:26 PM:
> I don't get it. With one CP per database you have what the ICC does. If
> you like the ICC, you should like IACC setup in this manner.
This is pretty much what we've done in the one plant where we have IACC,
and it works fine.
I think the concern comes in from the fact that people thought (or at least
hoped) that IACC would provide significant improvement over ICC/FoxCAE as a
documentation tool. Setting it up as one database per CP eliminates the
possibility of using it to document peer-to-peer connections. I imagine
this is a significant concern for many users.
I've come to see IACC as an incremental improvement over ICC. We don't do
any bulk building in our live plant and we don't use it to generate any
documentation. However, it has some features which may seem small at first
glance but are actually very signficant time savers on many occasions.
Among these are the ability to insert/delete/copy/paste CALC block steps
and the ability to use an Excel-like syntax for constructing block
parameters (comes in very handy when building many copies of blocks that
are very similar to each other).
Greg Hurwitt
BASF Freeport
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
