Re: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
- From: Tadeo Armenta <tadeoarmenta@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Hello Tom/Troy,
As every product in the market, it does not suit all the needs for a particular
client and it has more than another client might need.
For example, from a I/A 8.4.3 FV with IACC, if you are not interested in doing
a lot of engineering, dont need to add a lot of points, a new plc or something
like that, FCS will have the same difference as an Iphone 5 to an Iphone 4s.
Its just more expensive and bigger and a slightly prettier interface. With
IACC you have what you probably needed, CSDs, templates, graphic conections,
etc.
But if you have an older system and plan a big upgrade or plan to add new units
to your system. IEE is the way to go.
First because of what we already know, IACC will be supported till 2016. But
even if it werent the case.
IEE provides a much more powerfull engineering environment. It has what you
loved since you moved from ICC to IACC, but better. Plus it changes totally the
way of managing bulk data generation, which in my opinion in IACC was a pain in
the ass.
It changes your philosophy and that is the main concern for some people. You
rely on your Galaxy Repository instead, leaving your hosts in a less demanding
role. Database is SQL, search, filter, the database manipulation through
DirectAccess after you learn how to do it, you learn is awesome. You can build
or modify huge databases for gateways in a matter of hours, and that, in
commissioning stage is a big plus for the configuration engineer.
I dont know how will it be in 4.0, but the sysdef configuration embedded on IEE
is way more friendly than System Definition software, I never used a commit
disk from IEE however.
You forget about workfiles!, so if you are an iccdrvr task junkie, you'll miss
it. If not, you wont miss having to care about workfiles database...
corruption, outdate, and other fun problems that come with it.
Galaxy Repository is just one more server, and it could be installed off mesh.
It has some other things such OPC comms (i didnt tried, but its suppossed to
save the OPC server licence). My one downside, is that validation and download
takes longer (an i mean longer!) than IACC, and lets not talk about ICC, but
its manageable once you get used to it.
So again, it depends on what you think you are looking for, and what you really
need. Dont buy an Iphone 5 if you have already have 4s, specially if you only
use it for tweeting and playing angry birds ;)
Hope it helps,
Regards
________________________________
De: "Brazell, Troy L" <TLBrazell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Para: "foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviado: Martes, 19 de febrero, 2013 5:56 P.M.
Asunto: Re: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
Tom,
If it were up to me I would stay with IACC. FCS as all vunderware products is
very over priced and other than being able to use the Universal IO I don't see
any reason to change. However, we are currently in a major growth cycle and are
having to use Invensys for graphics and configuration work. The Invensys
engineers are really pushing the use of FCS (probably told to) and claiming
that it saves considerable engineering time (I doubt it). Invensys has also
said that we would see no enhancements to IACC so it is becoming a dead
product. As you can probably tell I am not a fan of vunderware.
Troy Brazell
Engineer Project Lead
ISA CCST
Corporate Automation/Chief Corporate Office
DCP Midstream
Office Phone 405.605.3877
Mobile Phone 405.301.2994
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Badura, Tom
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:10 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
Troy,
Just to add to the discussion - I would be interested in hearing the
reasons or impetus for the upgrades. We are also currently IACC, V8.4.3
all Windoze on Mesh but have not seen a real compelling reason to make a
change.
Tom Badura
Plastics Engineering Company
mailto:tbadura@xxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
Subject: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
We are looking a upgrading our systems from IACC to FCS, if you have
done so, what problems are we looking at?
Thanks
Troy Brazell
Engineer Project Lead
ISA CCST
Corporate Automation/Chief Corporate Office DCP
Midstream<https://www.dcpmidstream.com/>
Office Phone 405.605.3877
Mobile Phone 405.301.2994
_______________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
