Re: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS

  • From: Rguercio@xxxxxxx
  • To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:56:08 -0400 (EDT)

We are looking at upgrading also, and as far as I'm concerned, ICC is a  
better tool than IACC or FCS.  Does anyone else feel like a force-fed  goose?  
Looks like Invensys wants to emulate Delta V, so why not just go  with 
Delta V who has had more practice at this type of interface??
 
Rick Guercio, P.E.
RG Consulting
918 E Desert Shrub  Drive
Washington, UT 84780
713-805-8742 cell  
 
In a message dated 3/27/2013 9:06:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tadeoarmenta@xxxxxxxxx writes:

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




 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
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: