Re: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
- From: "Arawi, Mhanna" <mhanna.arawi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:36:11 -0400
We've been undergoing an upgrade of 7 nodes to the mesh since 3 years,
replacing the old unix stations with windows( xp & servers).
So far, the system is running very smoothly, without any complications.
The earlier nodes already upgraded are running continuously for almost 3 years
without any single complication.
The key points are the well planned design of the mesh, and the proper
execution of the project which lead to have the system running efficiently.
Best regards,
Mhanna Arawi
Service Engineer
Invensys Operations Management
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Brian Long" <blong@xxxxxxx>
To: "foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
Date: Wed, Mar 27, 2013 5:30 pm
I agree, we have some very large projects coming up and it's going to be
very hard to justify staying with Foxboro. We expect the system to run
24/7/365, our Unix/Nodebus does that, our Win/MESH does not.
Brian Long
Arkansas Kraft
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rguercio@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:56 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] IACC TO FCS
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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, including any associated or attached
files, is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. This e-mail is confidential and may well also be legally privileged.
If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from
your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its
contents to any other person. This email comes from a division of the Invensys
Group, owned by Invensys plc, which is a company registered in England and
Wales with its registered office at 3rd Floor, 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1X
7AW (Registered number 166023). For a list of European legal entities within
the Invensys Group, please select the Legal Entities link at invensys.com.
You may contact Invensys plc on +44 (0)20 3155 1200 or e-mail
reception@xxxxxxxxxxxx. 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
Other related posts:
