When working with a PLC that uses name based tags, such as Rockwell Control Logix 5000 series, creating equipment results in repetitive typing or copy and pasting which is not only time consuming, but adds possible user error when entering tags.
For Example. Lets take a simple tag in a ControlLogix User Defined Type (UDT) for a pump.
The PLC address is PUMP1.CMD.RUN.
When creating this in the equipment editor , the user would create a pump_cmd datatype, and add the Item "Run" - type Digital.
Then we have to create the Tag Name, and since Citect wont allow periods in the name, we make the tag name PMP1_CMD_RUN.
But, then down in the PLC Address, we have to type PMP1.CMD.RUN.
The referencing is quite useful, but I would love to see the ability to reference the ItemName added to the possible references.
Rather having to enter PMP1_CMD_RUN, and PMP1.CMD.RUN, it would be ideal to use the example: PMP1_CMD_{equipment.ItemName} and
PMP1.CMD.{equipment.ItemName}
The idea is, the user could create 1 Item element, and then simply duplicate it, changing only the ItemName, which would save a tremendous amount of time and alleviate a ton of possible error.
For more information, please see this thread
https://softwareforums.aveva.com/citect_community/citect_scada/f/discussion-forum/81052/reference-item-names-in-equipment-editor/304295
Would be even faster if we could just import ControlLogix L5k dataype XML's into the equipment editor, but I would imagine adding 1 more reference object might be easier.
Guest
|
Idea business value
It would save hours of time setting up equipment tags. Wonderware can do something similar, where a datatype is created, and simply naming it populates it on both the internal tag name, as well as the PLC address. Having to maintain a tag database is cumbersome and time consuming (especially when other HMI's out there make the TagDB near seamless and invisible to the developer), so, anything to make the process more efficient would be highly appreciated. |
|
| Idea priority | 4 – Important to my company |
Great suggestion!
Although I would choose a different syntax like {Name} or {Item.Name}, because {equipment.ItemName} would reference a field called ItemName in the Equip.dbf, which a) does not exist and b) is not what we want here, because we want to reference a field of the equipment type, not the instance.