Omron PLC Center

Developper wants some examples of programming simpy gradual reduction of programming power.
There are no examples that illustrate how it happened. Essentially the same as what I want.

It is good that some people at least have the decency to answer the question and said that Siemens Simatic very difficult and complex compared to other languages.

It is interesting to learn that Step 7 is a powerful, but difficult. It seems that similar strength C and the simplicity of Visual Basic.

Just because I understand does not mean that you are smarter than everyone, and everyone is stupid. Your answer in consulting services and solutions to the problem. Why can not you just a few examples and manuals? Why not just me in Detroit when I was in LA and for me because I lost the card, because I do not try hard enough?

In my experience, intelligent people who understand only certain skills and concepts in general, the teachers terrible. They look like you an idiot, if they are able to communicate and learn what they are missing so easy to understand. In fact, we can all learn from these concepts.

is an easy way to understand what it is not easy. Part of the problem with examples is that the complexity, some would say, requires different styles of programming. There is no way the programs and bind together. And not many small, easy to understand, for example. These controls are typically used for large and complex problems.

What manuals, commissioned by the Siemens website, many of them, and can be downloaded free. There are no “Step 7 for Dummies” type that I am aware, but I regret it very difficult. In some respects, what you say is exactly what we tried to use the product is not very accessible and has a difficult learning curve. Best help I can give is that some C and assembler programming experience great help in understanding the concepts that are issued by the automation programmer.

This is not true, lively, or evasive, the simple fact that you are familiar with some very low level, the hardware level, methods and concepts in the field for what they do is meaningful. I’m sorry it is not easy, but it is.

“S7″ mark are not you something about the programming language used. S7-200 series have no relation to S7-300/400 lines more or less the same gray plastic.

I understand that they sell in many markets S7-200 product is better than S7-300/400 line several times. This means that it sells more than in proportion to the number of units. Measuring sales in euro could give a different result, since different S7-300/400 price as S7-200.

S7-200 was developed by a team around the time TI, where Siemens PLC bought a TI-developed department. It is a fairly conventional “Japanese” style PLC with IEC solutions. If you’ve ever programmed Omron or Koyo PLC, would you feel comfortable with S7-200. Both TI and Siemens used (and as GE and GE-Fanuc), resell marked Koyo PLC. S7-200 is a substitute for a niche product (sales of Siemens, Koyo PLC, Koyo and began direct sales automation Direct).

S7-300/400 (300 and 400 are essentially the same except for the packaging and I / O rack format) are designed as direct replacement for S5 Series. S5 series is the mainstay for many years, to Siemens S7 300/400, and offer upgrades to customers. S5 and S7-300/400 incompatible hardware and software, is not 100% compatible, but overwrite the old S5 program S7 is relatively easy to run 300/400. Siemens also has a conversion program, which is about 80% - 90% success rate for simple programs.

S5 is an old model, who was a contemporary of AB-2-PLC and PLC-5. S5 is the Intel 8031 series of microprocessors, which Siemens has licensed the production is based. They also own a coprocessor, which is used in some models S5 gear single Boolean logic. Siemens pressed overwhelming number of features from simple 8-bit processor. Punishment for this, however, that a statement S5 was very primitive and only slightly higher than the 8031 assembler. Look at the 8031 assembly and S5 Instruction List (IL), and you see the similarities.

In contrast, AB has a different approach and use the mini-computer technology in their designs early PLC. Early PLC2S used 4 processors AMD 2900 bit slice to a separate 16-bit processor. It was expensive in terms of hardware, but they had fewer restrictions in the software caused.

The result of all this is that S7-300/400 PLC relatively primitive in terms of software design. Retrieved from “primitive” I mean the individual statements in most cases provide very little water from the underlying hardware of the original S5. Siemens is trying to deal with this advanced programming IDE, but many people find that the programming software complexity without increasing much too simple to do something for the PLC. That is, if it follows a lot of complaints.

Compared to conventional PLC instruction set (eg S7-200) in the S5 or S7-200/300, then you realize that “contains solutions to common PLC instructions is a selection of typical instructions for the automation of tasks. Unlike , combinations of education S5/S7-300/400 have a large collection of very simple instructions, the number of instructions the same as “classical” requires PLC reach the classroom. Boolean logic statement does not differ much between the PLC. Differences mainly in speech, math, comparison, and the timer / counter instructions. Theoretically, S5 or S7-300/400 are “flexible”, but I’ve never seen a case where the flexibility of the practical benefits.

For an example of the real world, shortly after giving the S7-200 came out, I compared with the S5-95U to see what kind of applications can I overwrite an existing S5-95U program S7 - 200 Program. I found the S7-200 program was less than half the size of the S5-95U program. I S7-300/400 same test program, but I would expect that the size of comparable or even slightly larger than the S5 program. I point this later.

When writing a lot of people S5 or S7-300/400 program, they tend to write in many of the IL than a ladder. There are several reasons. First Step-5 software was absolutely miserable, and wrote a program difficult. People tend to large, complex IL sports writing, because the software is hard to write smaller, less complex rungs of a ladder. Newer Step 7 software is not so bad in this respect, but people are still with their experience of Step-5.

Secondly, it is simply not possible to do everything on the ladder S7-300/400. The S7-200 (PLC and many others), each IL instruction has an adequate representation of the ladder. Many (perhaps most) have a statement S7-300/400 ladder representation. Moreover, many S7-300/400 Head “owner” in fact more IL instructions are grouped into one solid structure. This means that to find out what combination of IL just not the programming software.

Third, the problem of writing a comprehensive program for the S5 or S7-300/400 appeal to some people. The same kind of pleasure in solving complex puzzle. Je zult in staat om te werken met echt creatieve algoritme, of te schrijven over iets dat geen enkele van uw medewerkers ooit mogelijk zou kunnen hebben geloofd. If you like writing software, which S5 and S7-300/400 more space to develop creative solutions to problems of the various routines. It also provides space for writing programs that never understood (and themselves) do not recognize the following week.

Finally, the fact that the S5 and S7-300/400 are heavier than others, the PLC calls for some people to master. Look into the eyes, they are hard to do, are very clever to solve. Other controls may be simple, but if you S5 or S7-300/400 program must be “true professional“.

I found the S5-managers tend to “fun” when I (used, although further work on something S7-300/400 a large part of the “fun” of it). From this perspective, I do not like it.

On the other hand, I looked at the practical side of things too. PLC programs written for machines, not for my pleasure. From this perspective PLC program is simple and easy to understand for someone who is better than complex. Although I have a program that does the same, but you can write half as big, then I have the program, that about half of the errors and costs much less time to write. PLC’s why we use C instead of writing programs for embedded computer is a machine so quickly and cheaply as possible.

Share This