GE fanuc PLC & Lookout

[Mikan]

I want to make SCADA system which will pool several machines with GE Fanuc PLCs. I intend to use National Instruments Lookout which support mentioned PLC but problem is that I can't access (force) I/O adresses from Lookout. In LM90 I must press F11 before forcing any variable and then F12. How this shall be done from Lookout or any other application?

[AndreOliveira]

Hi,

To tell you the truth it was not clear to me what the problem is, you are saying that you cannot access the I/O addresses from Lookout ??
Do you get any alarm message ?? Does it say anything about the communication ?

If you want to force Lookout to read the I/O addresses, you may want to create an expression (or even a pushbutton) for the "Poll" parameter of this driver object.

Whenever the "Poll" goes from low to high the driver will poll the hardware to update the register values.

I hope it helps

Best Regards

Andre

[erblock]

I have asked that this functionality be added to the GE Fanuc CBX for years now! This is a vital basic function required to bring Lookout full-circle in the PLC SCADA world.

I'm not sure if third parties have added the function to alter the control bits in the %I, %M, %Q, etc. registers. It should be a simple fix, but it seems the days of NI actually supporting Lookout are long gone....very unfortunate for software that has such great potential.

Ed

[Khalid]

Hello Ed,

I wanted to share my views with you on driver development/support by HMI/SCADA software companies. Before I begin, I totally agree about Lookout's great potentioal. It's a great package indeed.

With the wide-spread acceptance of OPC technology, IMHO, the hardware vendors should strive to make their drivers OPC compliant, as opposed to the HMI/SCADA software companies. It makes sense for the hardware vendors to be developing the drivers and maintaining them as they're the ones who own the communication protocol and hardware that goes with it.

On the other hand, the HMI/SCADA software companies should strive to be fully OPC compliant from the OPC Client side of the picture. I believe it is asking for a little too much for such com
panies to keep updating the drivers for the hardware they don't own about or don't know the comm protocol. It's best for people to do what they are best at -- hardware manufacturers to develop drivers for their hardware and software companies to make robust and industry-compliant software. And these are the objectives of OPC.

Having said that, OPC still lacks when it comes to networking. It's a pain to setup networking with all the DCOM settings, etc. Hopefully this will be addressed in the near future.

I am not saying NI shouldn't fix the GE driver for you at all. I just thought of sharing my views on this general problematic area with you. The views expressed are solely my own; and not that of my employer, etc. etc.

Have a good day.

Regards,

Khalid

[erblock]

Hi Khalid,

Maybe you could share this thought with the folks at NI who decide how to spend their development/support dollars.

The Ge Fanuc 90-30 and 90-70 PLC's were well in place throughout the world BEFORE Lookout at Georgetown Systems was ever on more than one floppy drive.

I'm a big believer in open systems, but unfortunately, that is more of a dream than a reality.

Consider that GE is not your run-of-the-mill startup company, that this product had a huge footing before anything like Lookout existed, and that they make huge amounts of cash pushing and selling someone else's software package "Cimplicity" by a major automation software competitor.

I'm not saying that Lookout should write proprietary drivers for all the PLC's that come
along in the future. It just seems that since they already paid GE Fanuc for the rights to interface their product, that they would just get it done right.

Lastly, It really did take Steph a matter of an less than an hour to modify and email a major CBX mod to me back in 1997. I didn't expect any guarantees. I was just so happy to get the new features.

I'm frustrated to know that the reason Lookout has not taken off is mostly for the lack of people such as Steph along with a corporate commitment to make it happen.

It is very sad to know that the LabVIEW name has to have all the attention and funding, even when Lookout will always have a separate and still unmatched role in the automation software scene. National Instruments can't ever expect Lookout to take-off with this attitude, and I'm convinced that NI does not want Lookout to succeed in some weird way.

Lastly, NI promised to release the GE Fanuc source code to me years ago but it never happened. Something is not r
ight in Austin.

Cheers,
Ed

[erblock]

It can't be done unless NI updates the GE.CBX finally! They need to add manipulation of the control bit on the "forceable" registers. This feature is huge to Lookout's ability to have "Total" interface with the 90-30 and 90-70 PLC's.

Come on guys at NI....how about a late Christmas present?

Quote:

The Ge Fanuc 90-30 and 90-70 PLC's were well in place throughout the world BEFORE Lookout at Georgetown Systems was ever on more than one floppy drive.


I'm a big believer in open systems, but unfortunately, that is more of a dream than a reality.


Consider that GE is not your run-of-the-mill startup company, that this product had a huge footing before anything like Lookout existed, and that they make huge amounts of cash pushing and selling someone else's s
oftware package "Cimplicity" by a major automation software competitor.


I'm not saying that Lookout should write proprietary drivers for all the PLC's that come along in the future. It just seems that since they already paid GE Fanuc for the rights to interface their product, that they would just get it done right.


Lastly, It really did take Steph a matter of an less than an hour to modify and email a major CBX mod to me back in 1997. I didn't expect any guarantees. I was just so happy to get the new features.


I'm frustrated to know that the reason Lookout has not taken off is mostly for the lack of people such as Steph along with a corporate commitment to make it happen.


It is very sad to know that the LabVIEW name has to have all the attention and funding, even when Lookout will always have a separate and still unmatched role in the automation software scene. National Instruments can't ever expect Lookout to take-off with this attitude, and I'm convinced that
NI does not want Lookout to succeed in some weird way.


Lastly, NI promised to release the GE Fanuc source code to me years ago but it never happened. Something is not right in Austin.


Cheers,
Ed"

[Khalid]

Ed,

Couple of things:

1. You may want to make a product suggestion to NI using the Product Suggestion Center (PSC) at:

http://digital.ni.com/applications/psc.nsf/default?OpenForm&temp1=&node=

2. "need to add manipulation of the control bit on the "forceable" registers" -- are these registers we can normally write to from Lookout? If yes, can't we build the values for these registers such that the right "control bit" gets twiddled? I am not terribly familiar with these, so please excuse my ignorance.

Regards,

Khalid

PS: about the rest of your email, all I will say is that those were the good-ole-days 🙂

[erblock]

Hi Khalid,

Thanks again for holding down the fort!

1. O.K. I'll put a suggestion in after some more investigation.

2. These are normal write allowed registers such as Internal Coils (M), digital inputs (I), digital outputs (Q). It would make sense that only the "digital" or single bit registers are "forceable". So the question is whether these digital addresses are actually 2 bits or more? Let me see what I can find out. Of course if you have any PLC gurus hanging around in Austin, maybe they could take a look at the Fanuc interface package and source code for a hint? Anyone got Steph's email....Ha Ha! Whatever.

Let me see what I can find out

Cheers,
Ed

[reandy]

OK, I'll bite... Why do you want to force an I/O point?


But, If you want absolute control over an output do this...


.......................................M1......Q1
.[Your origional logic here]--]/[------( ) <--output to be "forced"
..............................................|
...M1.......................................|
.--] [----------------------------------------|

Then change M1 in lookout to Force Q1 to be the state you want.

(had to use periods instead of spaces, because forum removes multiple spaces.
Is there a way for me to use a "mono spaced" font to make this easier?)

Rich Anderson

[reandy]

Ok, I see a bug in my logic, I should have checked it before I hit "submit post"

You need to change the parallel M1 to be M2...

then turn M1 on to force OFF
or Turn M2 on to force ON

You could use a 3 state radio button, press button 1 to turn on M1 (Force OFF), press button 2 to turn on M2(Force ON), press button 3 for "No Force".

Rich Anderson