Regarding DCS configuration

The configuration software provided by different manufacturers varies, and it is certainly the one that suits one’s own needs. As for how user-friendly it is, each has its advantages and disadvantages; these also change depending on the strengths of each manufacturer in specific projects, so it’s not possible to make general statements.

The DCS used in our company is from Hilscher; I don’t know much about these things

Using GE Fanuc’s PACSystem is very convenient

I use Emerson’s Deltav; it’s what I rely on for my work. It’s easy to understand – it follows a VC/VB framework, with concepts such as classes/entities/modules. Graphic configuration in ifix for controlling strategies consists of function blocks; you simply drag them in, set the various parameters, and it’s very convenient

Our company uses Honeywell’s PKS; the configuration software for the screens is Display, while the software used for configuring functions is Control Builder. and quick builder

I have used the Yokogawa CS3000, the Allen-Bradley SMART PRO, and Emerson systems. 1. The Yokogawa system is the most convenient – online configuration and downloading are both easy, and the system is relatively stable. The only downside is the need to back up data regularly; there is only one engineer station, and if that station fails and the latest configuration isn’t backed up in time, offline downloading becomes necessary. 2. The Emerson system is complex; although configuration is straightforward, its stability is relatively poor, as it often crashes. 3. The Allen-Bradley system is less good – configuration is very complicated; it’s not possible to add hardware components online, and all preset points must be configured beforehand. Changing one setting requires modifying seven different places, which is quite troublesome. The only advantage is that each operation station can be used as an engineer station, making project backups easier – that’s the only positive aspect

Personally, I find the Yokogawa CS3000 to be very useful; it has powerful functions and is easy to use. Sequential control SEQ is easy to understand and master. For Allen-Bradley systems, it is necessary to consider future additional I/O points in advance; before configuration, the spare points should be added to the database in advance.

A comparison of several configuration software solutions: GE’s Cimplicity, Wonderware’s InTouch, and Siemens’ WinCC are compared with Intellution’s iFIX. Among these, Intellution and Wonderware are companies specialized in monitoring software and hold a large share of the market; Cimplicity and WinCC are part of GE and Siemens’ automation product lines, and they are being pushed onto the market. Below, these main software solutions are compared from six aspects: graphical and configuration schemes, data point management, network functions, communication functions, management aspects, and locking design. 1) Graphic functions: Cimplicity boasts the most powerful graphic functions, with a rich variety of graphics in its library. It supports color gradients for objects from one image to another, a feature that is not available in any other monitoring software at present. However, the inserted objects must be formatted; otherwise, it may cause the system to crash. One image per process; running the script is multi-threaded, so even though the images are large, the execution speed is fast. It features an object-linked copying function that, like MIX, allows avoiding multiple modifications when the same object appears in multiple screens, but it has the drawback that the master template must be in an active state at runtime. Editing is separated from execution; there are independent programs for alarm management and historical trend analysis. VBA is embedded within it, with its own internal functions as well as a wide range of VB functions. The way VBA is used differs from its general application patterns. ActiveX and OLE insertion are supported, but certain properties of controls have been locked down. The expansion functions of points are as powerful as those in iFIX; the unlimited number of virtual variables does not consume any points. However, it is difficult to set alarms for expanded points, and there are issues with outputs, though historical recording works fine. Modifying data nodes is not done online; the project must be stopped first and then restarted. It supports multi-condition configuration, providing an excellent solution for configuration schemes. InTouch: The graphical interface lacks aesthetics; pasting bitmaps is a cumbersome process, and the graphics imported tend to distort significantly when enlarged. Additionally, it’s difficult to change the color of custom button text, making implementation quite challenging. It supports ActiveX controls, but lacks error protection for third-party controls; inadequate controls can cause system errors. Limited internal functions are used, and their capabilities are limited to those for routine monitoring; more complex functions such as report generation can only be accomplished with the help of other tools. Whether it is a UO point or not, including global variables, all consume Tag points. The expansion of these points is limited to analog input and bit-level decomposition; compared to iFIX, Cimplicity is much more restrictive, often putting designers in a difficult situation due to a shortage of points. It supports the search and replacement functions for configuration objects. In object composition, the configuration of the original individual objects disappears after combination, forcing a search for alternative approaches in state change design. WinCC: Its graphical functions are similar to those of InTouch; 16 colors can be used simultaneously in the palette. The library of available graphics is limited, and it does not support AutoCAD graphic formats. The expansion of the number of bits is also the same as in InTouch. Only analog values can be read and broken down into bits. WinCC provides tools for performing bit operations, allowing for the reading of bits within analog values and the setting of alarms, but there is no direct way to record historical trends, nor is there a direct way to modify bits. It supports two-way OPC and ActiveX. Using an internal language, the environment is similar to C. This also makes it easy to expand its functions. 2) Data point management: All of them provide a unified environment for defining data points. InTouch and Cimplicity offer only a limited number of data types, but Cimplicity includes sampling techniques for monitoring points; it has no other functional blocks. WinCC provides a slightly larger range of data types, while iFIX offers the most data types along with many ready-to-use functional blocks such as history recording blocks, trend blocks, calculation blocks, PID blocks, and timing blocks. This allows tasks like calculating equipment operation time and performing data conversions to be carried out without the need to do so on the screen. Additionally, iFIX provides more than a dozen signal generators, which are very useful during debugging and make things much easier to handle. Among the 4 software programs, iFIX’s data point management operates independently of the display interface, reflecting real-time information from the field. Once the data points are set, they immediately reflect the actual condition on site (provided communication is successful), which is a feature not available in the other 3 software programs. Cimplicity also provides an information platform for viewing checkpoints; it can be used to monitor the status of checkpoints during operation, and to view checkpoint configuration information during editing, thereby enabling the replacement of configurations. Both iFIX and Cimplicity provide input and output functions for data management databases; they allow TAG information to be exported to Excel, a tool that is very convenient for working with spreadsheet data. It is easy to carry out the complex tasks related to TAG definition in Excel, after which the data can be imported back into the database. Due to the characteristics of the engineering design, Cimplicity always has some issues when reading back data. 3) Network functions: All of these monitoring software solutions have network capabilities, but there are significant differences in terms of performance. WinCC, Cimplicity, and InTouch are based on projects, with the network searches being performed using project names, whereas OX is based on nodes, with searches conducted using node names. WinCC, Cimplicity, and InTouch require complex parameter settings, while iFIX can automatically locate network nodes as long as a physical connection exists, eliminating the need for manual settings. It is the first Client/Server HMI software that possesses all the functions of a C/S architecture software; it enables monitoring of all data points at remote nodes without the need to add any additional tags. It also allows for the addition, modification, and deletion of database entries in remote nodes online, thus enabling true remote configuration. Therefore, remote dial-in is used to modify the on-site database display, and any modification to the databases at any node on the network is done entirely online, without the need to restart anything. WinCC, InTouch, and Cimplicity lack remote configuration capabilities; they only support local configuration as well as network copying to remote nodes. Any changes made to the database settings must be restarted for them to take effect. Both iFDX and Cimplicity can be accessed via the Internet using an IE browser. 4) Communication functions: WinCC and Cimplicity are monitoring suite software developed by Siemens and General Electric respectively for their associated products; as a result, the hardware they support (PLCs, DCS) is limited. In contrast, iFIX and InTouch are based on component object technologies (COM, DCOM), and they have interfaces for almost all hardware used in industrial applications. Being developed by companies specialized in monitoring software, they are more practical for use in the field and offer better stability in operation. Their communication design is very convenient, making it relatively easy to establish connections. 5) Management aspects: Safety management – In terms of project management, it meets the requirements for level-based management in industrial production; it provides level-based control for operators. However, regarding the security protections of the operating system, such as preventing restarts (by locking Ctrl Alt Del or the Windows key), iFIX can be configured directly so that the changes take effect without the need to restart the software. Other software has more complex operations and settings, and it also requires the system to be restarted in order to function. Alarm management: GE’s Cimplicity offers the most comprehensive alarm functions, as it comes with a separate alarm manager and alarm controls; however, it does not provide zone-based management of alarms. InTouch and iFIX use a control configuration approach, which is relatively more flexible. iFIX also provides a program for reading records of historical alarms, which includes records of login operations as well. Cimplicity, WinCC, and InTouch all have their own records, but no tools are provided to directly read these records. Both Cimplicity and iFIX have their own capabilities in terms of Alarm ODBC reports: since both Cimplicity and iFIX come with built-in VBA, iFIX also has SQL support as well as full compatibility with ADO and RDO. Therefore, it is possible to easily access and manipulate common office software such as Office 97, as well as various database management systems like SQL Server, Access, Oracle, and FoxPro. WincC, on the other hand, uses Sybase’s SQL Anywhere as its ODBC component and relies solely on this product. InTouch does not have direct database manipulation tools; it uses its own SQL functions to handle data input and output. The latter two are clearly less convenient than the former two when it comes to comprehensive management. Locking method: iFIX uses a hardware dongle, InTouch combines a hardware dongle with software licenses (copyable), WinCC relies on disk-based licensing (non-copyable), and Cimplicity uses algorithmic control. Due to the poor stability of the operating system software itself, using a bootloader always gives people a sense of panic. Damaged authorization floppies and system crashes can cause a great deal of **trouble for designers and those working on-site. The entire authorization process for Cimplicity is very complicated. With the floppy disk authorization method, once authorization is granted, only tasks within the scope of that authorization can be performed; WinCC allows for modifications for a limited period of time. This post was last edited by smbmyok on 2008-3-16 13:08]