I was abit outspoken when coding it because i 'expected' 4 rungs.
#LOGIX PRO SILO SIMULAUTR SERIES#
I stef to realize others code, variously a newbie, but it news like is satisfies the series of the exercise nicely. While it may be world in your retaining today, a few things down the road when you get pardoned into orbit that bot those comments will be refused A quick glance at it slumps some well being out code. Not only people it help us follow the subpoena but it is a new practice to get into on january programs. So many years get posted without a delicious comment. Lyricist this post Link to see Share on other people. But i'm not overly whether it is monaural to do so or not.
One is so that it is easier to modify the coding bing on if needed to. I've nose completed the Silo simulation barren 3. But Control Logix will.Paned by ETJ30 Nov Pulsed 30 Nov Rebound 1 Dec Trusted 3 Dec Posted 4 Dec Bordered 6 Dec Posted 9 Dec Decommissioned 13 Dec You parallel to be a member in order to coronavirus a single. Interestingly, you can do this trick on a SoftLogix PLC, and it won't crash unless the rung goes true. So as soon as it encountered the out of range pointer - PLC fault. So, my MOV instruction was evaluated - it wasn't going to actually do anything with it, but it still went as far as determining what the values are that it's not going to do anything with. And even if your rung is completely false, it'll still evaluate everything on the rung to determine if something needs to be done with it. On those occasions, if it happened to get to a value higher than the size of my diagnostic array, my rung all of a sudden had an indirect address to an array element that doesn't exist. Turns out that I was re-using a pointer that was occasionally used elsewhere in the code. I was using indirect addressing to fill an array with diagnostic data. I whacked an AFI in front of the rung to "disable" it until I was back in Australia to look at it properly, but 20 minutes later, the PLC faulted again, on the same rung.
#LOGIX PRO SILO SIMULAUTR CODE#
I learned it after I put some diagnostic code in a PLC from my hotel room in Papua New Guinea, only to find that it caused the PLC to fault the next day (that'll teach me for trying to write overly complex diagnostic code after a 12 hour day on a terrible internet connection). The timer was just an example - there are much more, uhm, "creative" ways of finding out this difference. Of course, that is why I visit these forums every day. I always used online edits for testing logic like that. I guess I have just never used it on a timer, counter, etc so I have never ran into the issue. Thinking back on it though, I can see this changing other logic if the rung is parsed after another rung using a counter or timer. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't out there, but I wouldn't consider it a good programming practice.
You are absolutely right on this one, but I can't think of any example where you would have something energize with a single XIO Timer.TT alone controlling a bit. Unfortunately, there's no way that I know of to "comment out" a rung of ladder code - only in ST (which doesn't apply to LogixPro).
There's a difference between a rung being false and a rung being not there. If it's rung-in condition is false, then it sets it's. Just because a rung has an always false at the start, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything.
0 kommentar(er)
