Ausman

Thanks Joe, I didn't know it was token. I think I've always been literally going on this illustration: My brain always puzzled on this along the lines of "how do all the networked recipients do this at the same time without conflicts?" Makes much more sense now. And yes, I'm a dumbo for not picking it in the first place. cheers, Aus

My reply could be read as "speed is of the essence'', but it's not true. What I want to do is run UniCan as it appears in it's description, and have it totally reliable. I can only get this to work by having calls being made at a given periodic speed. There is a fine time interval that the joined systems will tolerate. Cabling is spec and only quite short runs less than 2m. My eagerness to do it like you say is to have it done "properly". It has always seemed a bit odd that having a request sent periodically via the ladder always has the potential for a conflict with another request somewhere else on the loop. Especially doing it with a "defined" time interval. It is unlikely, but entirely possible, that calls from different plcs could coincide exactly, and do so for some time if based on something like SB 13 or 15. I think at the moment that I'd love the Creators to chime in and explain exactly how it all works, how the loop reacts to different plc calls etc. Help gives information, but I think it could go into a lot more depth, covering things like Structs etc. The "mechanics"of how it all works ok, including any time allowances for the amount of data zinging around, would be nice to know. It is only logical, Captain, that more data means more time needed! @Saragani @AlexUT @Cara Bereck Levy ? cheers, Aus

Thanks Joe, I have tried this in the past and couldn't get it to be reliable. However, I am also using quite a few structs in series that might be upsetting transfer speeds, as some of the numbers involved vary significantly. The other thing is that I may have made a boo boo somewhere in previous attempts, so I'll try it all again some time and see how it goes, as I would prefer your method. Do you put in some extra scans after the blocks change state, or just react to them immediately? All my hiccouphs still say buffer over-run to me. cheers, Aus

Everything said already is perfectly valid. Flex suggested O/S, but I'd also be starting from absolute scratch on the affected plc. It appears it is recognising the card is there, but saying it can't work it. Delete everything via info mode, then reload boot, O/S etc, then try to load a completely empty program. I'm thinking a crook part, but try the unit's brain surgery first. cheers, Aus

Perhaps this is the issue. Maybe you need to be able to manually select (under a "maintenance password") particular controllers in the loop. Take it out of the loop for the shutdown, then put it back in after powerup? Having never done this, I don't know whether this is possible the way UniCan works. I'll ponder on this and let you know, unless someone else who may have done it OK chimes in....please. The SB13 in the example is just that, an example, I often do it with counters incrementing each scan that let various calls be fine tuned much more precisely. Mostly my scan times are consistent. If not, I use the 2.5/1.25ms interrupt. cheers, Aus

Good luck.

Annatooli, have you tried putting a "cyclical" call (eg below) on the UniCan actions? Or raise/lower the bitrate? I have found it is easy to overload the buffers and you need to reduce the demand on the comms loop. You can often set up a flipflop sort of thing on the various calls around the loop, allowing a few scans before proceeding to the next one. The trouble with this method is if one receive/send falls over you have to program in a timeout "over-ride" progression. In theory all of this isn't needed, but I have found it's the only way I can get it to work sometimes...depends on load. I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum how I have decreased interval times to the bare minimum that appeared to be working ok, only to find it falling over later, most likely due to a buffer issue. A tiny increase in timings and the problem was fixed. cheers, Aus

One of many related references coming up using search:

Warning, not advising this at all....... Doing the above method lets me then save under the current version. The hidden issue is that perhaps something that is utilised in the project then doesn't show up if it is only in the later version. However.... Flex, you could always use your many installs of Version Swapper to look at what changes. Do some saves of the same file under different editions and then peek using the likes of Notepad+. Something obvious and tiny might show up. Or it might be a totally different way of assembling the file which will completely klang the idea! I can't do this as I shifted away from Swapper and only run one version these days. cheers, Aus

I'm sure there's a bit of sarcasm there. Much better than mine! But they still need a cleanout and terminal reinsert now and then. cheers, Aus

I know we are digressing, but for me, most of the time a project made on a newer Visilogic version will try to open but display an error. Most of the time, but not always, you then have to close Visi in Task Manager. Open the project again and it will bring up "Visi not shut down properly, reload blah blah" and if you select ok it will open the newer version, which you can then work with. I do this frequently on the forum's user projects as I am still sticking with just 8.65 and many of the submitted projects are done in later versions. cheers, Aus

Annatooli, I'd be interested to see if a complete dustout and wiggle/remove/reinsert every connection including ram on your puter would fix this. Also do a serious check on your drives, check and also defrag them if not solid state. If it's a laptop, you'd also be surprised how much gunk can get into cooling systems. They need a good periodic clean, excess heat issues can cause havoc. cheers, Aus.

gijoe. Thanks for the comment and your eagerness to berate someone who tells you to use your own initiative and FIND OUT ABOUT SOMETHING SIMPLE FOR YOURSELF. Do you own a car? Did you read the manual to learn how to operate some things in it? Or did you ask a forum how to put fuel in the tank? Hmmmmmm.

If you are installing the Suite, you will likely encounter the need for Net 3.5 to be installed. For ages on various computers' new installs I've been banging my head on it not working properly. I'd end up with a message box saying it failed because "the service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it". Following a quick chat with Saragani, I pondered him saying the same thing I've found all over the place....that the normal method of turning it on in W10 is to enable it via Windows Features. (If you don't know, the shortcut to get there quickly is to run "optionalfeatures".) I always tried this and it still didn't work. I had also downloaded and tried the offline installer without luck, many times. Finally the light bulb turned on. In all my attempts I was doing it on systems that I had disabled updates. Once I re-enabled them the process went fine. One would think that a fully offline installer would work ok without needing to "ET Phone Home" but it is not true in this case. I think it is the only offline installer I've had that exhibits this behaviour! And before you ask/dictate/suggest that I leave updates on all the time, in most situations I routinely let the significant updates come through by keeping up to date with current advice. I've had even minor updates wreck things that were working fine, hence me clamping down on the process which can waste large amounts of data on systems where it matters. As well, I really really really don't like the next update reinstalling all the useless crap as well, like Xbox etc. There are ways around this too, but how far does one have to go to keep your system the way YOU want it, rather than the way SOMEONE ELSE wants it! cheers, Aus

Yes. Sometimes they put Visi into a weird setting, I think because it is not seen as a major program from a "big" vendor. Or perhaps more likely because it doesn't offer fully secure coms. If none of this works, you might have a system restore point from before the issue started. You could perhaps initially do a full partition backup and then go back to that restore point, just to see what has caused the issue. I only mention Revo because it works fine, is free and has a portable version. Always works for me, gets rid of everything left over. cheers, Aus

Flex is correct. I have often harped on the forum about the way to learn any PLC things, including Visilogic. If you have never worked with a particular function/operation, you should play with an actual plc just experimenting with only that process until you get it exactly right, and fully understand how it works. You then progressively build your final version, saving under progessively descriptive different names and test along the way. Once an error appears...which it will....!!......you can find what's caused the issue very easily. cheers, Aus

For me it is this. The only times I have ever seen this issue was when I did an install and forgot to do right click run as admin. Also ensure the .exe is set to run as admin as well, once installed. I'd also run Revo unistaller or similar to completely delete the previous installation before trying again. Lastly, check what classification your A/V has Visilogic in, perhaps do some changes, then do a reboot before any use. cheers, Aus

To add to Flex's comments, you really don't need to cram so much into one ladder rung. Sometimes, although it might look ok on the ladder, things won't work the way you expect due to the way the PLC interprets the info. Splitting areas up into separate rungs often makes a project far easier to work with. I also note in your socket init rung that you are setting SB168. Do you know about Power Up values? In the operand list you have one column with a power plug. For MBs you can choose none, Reset or Set that occurs on power up. What you are doing does the same thing, but is an awkward way of achieving it. cheers, Aus

Here's another thing for humans to try. If you can set this up it's very intriguing. Get a good set of headphones (not buds) and feed them the signal from a mic. Put a variable delay on the signal being sent from the mic to the phones, something like 0.5 to 1.5 seconds. Plonk yourself in front of the mic and turn the system on. Now......try to talk properly. Vary the delay, just for play value. This might lead to having some sympathy for those people you sometimes see on TV "crosses", who sound like idiots. 😧 cheers, Aus

Have you got ALL power connections done properly according to the 350 manual's wiring diagrams? Analogue stuff won't work unless their specific power connections are done. cheers, Aus

As Flex says, it might be a hardware setting, but this should be carried over in the project. Did Visilogic do any "update" on your original project at any stage during your working on reloading your project? Since you last worked on it? If it did, it might be an update change that has affected things. Go into info mode on the exisiting 130 and look at details listed under O/S etc and compare to the new one with your newly loaded program. Advise back. I'm assuming that the swapping out is not having power supply, connector forgotten, bleedin' obvious smack head issues etc. cheers, Aus

That's good. Just so you know, this table is lifted from the Help file under SD Cards. There is a wealth of information there, but nothing beats physically trialling something. cheers, Aus

Alex, can you please explain why? Just curious. Also, good call on 168, I missed that. I've said it before, why isn't this a default setting in Visilogic? It seems pointless to not have it on. If you're doing ethernet, it's necessary. If you aren't, it won't affect anything. cheers, Aus

Totally left field, but maybe it's configuring itself on the first run, determining some sort of automatic ramp parameters to stop overshoot? cheers, Aus

In your program it is 10.180.103.139, and the connection attempts show this. But I don't think this is the issue. There might be a bit of client/master confusion going on. What happens if you switch these around a little in testing, at both ends, to try all possible variations? cheers, Aus