Ausman

Hmmmm. To clear up your question, Mr. Cheeky, look closely. cheers, Aus

Unfortunately I'm like a dog with a bone on this sort of thing. It was gnawing away at my brain, saying there was something I was missing. During all this topic's progress, I couldn't do a test-bench trial. Joe's answer also reinforced my "missing something" thinking. As is usual for my brain, I woke today to the (exceedingly obvious!) revelation that I could have gone online to any of my remote plcs and simply entered various amounts in an unused MF to test theories. Duhhh! Anyway, here are some screen shots to show examples, both small and large. The one you can't fully see the real amount entered is 0.000000000012345678954..................tiny amounts are actually able to be worked with! cheers, Aus my name is Gomez

Hi Janis, First up, just make sure that your attempts aren't related to the recent posts about U90 being upset by latest Windows updates. Have a complete read of this topic: http://forum.unitronics.com/topic/6508-invalid-procedure-or-argument-when-i-try-to-communicate-with-jz20-r31/ If that is definitely not your problem, and I don't believe it will be, then members here may be able to help you. I have many versions myself, but none on a download site. However, I would first use the "Looking for other versions?" link in the Previous Versions area of the download pages. https://unitronicsplc.com/software-u90-for-programmable-controllers/ This will get you directly in contact with support who are likely the best source of what you need. If that doesn't work out, come back to us. Edit: some of my older versions 387, 508, 510, 526, with save dates respectively 10/11/2004, 25/11/2006, 16/2/2007, 29/1/2008 and likely others as well...these found with a quick look. Maybe these will be too old! As to your adapter question, I believe so but am not sure. Others chime in please. cheers, Aus.

This is the same as having 2+ people in a car with duplicated sets of steering, brake, throttle etc; all trying to drive at the same time. 👈👉👆👇 🎆 cheers, Aus

It might have something to do with all the hopeless M$oft updates of late. Can you go back to before they were implemented, to check? cheers, Aus

1. Which part of "Check for Updates" did you click? It looks like you have tied yourself in knots trying to do new system installs over previous ones. Do you have System Restore running? If so, go back to when you were ok on 8.65. If this works and you still want to update to 9.8.80 , fully uninstall 8.65 using the likes of Revo Uninstaller portable and then install 8.80. If you don't have a Restore point it is likely going to be a little harder. Pls advise. cheers, Aus

Given this capability, (which I think is great) depending on intended usage and what is actually being controlled, would you not need to add in some sort of user limitation to prevent operational clashes from each screen? eg Joe T on screen 1 is doing something so Aus on screen 2 is prevented from doing input for a minute. cheers, Aus

Haven't forgotten, haven't had a chance yet due to being on single W7 puter. cheers, Aus

The thing I have trouble with is that I can't understand how the modbus read of an exponential is actually happening. I would have thought that the read would go totally pearshaped with the introduction of the "E-". Because of this, to me it appears that it is being applied somewhere else through the path. It would be a little exercise for you to add in a few things so that you can do a trial and test what happens with sending various amounts to a modbus float read. It would actually show where in the path the "show this as an Exp" rule is being applied. I can't find any reference at all to behaviour like this in the Visi literature. Perhaps the creators or Joe or others might know some quirk I don't. It might actually be in the conversion process coming out of DataXport. cheers, Aus

Hi John, ( and in posting this I've now just had your update come up, so maybe this is irrelevant!) 1). I'd first be looking at the exponential number and seeing if it is way out of range compared to those around it, indicating a gliche in the actual reading and might be the real reason for the exp. If it is, then it likely needs to be replaced with an average derived from a suitable sample either side of it. This would mean a delay system in your table writing. 2). If it isn't way out of range, then look at it directly in your table before conversion. If there is an odd structure to the number then one possibility would be to do some simple maths (X 1 and quotient usage) on every read before you put it in the table, to ensure that it only has structure that will be recognised correctly. 3). Pre-format a complete Excel sheet area to your desired style? This would likely involve a cut and paste process which might be a PITA, and may or may not work anyway. 4). Can the meter output it in a different format that might be easier to work with? 5). Scratch head and wait for other answers from someone who might have encountered this already? I haven't....but I don't deal with floats a lot. cheers, Aus

One of those "duhhhh" moments today. When using Structs with UniCan in Visi, one of the really annoying issues for me is the lack of being able to name in the sending plc where the various operands are going to in the other plc . Of course, we excellent programmers' give all operands across a project the same IDs, which eliminates this issue. And I often try to pluck the curly tails off those pigs flying around my workspace as well. Anyway, in reality land the same IDs are often impossible, depending on what you are flinging around the network and the way it all works. I don't know whether this is a case of brain fade, or just being plain stoopid, but today I had a light bulb moment that's taken many years to arrive. The magic word is Excel. It is exceedingly ironic that myself, a big Influencer; KimKarDashCam; Make-other-people-buy/wear-the-ridiculous-shoes-I-make; Do-What-I-Do; Need I go on?; promoter of using Excel to make programming plcs so much easier, did not for one moment consider how Excel would make this so easy. On the left is the location of the collect, then the Vector number list, then the next columns across the row list what is going and where it ends up. So I end up with an exceedingly simple way of having an accurate cross reference by simply heading left to right across the row. (Unless you're a traditional Chinese programmer, then you'll go the other way!) If it is also going to other plcs then you can easily add in whatever extra columns you need. And the real beauty is that it is very easily adjusted as necessary. Previously I was keeping notes of this sort of thing in an associated word file which is, correction, was an exceptionally clumsy way of doing it. No doubt many of you will already be doing the Excel method, but if you're not, make the most of the revelation! Keep in mind that unless you get these things exactly right at both ends the entire procedure falls over. A tiny slipup and the various plcs' little minions all do a huge sigh, put their hands in the air and make "What??" noises....much to the chagrin of the boss. cheers, Aus

fbojan, Flex is heading into explaining that you have fallen into the trap of "always having the latest", when in fact if it isn't broken, don't change it! (This is the reason why the Vision system has Version Swapper, but such a thing doesn't exist for U90.) You need to use/download the U90 version you wrote the original program with and also use that to change the OS to the correct one. The download area lists these under Previous Versions. Many people have an area of their program that specifies exactly what they used at the time. Some have it showing on screens, some in a hidden location that is consistent b/n all jobs. cheers, Aus

You will likely have a timeout and number of tries overlap error. For any 485 comms you need to allow for the TOTAL time the plc may spend trying to contact a node, before you switch to the next attempt. A simple example.... If you have a timeout of 1 second and 3 retries, then if there is an error on one node it will take a little over 3 seconds for the plc to ignore the error and reset the connection attempt ready for the next one. Your interval/method of triggering the next call to any node must allow for this possibility. To speed things up you often only do a single try, on the reasoning that if it fails once it will fail again. cheers, Aus

Your question is too broad. What are you asking? !!! cheers, Aus

Orso, I think I use something like you are proposing. In my analogue instances there is always some sort of minor variation going on. I have code that recognises something sitting at a constant reading for a given time, and if this happens I then initiate a power reset on that sensor circuit. This came about because I have had occasional instances where a power disturbance has upset sensors somehow and they lock up. They still output, but nothing is changing and the process is sent completely astray. It is set as a count system so that if it repeats the reset a few times in succession it throws an error. cheers, Aus

It would appear that the August cumulative update is breaking a host of things. As well as issues that it appears to be creating in Unitronics land, I also had the link below drawn to my attention. Tread carefully on any update installation and always have a full drive copy to go back to...not just a restore point etc! I cannot believe how M$oft appears to be so blase/arrogant about the effects such significant changes will have. It is the same attitude as previous A/Vs I've had in years gone by, where they let a problem in and then try to unsuccessfully fix it, rather than stopping it getting in in the first place. cheers, Aus https://www.i-programmer.info/news/177-windows-8/13017-visual-basic-problems-from-windows-update.html

I have never worked with Factory IO and can't do physical trials. And I am mainly a 485 RTU user. So this is a bit of a learning curve for me as well, just for interest's sake. 1. You want the PLC to be master. I still come back to the setup naming conventions above where it looks like you have Factory IO is a master as well. 2. OK. Thought it would be part of a bigger network. 3. All ports throughout your program. Inits, etc. Pls post your latest program, as I am still working on your original and agree with Joe's call on the connect. Lastly, and likely the most important observation, to my TCP/IP modbus inexperienced eye you are trying to do things using Calls with wrong naming conventions and means of doing things that are Unitronics unique. Your R/W mix is still calling the Factory IO as slave, and apart from this error, this procedure I did not think possible other than b/n Unitronics stuff. You will likely need to break it up into separate calls. cheers, Aus

More later, but perhaps the issue is incorrect ID relationships in the config. You have the plc identified in the config as Network ID 255. Will discuss more tomorrow. cheers, Aus

I've had a quick squiz over the ladder (after working through the hiccouphs as I still use 9.8.65) and to me some things stand out. 1. Your socket init is showing as master, so backtracking to my previous notes, make sure the relationships are correct. 2. Your card init is showing the gateway as the same address as you have in comments for the FCTORY IO. I don't know the quirks of Factory IO but think this might be an issue if you're not getting a DNS resolution. Can Factory IO do this, or should you be referencing your router? 3. For interest's sake, try making the ports the same. And ensure that Factory IO is set to work on said ports. cheers, Aus

Happened to be on and saw that Russ was also online, but alas.....still no response. 🤨 cheers, Aus

Lucas, pls refer to this Topic below. It would appear that the latest W10 updates have broken something and the solution for now seems to be an update uninstall. The Creators will no doubt have to look at this issue and do a fix. cheers, Aus.

Good, but not so good for The Creators who now have to figure out what to change, given the supposedly "critical" nature of the latest updates and you now not having them. @Saragani or @Cara Bereck Levy can perhaps advise the relevant team to look into it. It might be just your system's quirks. No doubt it will be the usual M$oft method of completely stopping some process until they figure out how to get around having a flawed process in the first place. To me it all comes back to..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and "Build it Right First Time". But I acknowledge that it is often hard for Non-Devious People to think along the lines of Devious ones! cheers, Aus

OK. Time for me to get Zzzzz, but in the meantime ensure your A/V isn't interfering. And wait for someone else to chime in. No doubt my subconscious will think about this all night....thanks so much!!! M$oft has an annoying habit of breaking things with W10 updates.......and your system likely got one in the last few days if you let it. Patch Tuesday. cheers, Aus

HI Joe, I NOTE that your Clients are demanding and that you are ever humble and giving things away. 😀 Geeesshhh you Yanks do weird stuff. Muk A Rownd wit tha Queeen's English. Almost as bad as HO calling a download an upload! But I get your methods of remembering. cheers, Aus

Did you install using right click run as Admin, and then once installed also set the main U90Ladder .exe to run as admin as well? cheers, Aus