Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A humble request(s) for Do-More God's

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • skyfox
    started a topic A humble request(s) for Do-More God's

    A humble request(s) for Do-More God's

    Please.....

    Help me love this thing without being subjected to DIALOG HELL. In other words, DON'T TRY TO SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

    For starters....

    How about just only two buttons to go on-line with a PLC?

    A simple dialog that says, even if incompatibilities are detected between what is on the PLC vs what is on my PC.

    Button #1. Send My Program (what is in my PC), to the PLC that I am trying to connect to. In other words, Download EVERYTHING. And I mean EVERYTHING.

    YES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM WANTING TO DO.

    Button #2. Update my program that I am working on at the moment (in essence, discard last 12 hours of my work), with what is currently in the PLC, no matter how worthless it is.

    Again, YES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM WANTING TO DO.

    Instead of, casting doubt and giving me other choices by asking...

    Are you sure?
    Really?
    Are you Really, Sure?
    Are you Really, Really, Really, Sure?
    You know something terrible might happen right?
    Click the option button if you are OK with offsetting earths magnetic alignment. (OK. That was bit of a stretch)
    Do you have legal representation for what you are wanting to do?
    What would the Kardashians do in this situation?
    Did you drink last night?
    Or, are you still under the influence from two nights ago? (True that)
    I only ask this because this seems like a ridiculous request.

    Again, just allow ME to crash and burn on my own without the DIALOG OVERLOAD.

    literally, I have to DO-MORE (# of steps), to enter in a "SINGLE" line of code.

    And...

    The 2nd reason for my constipation.

    When a contact is deleted, why delete the power rail portion of it and complain about it later? Why Not just delete the contact or the box instruction and leave the power rail in tact? This goes Whaaaaaaaay back to my DL-06 nightmare. But that was Sooooo Loooooooooooong Taaaaaaaaa EEEEEE ummmmmm ago.

    More gripes to come I am sure. But still Loving it, even with all its quirks.

    OK. Next.

    How about a "LIMIT Check" box function?

    Limit Low = 200
    Limit High = 202
    Test DO

    If in-within limit, Turn on C1.

    The inverse of this, would be amazing as well as it does wonders in the hated AB world.

    CHEERS!
    Last edited by skyfox; 04-14-2019, 01:38 AM.

  • quaizywabbit
    replied
    nice....thank you!!

    Leave a comment:


  • BobO
    replied
    Originally posted by quaizywabbit View Post
    id love to see the same method productivity uses to assign physical i/o via hardware config. with a visual representation to click on and enter/edit tagnames.
    Not exactly what you asked for, but this should get you 90% of the benefit and we were able to get it in quickly:
    1. Added all physical I/O in the system as references in the Doc View. This applies to X, Y, WX, and WY. If any analog ins or outs are scaled, we add the associated RX or RY as well.
    2. Added left click menu item to dashboard to go to the item in the Doc View. In cases like analog modules where there is more than one I/O type, it uses this preference: WX, WY, X, Y.


    Click image for larger version  Name:	Dash.jpg Views:	0 Size:	160.1 KB ID:	122290



    Click image for larger version  Name:	DocView.jpg Views:	0 Size:	74.1 KB ID:	122291

    Leave a comment:


  • quaizywabbit
    replied
    id love to see the same method productivity uses to assign physical i/o via hardware config. with a visual representation to click on and enter/edit tagnames.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Nash
    replied
    Originally posted by BobO View Post

    You use this from a line that isn't already a full rung to make it one. You can create many rungs within a single edit matrix
    I see. I think I'll stick with Ctrl-right twice as it's less to remember. I was getting thrown by the matrix part. I think I "knew" the part about multiple rungs, but don't use it that often, so I tend to forget.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobO
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike Nash View Post

    I feel like I am missing something here. When editing a new or old rung, it takes me 2 right arrows to get to the output position. If instead, I hit Ctrl-W after I have <Enter>ed the last contact, it moves me to the output column, but deletes the wire in doing so. This doesn't feel helpful.

    (Oh man! I didn't mean for my 500th post to be so trivial, but I forgot.)
    You use this from a line that isn't already a full rung to make it one. You can create many rungs within a single edit matrix

    Leave a comment:


  • ControlsGuy
    replied
    Here's one: I like in AB how the rails bold and light up status color if online in Run. Can't remember if online in Prog, do they still do that. I don't think so, but can't remember for certain. AB guys, who remembers?

    My ideal I guess would be to bold the rails (non-status color) when online in Prog, bold + status color in online/Run, regular width offline. I also really like all the wires showing power state, but that's a much bigger ask, I know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Nash
    replied
    Originally posted by BobO View Post

    The only piece you are missing is the Wire to Out, which is Ctrl-W.
    I feel like I am missing something here. When editing a new or old rung, it takes me 2 right arrows to get to the output position. If instead, I hit Ctrl-W after I have <Enter>ed the last contact, it moves me to the output column, but deletes the wire in doing so. This doesn't feel helpful.

    (Oh man! I didn't mean for my 500th post to be so trivial, but I forgot.)

    Leave a comment:


  • BobO
    replied
    Originally posted by MikeN View Post
    Another thing that always annoys me about Do-More software is the instruction toolbox. Maybe there is a way to already change this but I have looked in Options a couple times and read the help file for the instruction toolbox and couldnt find anything. In productivity I can have multiple sections of instructions open at once so that I can access any instruction I need to easily. In Do-More Designer, I seem to be limited to one group of instructions unless I want to put everything I ever need into favorites. The software wastes a TON of space for no reason and I have to move my mouse all over the place to change to a different instruction group. This should be changed so that more than one group can be open at a time.
    The toolbox control is from a 3rd party toolkit we use. Not sure what the capabilities of it are, beyond what we are using. We'll look into it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeN
    replied
    Another thing that always annoys me about Do-More software is the instruction toolbox. Maybe there is a way to already change this but I have looked in Options a couple times and read the help file for the instruction toolbox and couldnt find anything. In productivity I can have multiple sections of instructions open at once so that I can access any instruction I need to easily. In Do-More Designer, I seem to be limited to one group of instructions unless I want to put everything I ever need into favorites. The software wastes a TON of space for no reason and I have to move my mouse all over the place to change to a different instruction group. This should be changed so that more than one group can be open at a time.


    From this:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	InstructionToolbox.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	101.7 KB
ID:	122172




    To this:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	ProductivityInstructionToolbox.jpg
Views:	95
Size:	94.3 KB
ID:	122173

    Leave a comment:


  • Todd Dice
    replied
    Originally posted by BobO View Post

    Without any form of ack from the user? I'm not comfortable with that, at least in run mode. Less of a problem in program mode I guess.
    I am wrong on this in P-suite.

    When you click "Transfer project to CPU" while online to the PLC, you are asked in a pop-up if you wish to do a "run time transfer" or a "stop mode transfer." Sorry for my flaky memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • ControlsGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by BobO View Post

    I misspoke, it wouldn't be a test edit function like AB. The concept would be really simple. Following a run mode edit, both copies of the program are still present in RAM. Switching back to the previous program is very quick. The only wrinkle would be updating the flash again, but that's easy. No need for it to be an option per se, you would just use it or not. We could probably add to the confirmation dialog the option of refreshing the DmD with the old PLC version.

    It's easy, but I'm only interested in doing it if y'all think it would be useful.
    I actually don't like Test Mode, because the 97% case takes more UI interaction that it would without it. I don't tend to make a million edits and commit them all at once, so it's easy for me to remember what I just did and reverse it using normal editing. But....I can't judge all integrators or the scenarios in which they work by myself. Todd Dice made a good point about who might find easy reversion valuable and when. I think it would be useful...to some people, occasionally. So my vote is that if it's free to add, go ahead and do it, only so long as it doesn't add additional UI interaction for my 97% case, which is exactly what you're describing.

    Leave a comment:


  • ControlsGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by BobO View Post
    We've talked through the Quick Write function. That will happen next release. First time you invoke it within a session it will present a dialog with all of the possibilities, which will retain the previous selections. We will pull out all of the stops, making everything optional, even up to writing without confirmation. If the download criteria can't be met (e.g. disallow quick write if SysConfig has changed and it has) it'll bring up the existing Write to PLC with a one line warning that let's you know the quick write couldn't be done. For the most likely scenario that only logic has changed, it'll look exactly like God mode after the initial invocation, and since the setup will retain previous settings, even that should be painless.
    Sweet! When you posted about it before, I wanted to ask how persistent the override would be. Session is perfect IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobO
    replied
    Originally posted by TheGreatMarklar View Post

    Sounds like it could be useful, make it an option?

    I'm generally in favor of adding features as options. If that means there are five screens of check boxes so I can configure the program how I want it, great! Just document the options well, and copy them over when I upgrade the software.
    I misspoke, it wouldn't be a test edit function like AB. The concept would be really simple. Following a run mode edit, both copies of the program are still present in RAM. Switching back to the previous program is very quick. The only wrinkle would be updating the flash again, but that's easy. No need for it to be an option per se, you would just use it or not. We could probably add to the confirmation dialog the option of refreshing the DmD with the old PLC version.

    It's easy, but I'm only interested in doing it if y'all think it would be useful.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheGreatMarklar
    replied
    Originally posted by BobO View Post
    Do-more could also very easily support the quick revert function that AB has. Y'all sound mixed on it, but it is almost free to add if you think there is any value.
    Sounds like it could be useful, make it an option?

    I'm generally in favor of adding features as options. If that means there are five screens of check boxes so I can configure the program how I want it, great! Just document the options well, and copy them over when I upgrade the software.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X