Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Productivity Request

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


  • Productivity Request

    Can you look at implementing Structures in tags:

    Structure Test1 (Sample Tag)
    Flow Rate
    Discharge Pressure
    HP

    Test1.Flow Rate
    Test1.Discharge Pressure
    Test1.HP

    You have to be close since you have this in logic boxes but we need to be able to generate internal tags like this to be able to reuse classes of tags.

    Thanks,

    Mike


  • #2
    Thanks for the post. I have notified the Product Engineer of this request and we are currently working on implementing these in Productivity. Thanks again.
    Last edited by bdehner; 03-10-2016, 07:03 AM.
    If you have an urgent issue, please contact AutomationDirect's Technical Support team at 1(800) 633-0405 or (770) 844-4200. Thank you

    Comment



    • #3
      I was also curious about user defined structures for Productivity, and I noticed this was posted a few months ago. Has anything been added to the roadmap with regards to this? I'm a systems integrator and have worked mostly in the A-B world for 25 years, and most recently have been trying to persuade my customers to switch over to the Productivity offering due to the extreme cost savings without sacrificing capabilities (successfully "converted" some - even the hard core Logix guys! ). But one of the biggest complaints I receive is regarding the ability to create "user defined" structures.

      Any further information would be greatly appreciated!

      Thanks,
      John

      Comment



      • #4
        First off, we greatly appreciate your support and interest in our Productivity line. Unfortunately, due to a resource issue our roadmap has been delayed a bit. However, we are working hard to incorporate many of the suggested improvements including user-defined structures into our Productivity Series controllers. At this time, we donít have a definitive release date but it is in the works. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks again.
        If you have an urgent issue, please contact AutomationDirect's Technical Support team at 1(800) 633-0405 or (770) 844-4200. Thank you

        Comment



        • #5
          I appreciate your prompt feedback. As far as I'm concerned, this feature doesn't deter me from suggesting the PAC platform to my customers, but for some it will take some convincing to switch. I guess at this time we'll just patiently wait and let your team do what they need to do.

          Thanks again!

          Comment



          • #6
            Just curious if there is any sort of update on this feature request. Is it back on the product roadmap?

            Comment



            • #7
              The user-defined structures feature is in active development at this time. Due to other higher prioritized enhancements for the Productivity line, the development was delayed but it is in the works. Thanks for checking back with us!
              If you have an urgent issue, please contact AutomationDirect's Technical Support team at 1(800) 633-0405 or (770) 844-4200. Thank you

              Comment



              • #8
                I feel like we might be beating this to death, but I was also curious how close the software was to offering these User Defined Structures? Offering these UDS would open up and simplify tags for some of the larger systems that we install.

                Thanks,

                Comment



                • #9
                  Hi:
                  I have been developing on Productivity 2000 suite and have found a lot of problems, from bugs to design flaws that make the development and debugging very cumbersome. I have been in contact with the tech guys and they do a very good job answering e mails, calls, and "workarounds". I have been feeding them with these problems and suggestions, and everything stays stand still with the phrase "we are in the process of developing and has been delayed...."
                  I haven't seen any bug fixes or improvements to any suggestions along these time, which makes think not very well at all about their way to handle these situation.
                  I must say that once I received an e mail from a higher level person saying that my program was too complicated and I should use a bigger PLC. What a joke! the PLC had enough capacity of course: does a complicated program makes the PLC work more ?
                  I am disappointed with their response, both in time and the way they have taken my comments, and I've seen similar responses in the forum.
                  Hope to see an improvement on these for the benefit of all of us.
                  Thanks

                  Comment



                  • #10
                    Don't feel like your alone. Been waiting 2z years for EMAIL fix so can send alarms without having to buy $800 red lion DSP to send text message

                    Mike

                    Comment



                    • #11
                      Look at dates on posts to see how long it takes.
                      my request has been there since 3/2016

                      Comment



                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MikeMc View Post
                        Look at dates on posts to see how long it takes.
                        my request has been there since 3/2016
                        I can't speak to the development priorities of the Productivity team, but there are a great many not-so-obvious complexities to adding user data types. Do-more was designed from day one to support them, but we are just now getting it done. It's easy...except for all the stuff that wasn't.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X