ICONICS or Citect

Dear Sirs,

For our new project we have to choose SCADA. Till now I have working with SIMATIC WinCC but our customer is not happy with it (v6.0 have A LOT OF BUGS - I am not happy too!!!).
We doubt between ICONICS and Citect.
The ICONICS offer very nice tools and options and I am keen to use it.
What about Citect?
Could anyone help use with advice?

You may also want to look at Factelligence HMI/SCADA
http://www.cbautomation.com/Products/Factelligence/HMI.asp

May I suggest that it very much depends on the application size and other requirements. If you can identify the industry and the performance and other requirements, I am sure that you will get good advice here.

Have you considered a non-Windows solution? Other platforms offer great software as well as much better security and stability. Many can also incorporate Windows
PCs where they are the most suited for that part of the solution and are not mission critical.

Peter Clout
Vista Control Systems, Inc.

Both are extremely good HMIs, and both are state-of-the-art. The proof of that is the number of large automation vendors who have private labeled all or part of each and use them as their own HMIs.

If you have Schneider plcs there is not much contest: Citect. They have a very close working relationship.

Both have OUTSTANDING enterprise integration suites.

Iconics is bigger in the US, Citect is strong in the Asia Pacific area.

Both have excellent tech support.

Citect is on record as having the largest SCADA/HMI system in operation, in a mine in Western Australia.

Both are .NET compliant, although Iconics has a slight lead in that area.

Iconics appears, on the surface, to be easier to implement if you are a system integrator, but I suspect that is a surface-only appearance. Citect has some excellent integration tools, also.

They are, in my opinion, neck and neck the best of the independent HMI solutions (not supplied by a DCS manufacturer), except on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays, when they are all tied with Wonderware. Other HMI olutions
are rapidly improving and are likely to catch Citect, Iconics and Wonderware within the next year or so.

It is a great time to be an end user!

There are strong reasons not to select a non-Windows solution. I won't go there, because it is clearly a religious debate, and I don't belong to the Church of Kill Bill.

There, I've stuck my neck out. (grin)

Spitzer and Boyes LLC is working on two new Consumer Guides... one to HMI/SCADA systems and the other to DCSs. If you want them, you can let David Spitzer know at [email protected].

Walt Boyes
Editor-in-Chief
CONTROL magazine
www.controlglobal.com
read my blog, Sound Off! at controlglobal.com or directly at
www.livejournal.com/users/waltboyes

Dear List,
Walt Boyes for some reason used my post to hang his opinions on. I do not propose to address his opinions of Citect and Iconics as he has clearly spent time looking deeply into them and, in addition, there is no question that they both have a great market share.

However, I have to express my disappointment that someone who professes to serve the community as a top journalist appears to have such a narrow view of the automation world. In his narrow vision certainly is the majority of the automation market as computers have followed PLCs to do what was previously done by relays or monotonously by hand.

When one adjusts ones peripheral vision to be more effective, one begins to see that there are other roles for computers in industry where the
requirements take one beyond the capabilities of the high-volume automation products. I talk of monitoring and controlling high-speed production processes where control loops execute in microseconds and the control algorithm is custom code.

There are also applications where the first-principle models of the process have to be incorporated into the total system. Clearly, these systems have mission-critical computer requirements and while there are some good experiences out there, I think that for the general public, Windows has yet to earn that reputation.

Example: One customer with $1,000,000 lost in production breakdowns found the reason moments after our high-speed monitoring software was installed. A loose screw on one of the 1,000's of PLC connections was loose causing a motor drive to be commanded to stop, breaking equipment. This
was only a 100Hz scanning system.

Let's be straight on this, this is not a religious war but a technical issue. I do not believe that there is one solution for every class of computing application. What is the right solution for the foundation of a family home computer is not necessarily the right foundation for real-time mission-critical control nor for mission-critical very-large commercial applications.

In Engineering and Science there is a rule that "the harder one looks, the more one finds". Then, when the new data is understood, the process can be not just automated, but improved in productivity and quality.

However, the good news is that there are products like ours that are the same product on many computer platforms giving the customer a choice and keeping the innovation-spurring free-market competition alive. Of course, after my writing this, any chance of our company being mentioned in Control Magazine has gone!

Peter Clout
Vista Control Systems, Inc.
176 Central Park Square
Los Alamos, NM 87544-4031
(505) 662-2484
FAX (505) 662-3956
Cell (505) 450-7810
[email protected]
http://www.vista-control.com

Peter, just so you know, I've reposted this exchange on my blog at http://www.controlglobal.com. See, you CAN disagree with me and still be in my magazine. It is called responsible journalism. (grin)

Walt Boyes
Editor in Chief
CONTROL magazine
www.controlglobal.com
[email protected]
Read my blog at www.controlglobal.com or directly at
www.livejournal.com/users/waltboyes

Walt,

I could not be happier that I have been proved wrong in my concern that my Control Magazine goose was cooked! Thank you.

I have taken the liberty of correcting your introduction to the item in your blog - we support UNIX, Linux, VMS and Windows with Vsystem and leave it to the customer to choose the best operating system for their application.

Peter

Peter Clout
Vista Control Systems, Inc.
176 Central Park Square
Los Alamos, NM 87544-4031
(505) 662-2484
FAX (505) 662-3956
Cell (505) 450-7810
[email protected]
http://www.vista-control.com

If you would want to.

Regards

cww

Now that could be a problem. I doubt there is a page of Control that isn't gushing with praise for the monopoly. There wasn't last time I looked, but I was cleaning fish at the time so I could have missed something.

Regards

cww

Once again, Curt, you've proved my case by resorting to ad hominem attack. If you have something useful to suggest, or something to submit to CONTROL, feel free. I will certainly consider it. Whether it has anything nice to say
about Microsoft or not. All that I require is that it be a subject in the field of process automation.

Curt's reaction is exactly what I meant when I said I don't belong to the Church of Kill Bill. I find it fascinating that you think authors of the caliber of Bela Liptak, Greg McMillan, Greg Shinskey, Harold Wade, Bill
Mostia, Angela Summers, David Spitzer, and others are only good for cleaning fish on. Thank God, your opinion is in a significant minority.

There are, for the record, lots of things to criticize about Microsoft, and I have criticized them appropriately, and will continue to do so.

But let us not forget that Microsoft is responsible, more than any other organization or company or individual, for the world of ubiquitous data we live in, because they made computing both easy to learn and affordable for the masses.

You can say what you want, but everytime you don't pay several thousand dollars for a seat license for a word processing program, or for a database management program, or for an HMI or for EAIs and APIs that actually work, that's Microsoft's fault too.

Walt Boyes
Editor in Chief
CONTROL magazine
www.controlglobal.com
read my blog at www.controlglobal.com or directly at
www.livejournal.com/users/waltboyes

Dear Svetozar Yolov:

ICONICS has a long history in the SCADA market. We have continued to enhance our capabilities and today we have a feature rich set of tools for creating your SCADA application. These tools include outstanding OPC Compliance for Data Access, History Logging and Trending, and Centralized Alarm Management, all with complete Reporting capabilities (via ReportWorX). Our tools for SCADA applications may be used for small applications and are easily scaled to the Enterprise level. We utilize current technologies today such as ActiveX Controls for Trending, Alarm Viewing, and Graphics Display in our regular SCADA products and in our WebHMI thin client solutions. We follow a careful development plan using todays Windows 32-bit technologies with an eye for enhancing our offering with tomorrows best Windows 64-bit architecture. As a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, we have the most current tools for creating today's and tomorrow's State of the Art SCADA systems.

Please visit our web site at www.iconics.com for more information or you may email me at [email protected] for referal to a local ICONICS Authorized Distributor. Be sure to include your complete contact information in your email. Good Luck!

Jon W. Brown
ICONICS
2697 Weymoth Road
Winston Salem, NC 27103
+(336) 774 9615

Geez, Curt, you don't have to be snotty about it. If you don't like the magazine, just don't read it.

Hello,

It is, perhaps, the several-hundred-dollar seat licenses that Curt rails against. Those are an order of magnitude improvement, but only one; there's no real reason improvement shouldn't continue... In fact, per-seat licenses aren't likely to last anyway; they don't agree with the actual production costs, so they're likely to fail in favour of something that does.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.baum.com.au/~jiri
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

Hello Svetozar,

After the nightmare that I´ve benn living the last months with the continuous problems and the "If you want this or this pay more"!!!! with WinCC I love more Citect. I´ve used Citect several times and I found that is very easy of use, reliable and robust. And other thing is the price, lower than most of SCADA/HMI software packages. Normally the drivers that they offer really works, not like many of the Wonderware (for example) free drivers.

Don´t know about ICONICS, Once I worked with Genesis for DOS operating system (long time ago). I found that version not so easy of use and configure, but very robust and fast communications for a DOS system,

Best regards and good luck,

Engelbert Rodríguez
ICESA
Barcelona
Spain

Sorry, Steve.
It's just we could use a trade magazine that isn't primarily a marketing tool for present and would be monopolists. That's why I subscribe to this list and not to the magazine mentioned.

Regards
cww

Hi Undecided,

I have been in the Scada market for 12 years. I had the dilema you had. I chose Citect due to ease of use, clear understandable system, automatic redundancy, excellent support system worldwide and generally a really clear price structure both for entry price and upgrading applications. Technically I guess Citect and Iconics both have some benefits. Commercially and support wise Citect has a decided advantage. For really big systems Citect has no competition right now.

Hope this helps.

Hi Walt

I really shouldn't expect you to understand, but let me clarify. If your magazine only contained the work of such esteemed authors, it would not only be verging on excellent, it would be far smaller and perhaps worth subscribing to. It's the other stuff that provides bulk excellent for wrapping offal. I can wrap with little fear of damaging content that seeks to improve my knowledge or craft and if such gets soggy it is "collateral damage". And I don't even mind that these authors often use and reference the products of your advertisers as the emphasis is still on truths they have discovered. The balance of the publication is usually from marketers with the emphasis on truths they have invented and much that could only be mistaken for truth by those most technologically challenged.

And if you add to that the fact that I am focused on doing automation in ways most beneficial to practitioners and their customers rather than to benefit your advertisers, I think you would have to agree there is no particular reason why I would be interested in an organ of the status quo. And as for contributing, even if I approved of hijacking content from lists without express permission, I think a brief search for my writings would show that I am fairly selective about the company I keep.

And lastly, there was nothing "ad hominem" in my remarks. But making things personal is a well known propaganda technique to provide an emotional hook to hang your agenda on. This is the second time running that you seek to go there while I converse about business models.

Regards

cww

Ahem, Curt, I believe you have my magazine confused with somebody else.

It has been CONTROL's policy for over 17 years now NEVER to accept vendor-authored, or PR-agency-authored editorial. All of our editorial material is either written by recognized authorities in the field, staff editors (who, at this point have collectively well over 150-man-years working in this profession) or professional freelance journalists (also with substantial credentials in this industry).

I'm not sure I understand what about our editorial mission, unless you have a problem with carrying advertising so practitioners in the field can get the magazine without paying for it, qualifies us to wrap fish.

Walt Boyes

In reply to Curt Wuollet - While I don't read "Control" magazine, I do get several other similar ones. I think you are missing the point of most of these publications. Most people simply read them for the ads. Most of the articles are themselves simply extended ads. They are a good source for finding out who is selling what, and that is what I (and no doubt most others) read them for. The occasional article is educational, but these rarities are a pleasant surprise rather than an expectation.

These types of magazines don't typically pay for stories, so they are always looking for free content to fill out the space. If you write an article on a topic of interest, you probably won't have much trouble getting it published.
You would reach a much wider audience there than you would writing inflamatory letters to this mailing list.

Michael
I concur. I recieve many publications and only review the new releases of the equipment or processes applications.

Maybe Curt should stand down.

Dennis