What is difference between Unity and Concept on PLC programming. We are using cpu534.

Thanks,
Cole

 

Unity is new era at Schneider, you can use Premium and Quantum Families as well, but not Momentum. If you still have a mixed factory with Modicon Quantum, Momentum and/or Compact, then stay with Concept 2.6.
If you plan to move to Unity, make sure that you really need to.

140CPU53414A can be converted to Unity Pro in 2 steps.

 

Basically, Concept was the rubbish the americans produced and called it a PLC programming tool. It was bug riddled and unwieldly.

Fortunately, there were wiser heads around and Unity was born. Unity combines as the single programming tool for both Modicon and Telemecanique PLC platforms. Currently it only handles TSX Quantum and TSX Premium. There is in the works a new TSX Micro, which will also be Unity programmable. That should bring the goal of a single programming tool for all Schneider / Modicon / Telemecanique PLCs.

Thanks.

 

I'm very fond of Concept, especially the free-format FBD programming tool. Early version of Concept had a lot of bugs, but since release 2.2SR2 the program has worked well. I have not run across any bugs at all in release 2.6.

I do not know who wrote Concept but I have examined some of the sample EFB 'C' languange source code that comes with the distribution. Interestingly, the comments in this source code are written in German.

 

I don't care who produced it. It is, and remains a solid tool, at least versions after 2.2. And the built in emulator is pretty slick.

 

So if Concept (which worked nicely from my point of view) is rubbish, what term would you use for ProWORX (any version)? I would be hard pressed to find any of my customers who would disagree that it's the worst PLC software ever seen outside of DOS.

The way Unity was originally pushed to us (and I worked for a distributor 5 years ago when it was in it's infancy) was that it was supposedto blend not only software, but hardware for the platforms, such as Bus-X extension racks for Quantum, and 984-style processors for the Premium. And of course they don't bother to support 50% of their US installed base by leaving out Compact and Momentum.

There's a reason I don't work on Modicon equipment anymore.

 

Anyone who used an early version of Unity would say that Concept was about 5000% better!
Unity is very memory hungry and more complex to use. All in all it's now pretty good but it does not allow 984 Ladder logic programming, and you have to upgrade firmware in CPUs to use it unless they are Unity specific.

The fact that it doesn't work with Momentum, Compact, early Quantums, etc. is just something that you have to accept I guess.

If the Americans didn't do a very good job with Concept, I think the French totally ****ed up with Unity!!!

 

Do you know how to do FIFO in Unity Pro 2.3 controlling 8 motors taken into consideration of the trip and run signal? We have only one start latching signal.

When the motor tripped or it doesn't run for a delay of 10 secs, the ladder should go to the next motor to start it.

Thanks.

 

Unity is not harder to use, and honestly, the problem with the ladder is not the software, but just the ladder... Stop using that crap language, and use ST... (If you use Visual Basic, C++, etc., it's the same logic!)

 

"What is difference between Unity and Concept on PLC programming."

The fact that you have to ask this question shows the failure of Schneider / Modicon / Telemecanique / Square D to properly market their products. Starting with what exactly is their name? A press release clarifying their US strategy said that all Schneider brands would be consolidated under the Square D moniker. Except Modicon. Oh, and when you order your Modicon part from Square D it shows up and says "Telemecanique" on it. (I was unable to dig up that press release.)

The software confusion is even worse.

The oldest reference to Unity I could find was 2003. I don't know about Concept, but I personally used it on a project in 2001, so it's at least that old. During that 6 month project the plant decided to standardize on ProWorx NXT, though most of the maintenance techs at that point were using to Modsoft.

Here's a link to a July 2004 catalog of Modicon's software:
http://ecatalog.squared.com/techlib/docdetail.cfm?oid=0900892680177612

Here's the first sentence of the description of each.

Unity:
"Unity Pro’s welcome screen provides access to all available tools in a user-friendly format that has been redesigned on the basis of feedback received from users of Concept and PL7 Junior/Pro application design software."

Concept:
"Concept is a software configuration and application programming tool for the automation platform."

ProxWorx:
"ProWORX 32 programming software is a full-featured, Modicon PLC programming software that is compatible with Windows platforms (98/NT/2000/XP) that gives you the power to program all your Modicon controllers online or offline, manage your I/O subsystems, and analyze your plant’s activity in realtime."

Does that answer your question? I'm guessing not. Only the ProWorx description is actually a description, in one rather long run-on sentence. Concept's desciption only makes sense if you already know what Concept is (and are willing to overlook the improper grammar). As for Unity... well, that's not even a description, is it?

There's a slightly better description at
http://www.squared.com/us/products/...5285256B68004D5047/$file/SoftwareFrameset.htm

But it still doesn't answer the question of why you would pick one or the other. Add Proworx is still in the mix.

I can't even express the depth of my negativity towards this mess.

-James Ingraham
Sage Automation, Inc.

 

> Unity is new era at Schneider, you can use Premium and Quantum Families as well, but not Momentum. If you still
> have a mixed factory with Modicon Quantum, Momentum and/or Compact, then stay with Concept 2.6.
> If you plan to move to Unity, make sure that you really need to.

> 140CPU53414A can be converted to Unity Pro in 2 steps.

what are those two steps?

 

> Stop using that crap language, and use ST... (If you use Visual Basic, C++,
> etc., it's the same logic!)

The problem with this is that the people who are going to look at your code a heck of a lot more than you ever will are people who don't use, understand, or care to know about VB/C++. They are maintenance electricians, and they understand ladder diagrams.

When a technician is on the floor, with production managers breathing down their necks, looking over their shoulder, demanding to know a time frame of when the machine will be fixed literally 2 seconds after they've started looking at it, they will curse your name with the burning hatred of 1,000 suns if they see structured text.

Techs and electricians understand ladder, not ST. The whole point of a PLC is to have something that electricians and non-programmers can understand and troubleshoot. ST in my opinion runs contrary the this goal.

 

Seconded. Even though it's tangential to a 5 year old discussion.

 

AH! Nostalgia time.

This comment, coupled with the Square D/Telemchanique comment, took me back some years to the 1980's.

At that company I was only allowed two forays away from "we only sell product" into systems. Both involved PLCs and ladder logic.
One was a job for a paint company to allow them to control solvent additions by selecting the vessel and the solvent line.

The original panel was hard wired with actual relays. I spent many happy hours delving into the drawings on that and learned a bit about real relay ladder logic.

The PLC version was ladder logic and thus older style thinking translated very well. This was Square D.

Sadly, the software functionality specified by us was implemented by the local Square D PLC supplier/system integrator who bodged it.
It took some while before they had someone who knew what they were doing and who visited the site and fixed it on his own initiative in a couple of hours.

The second was a fuel filling system for the new Nissan pant in Sunderland....1984/5. I forget whose PLC we used, not Square D this time, but it was Japanese, ladder logic and I had a go at writing the logic myself for fun. (I was a flowmeter specialist).

The installed program was written by the integrator to follow our requirements.

I thought relay/ladder logic was fun and understandable and, with the Japanese system, very easy to implement including setting up batch counters, counting switch inputs etc.