8/15/2022 8:05 PM | |
Joined: 3/30/2020 Last visit: 8/16/2024 Posts: 4696 Rating:
|
Hello. You have been focussed on this task of your for some posts now. To be fair to our volunteers, it would have been nice if they now what you have written in Reading IO tag name to a string. + You are already aware of the PEEK/POKE commands. Now @KFoldesi (thanks!) confirmed the use of POKE_BOOL with a demonstration. Combining the text list and POKE_BOOL is what could be used as foundation. I will expand what @Hati suggested, though I assume you do know how/where to create a text list in WinCC. Exporting the tag list from Step7 onto a spreadsheet file and reworking the file to the text list is the best. This can be done with a script if it is something that is done regularly. Executing a few regular expressions driven find-replace should be enough. Rework the list to two columns: (a) index number and (b) name. I use camalCase format for my symbol names, so that gets reworked to human readable text with spaces. The prefix is excluded. The address is mixed in. The name would be something like: "Q12.3 - MAIN RUN LAMP" The index number is generated from the address: (12 x 8) + 3 = 99 When the user selects the option "Q12.3 - ...", the PLC gets the value of 99. The byte address is INT#99 / INT#8. The bit position is INT#99 mod INT#8. -- My use cases are not yours. You either need to find another way or augment the concept. Having a text list with 500+ items will drive anyone crazy. (Would WinCC even allow as many?) You will need to find a way to "jump" to a section that is closer to the selection that the user want to make. You would have the user fill in a decimal number that can be reworked to the index. The text list can then confirm what is selected. Scripting of WinCC would probably be required. -- What makes sense to me would be to have the system be broken down in manageable sections. Design a WinCC template for the section and repeat as many times as possible. This concept is far more user friendly. -- Unguarded & direct output control is dangerous. I have our techs that are reliable to use such tools when at first putting the machinery together on our factory floor. In my view it is too dangerous to have the client get access to such functionality. Manual control in our use case is controlled and limited to the protection of man and machine. How does your use case look like? ~ |
Last edited by: qwazee at: 08/15/2022 20:06:34Activities of this user is voluntary. There is no obligation or liability placed on this user. Though optional, your 'please' and 'thank you' is highly valued. |
|
Follow us on