6/14/2018 1:40 PM | |
Joined: 4/28/2015 Last visit: 1/30/2019 Posts: 6 Rating: (0) |
I've tried it in both an existing and a new PROFIBUS network. Neither use the MaxTsdr device parameters for determining the optimal bus parameters and all is compiled without errors or warnings. I also did the test in both TIA Portal V14 with an S7-1500 as well as with an S7-300 CPU and in SIMATIC STEP7 v5.5 with an S7-300. In all projects the bus parameters are unaffected by the slave device's parameters. I've included the GSD file under test as attachment (changed the extention for the upload). AttachmentEXAE0011.txt (74 Downloads) |
6/14/2018 4:59 PM | |
Joined: 4/28/2015 Last visit: 1/30/2019 Posts: 6 Rating: (0) |
Update: After some tests with Physical_Interfaces in the GSD, I noticed a bug in TIA PORTAL. Compared to the MaxTsdr parameters, the physical interface parameters are taken into account when calculating the slot time and other bus parameters. But apparently the actual transmission_delay and reaction_delay parameter used by TIA Portal is one baudrate higher than the network is working on. When for example inplementing 3 Physical Interfaces with different delays:
When using this GSD device in a PROFIBUS network at 500kbps, it's only physical interface 1 thats has an effect on the bus parameters, one would assume it would be physical interface 0. AttachmentEXAE0012.txt (70 Downloads) |
Last edited by: Frederic Depuydt at: 6/14/2018 4:59:40 PM |
|
Follow us on