5/24/2008 1:53 AM | |
Posts: 2661 Rating: (279) |
Traditionally the users in the metals industry have been reluctant to use PCS7 becauseof the following reasons: 1. Response time: PCS7 does add a slight overhead because the compiled code is in SCL and this has to be converted to STL and then to MC7. Using Step 7 (STL) reduces one step. 2, As you might be knowing, the metals applications involves complex calculations (diameter etc.). The response was achieved using multiprocessor systems. These were initially in Step 5 andat the timethe suppliers were "forced" to switch to Step 7, PCS7 still did not support multiprocessor operation. (see following FAQ for example - AS/OS transfer with PCS 7 V5.x aborts on multiprocessor systems ) But now with the processing power of the latest CPU's, the desired response can be achieved. Of course it depends on the CPU type you choose and the amount of stuff you put in it. I can understand your machinery supplier's standpoint since converting to PCS7 involves additional cost and it is better forthem to go with a proven solution. There is absolutely no difference (as far as the response is concerned) between CFC/SFC without PCS7 and using PCS7. As I mentioned earlier the CFC/SFC after compilation creates an SCL source file. Regards, Phantom |
Last edited by: Phantom75 at: 5/24/2008 2:53 AM |
|
Follow us on