Does the Feature Pack make CCW look more like Logix? (video)

thanks for overview of add-on to CCW v11,
this may help few OEMs I work with consider instead of ML1100/1400.
I'm sure RA will continue to enhance this feature set for CCW.
if ANC-100 drawing not filled up, please add me as candidate.

i,
I work for a machine builder and I have been using CCW since version 2. This is not our standard platform but I really like it when it comes to small projects. One thing I've been asking for a while is the fact that there is no way to use arrays of FBs. The weird thing is that you can create an array of FB and if you try to use it in ST for example even the intellisence works. It really looks like it should work but when you try to build the program it will not build. Even weirder is the fact that if you create an array of FB and try to use it in your program without the array index, the program will work and will be using the first index of the array. In other words, if you create an array of timers for exemple called myTimer and in your program you write: myTimer(IN := TRUE, PT := T#3S); instead of writing: myTimer(IN := TRUE, PT := T#3S); well it kinda works by using the first index!!! It really should not work. I've been telling Rockwell about that since version 2 of the software and nothing has been done so far. I don't know if it is a Rockwell problem or an Isagraf problem (http://www.isagraf.com, used in CCW, bought by Rockwell) Other than that I love CCW. I mostly program in ST and in my opinion the ST in CCW is way better than in RSLogix 5000. I have been working with RSLogix5000 for years and still use it from time to time but I mostly work with Beckhoff TwinCAT and Codesys now and CCW's ST is more geared toward the IEC61131-3 standard and this is what I really like about it. It is a shame that a lot of people that are used to RsLogix500 and 5000 don't like CCW. It seems to me that it is only driven by the fact that they don't want to learn something new again. And I know that a lot of people only want to use ladder and that ladder in CCW is not as easy to work with than in 500 or 5000. I still use ladder where it makes sense but today with the increasing complexity of PLC programs doing a lot of calculations, communications, working with arrays and loops, I find myself mostly using ST and in my opinion it just makes sense. So please continue posting about CCW and Micro800s, I love these little PLCs and I think they really make sense in small projects. Free software, even though I use the paid version because I want to at least be able to create UDTs, and free support!

Thanks for your comments ,
Sorry, but to enter in the ANC-100 drawing you'll need to post in that thread before January 1st:
https://theautomationforums.com/showthread.php?1647-Data-Highway-Plus-to-Ethernet
Sincerely,
Shawn Tierney,
Instructor, The Automation School

Hey ,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and history!
I was one of those people who stayed away from CCW since I never seemed to have time to sit down and learn it as I wasn't paid to learn new things 🙁
But then when I had to teach a course on it I found I really did like it, especially FBD 🙂
We now have the Micro810, 820, 830, and 850 here at The Automation School, and I do hope to continue to cover it in my courses as well as on the Automation Blog 🙂
Thanks again,
Shawn Tierney,
Instructor, The Automation School