Points creation at runtime

[jorge.florez]

Hi Everyone:

My customer changed the scope of the project and, in order for us to cover that scope, we would need a license with more points, but buying a new one is not possible at this moment. To clarify the situation I will give you an explanation of the project:

We have an application that is made of several clusters. Every cluster has a master PLC that can communicate with Geo SCADA through OPC UA or Ethernet/IP. Every cluster PLC manages several slaves that correspond to a well and not every cluster has the same quantity of slaves. Our customer suggested to create a template of a cluster with 18 wells (slaves). Every slave has approximately 66 points and there are approximately 43 clusters. If we created the template as the customer suggested we would need a bigger license.

As a solution, I was thinking to create only the wells that are really necessary but the operator should have the possibility to activate or deactivate the wells that he needs.

Taking into account this information, I would like to know if it is possible in execution time (probably by means of a script) to create OPC UA and Ethernet/IP points for the wells activated by the user and eliminate those points when he chooses to deactivate them to release the used points.

The project is still in development and for now we have only a few devices to communicate with, but in some days, we will have more communication links active. For this reason we want to know how many OPC servers and Ethernet/IP Outstations can simultaneously be online. Do they need any kind of sequencing?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide me.

[geoffpatton]

Just an Idea that I would see if you can do, but it would not work with in a 16 well template that has everything included.

Hopefully this is not to confusing and I will say this seems like one of those things where you actually spend more money on engineering to not spend money on equipment.

First here is the idea that I have not tried I have not tried, it may be possible to Script a convert instance but if that can be scripted this may work.

You could have a Master Well template and a template that is just an empty group, or has some minimal non point stuff in it that you may need for graphics or something. Then use scripts to convert an instance from the Empty one to the Master Well one. You can script entering in IP Addressing an such that's unique. The user will need Configuration permissions to do any of this.

Now for the idea of the16 well template.

You could maybe make a 16 well graphics only template and then after you create instances of it create instances in it of individual well templates in side the instances of the 16 Well, but do not make the sell instances in the 16 well template. I doubt you'd be able to convert an instance that is created in the template that is why I am saying to create the well instances in a 16 Well instance. For this part of the idea I have done something similar with a Common template where I hide graphic objects on common graphics that may not have an existing point by using the points InService state in the Visibility animation and if the point does not exits the graphic gets hidden. I built the screen with every possible point available by temporarily putting an instance of a meter template in the Common template and then removed that instance. Then I created a bunch of instances of the common template and created various meter templates in those that have different points.

[sbeadle]

Geoff is correct, the central question is 'can configuration be created and deleted at run time and will the drivers handle the change'. You can. Note that deleting points will also delete their history too. You can create the code using VBScript in mimics or server-side using the .Net API (C#, VB.Net or Python/Pythonnet). In the upcoming 2025 release you can contain native Python in the server and use the new Python API.

Making all of the mimics and hyperlinks between them work and adapt to the specific configuration will be possible but needs some design.

And I'd also echo Geoff's comment - is your labour to do this cheaper than the licensing cost impact?