|
Kind of
reminds me of the question, “When did the 21st Century Start”!
You are quite right, the LEDS on 4 channel
module have always been a bit “Querky". The origin of the problem was probably Opto22 Quad Pak I/O which didn't use any software from Opto22 so there
was no confusion. You were also
lucky to miss the fun of working with SNAP-B3000, which achieved the
admirable compatibility with MisticI/O by considering the modules on a
single 16 module rack as being 4 different virtual racks each with 0-7 modules. Normality briefly returned with the B3000-ENET as before the introduction of HD modules all points were nearly understandable by using 0-63 referencing
on the rack. As the LEDs always indicated 1-4, it was almost obvious that the point number
did not coincide with the LED.
After a
couple of painful years of mixing HD referencing (Module 0-15 and Channel 0-31)
with standard 4 channel I/O referencing 0-63 points, PACControl 8.x has now
standardized on module-channel number, which
now makes it much easier and cleaner from a software point of view, but which can lead to
some confusion if you just look at the LEDS. Sometimes improving technology is like that.
Possible
solutions include only using HD modules (No Leds!) or you putting a cross reference chart
in the panel where the PAC is installed indicating Module, Channel, LED, Tag
and Description for each point. The best solution by far would be for Opto22 to include the LED indicator number in the "Configure I/O Points Dialog" dialog and Debug "View I/O Unit" window in PAC Control.
But as the Chinese good luck proverb says "May you never achieve what you most wish for". The difficulty with changing the red and white plastic indicators is the installed base out there. Imagine
the fun mixing modules with 1-4 indicators and 0-3 indicators. What
percentage of the 85 million Opto22 modules out there are SNAP 4
channel digitals?
Maybe we should just start a Facebook user group "Opto 22 SNAP LEDs [0-3]: Support The Change", Perhaps with more than 5,000 members we could force the issue.
George
P.S. The answers 1st
Jan 2001. A century contains 100 years and not 99, so, the end of the first
hundred years happened at the end of the year 100, and not at the end of year
99!
|