We "migrated" from the older display manager to FoxView about 3 years ago.
My opinion is use FoxView if you are starting a system from scratch
(building new displays and controls)
If it is an existing system with existing graphics do not convert old
graphics to FoxView! There are numerous problems with the graphics after
they are converted. Problems that won't show up until you make
modifications to the graphic. You will begin to see messages like
"Unrecognized Attributes Encountered". I can tell you how to solve these
problems but it would take too long here.
Bo Stear is right about being slower and it is too much for a "B" box.
Graphics are different from site to site so I can't say how slow anybody
else's graphics will be. Ours typically take about 2 to 5 seconds after
graphics have been called up the first time. First time graphics may take
30 seconds. FoxDraw "hangs" up a lot with a "B" box but if you have an "E"
box on the node/network it will not be a problem.
Overall FoxDraw does have some extra functionality that display
builder/configurator does not have and that is well worth going with
FoxView/FoxDraw. Remember also the FoxSelect will have to be reloaded after
every ICC change that required a block addition.
Regards,
Michael L. Jaudon
Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC
(662)343-8710
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Stear, Bo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:42 AM
To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'
Subject: RE: Version 4.3 to 6.2.1 upgrade question - Why not FoxView?
Since you asked seriously, I'll respond properly.
We that have had Foxboro I/A on our sites for many years had to deal with an
especially slow call up time for displays in the early days, something on
the order of 15 seconds or more. As time went by, the DM was improved and
the hardware was updated to faster processors and now the DM is a real
zinger as far as speed is concerned. Early releases of Foxview were an
instant reminder of the slow speed of the DM in its early stages because the
call up time for it was something on the order of 15 seconds or more on the,
then prevalent, WP51 Style 'B' workstations. Even now, the current Foxview
is 3 to 5 times slower in call up time than the DM on the 'B' style
workstations. Since we have some 80 style 'B' workstations in house now,
even the very best advantage upgrade to a faster processor would be too
expensive and so is not possible. If we were to switch to Foxview today, I
expect that our operators would soon hang me from some pipe rack by my
thumbs because they are used to the
speed.
SO, I do not dislike Foxview for any particularly detrimental reason and
others that agree with me probably do so for the same reasons (but they
should speak for themselves).
-----Original Message-----
From: Anderson, Gary T(Z02256) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:33 AM
To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'
Subject: RE: Version 4.3 to 6.2.1 upgrade question - Why not FoxView?
I have to jump in here and ask why the reluctance to use FoxView? What don't
I know? What should I know?
We are a relatively new IA site and have never used the old Display Manager.
Other than potential processor loading of older hardware and converting the
displays, I can't see any reason not to use FoxView. The old style look of
the Display Manager was enough incentive to cause us to start with FoxView.
Gary Anderson
Arizona Public Service
-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Monsour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:29 AM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: Re: Version 4.3 to 6.2.1 upgrade question
Where's your sense of adventure, Bo? Foxview is GREAT!
Julie Monsour
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stear, Bo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Foxboro DCS Mail List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Version 4.3 to 6.2.1 upgrade question
> It will be a dead heat as to whether you or we are the last to migrate to
FoxView....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Version 4.3 to 6.2.1 upgrade question
>
>
> Jim,
>
> We did an upgrade like yours last year (with a slight difference, we went
> from 6.1 to 6.2.1 -- for all practical purposes, 4.3 and 6.1 are the
same).
> Here are our take on your questions:
>
> 1. No, the nodes can be converted individually. Foxboro recommends that
you
> upgrade the node where CSA resides first. Luckily it works out for us
> without having to move the CSA server to the first node to be converted.
>
> 2. Yes, most definitely. We'll be the last system to be forced to migrate
to
> FoxView.
>
> 3. Again, yes. Legacy historians work fine.
>
> 4. We did this as a Day 0 install, so we reboot the CPs anyway. It didn't
> make any difference to us if the CP images were new or not.
>
> Duc
>
> --
> Duc M. Do
> Process Control Systems
> Dow Corning, Carrollton Plant
> Carrollton, KY, US
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kahlden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 8:14 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Version 4.3 to 6.2.1 upgrade question
>
>
> Hello List,
>
> We are looking at updating our version 4.3 system to version 6.2.1 in
order
> to expand our system to include the new CP60. We currently use AW/WP51B's
> with Display Manager and the Legacy Historian. Our CP's are fault
tolerant
> CP40A's. We have 5 nodes connected via Carrier Band LAN. We can not shut
> down all nodes at once, since this system controls two 600 megawatt coal
> fired power generators.
>
> Questions?
>
> 1. Do all of the nodes need to be converted at one time to 6.2.1 or can
some
> nodes exist at 4.3 while part of the node is at 6.2.1?
>
> 2. Can we continue to use our Display Manager displays, or do we have to
> change to the Fox View displays?
>
> 3. Can we continue to use the Legacy Historian at version 6.2.1, or do we
> have to convert to the AIM historian?
>
> 4. Is there a different CP image at version 6.2.1 that requires a reboot
of
> the CP for this upgrade?
>
> Thanks for any guidance that you can give, as we are looking to see what
> windows of opportunity we have for doing this type of upgrade.
>
> Jim Kahlden
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
> postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
> is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
> through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
> list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
> your application of information received from this mailing list.
>
> To be removed from this list, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
> postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
> is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
> through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
> list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
> your application of information received from this mailing list.
>
> To be removed from this list, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
your application of information received from this mailing list.
To be removed from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
your application of information received from this mailing list.
To be removed from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
your application of information received from this mailing list.
To be removed from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
your application of information received from this mailing list.
To be removed from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
