cjrancur

My feedback

  1. 72 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    11 comments  ·  PI Server  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  2. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » UFL Interfaces  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  3. 9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » PI Interface for RDBMS  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  4. 11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » UFL Interfaces  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  5. 12 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » Other Interfaces  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  6. 14 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » PI to PI Interface  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  7. 14 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Interfaces » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  8. 15 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Interfaces » UFL Interfaces  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  9. 16 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » PI to PI Interface  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  10. 17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » PI Interface for OPC DA  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  11. 25 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » PI Interface for OPC DA  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  12. 321 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    41 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    cjrancur commented  · 

    I am updating older, custom process control logic from a former, obsolete SCADA system. I have found that PSE does not meet my needs in the case of proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control, where the output action should be taken at uneven time intervals, such as only when new values change by a certain amount (i.e. exception based execution triggering), and/or only if there is a long delay between these exception based trigger points.The PID functionality also requires saving at least 3 sets of intermediate data from previous runs of the function.

    This was possible with ACE, but now that ACE is no longer fully supported, I have not found another way now to trigger AFSDK routines directly from any PI or PSE system.

    In the use case for implementing PID controls using AF SDK, a control program relies on saving intermediate values of past data at intervals that cannot be predicted in advance by the programmer, thus the intervals cannot be programmed in advance. The need for recording the last three saved values of previous process variable for the Integral (I) and Derivative(D) control contributions is not supported within PSE, except by using PI tags to save values that are only useful as intermediate calculation values. These intermediate calculation values are of no use after the control action is taken, so there is very little justification in saving these data within PI tags, except to leverage the data storage provided by PI Archive tags. And even though PSE supports data array functions, using the PSE data array functions is cumbersome, and this has presented difficulties when programming the startup of the PID from a mode change. It has also presented difficulties in determining data quality associated with values during the last few data tags that were recorded at uneven time intervals, as from a manually entered lab reading or from an online analysis with uneven data output timing. Also, during a mode change to supervisory or remote cascade control, these programs have been hard to program on startup when only 1 or 2 of the 3 required historical process variable values are applicable for control use, unless an internal counter is also provided. Saving an internal counter to a PI tag is also not a justifiable use of a Pi tag, because it is only useful temporarily, except possibly for later troubleshooting. The PSE will allow this kind of intermediate data to be saved to PI tags, but saving intermediate program data is generally a wasteful use of expensive PI tags. Instead of saving intermediate program data for the past 2-3 iterations of a program to PI tags, PSE needs to allow for some program memory, as in a continuously running C# or VB.net program that can be used with AF SDK. Unfortunately, AF SDK cannot be scheduled to run a subroutine on a triggered basis from PSE, and even if it were possible to do so, the programs would also need to be scheduled in a way that preserves the previous C# or VB.net memory from the previous run of a program within C# or VB.

    Therefore, in this use case, it would not be sufficient to simply support functions that run one time only and then exit. Support would be needed to call a subroutine within an AF SDK calculation engine, similar to what PI ACE formerly provided. Single, standalone, one-time execution of external functions would not meet my needs for this use case, but triggering a function that runs continuously in the background within AF SDK, as ACE formerly did with PI SDK, will meet the needs for this type of application.

    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  13. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Server » Data Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    cjrancur commented  · 

    Enabling data fanning from SMT archive editor matters for our PI implementation. Certain PI tags are used to keep historical records of logical setpoints, such as those used within AF and analysis, but not initiated by AF or by an Interface or Connector based source. These setpoints need to be replicated across collectives. Currently, the secondary member of the collective will not even accept data from directly from Archive Editor, with Archive Editor Error: "Error -2147219568: Writing, editing, or removing time series data on this collective member is disabled.". I suspect the same would be true if I used the command based PI archive tools to try to do the same thing.

    Related to this, when adding data via PI SMT archive editor, it is necessary to type the value first, then the timestamp in order to insert data. If the opposite order of entry is used, then a casting exception is provided by PI SMT. Rather than displaying this PI SMT Data Archive casting error to customers, why not publish a tip that indicates that the value must be added before the timestamp? It could be context specific, popping up if the customer did this in the opposite order than supported by SMT. The supported order of data entry is something that is only learned by trial and error, as far as I can tell at this point. See this OSIsoft Aveva link: https://customers.osisoft.com/s/knowledgearticle?knowledgeArticleUrl=751AF279-0964-800F-ACC2-D861D56F655B

    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  14. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Server » Data Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  15. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  PI Server » Data Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  16. 9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  PI Server » Data Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  17. 18 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  PI Server » Data Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  18. 42 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  PI Server » Data Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  19. 28 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  PI Interfaces » PI Interface for OPC DA  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    cjrancur commented  · 

    Because this can prevent data loss, it should be a high priority. Data loss will be caused without this feature whenever an OPC server loses it's health, and sends all data to the PI interface marked with BAD status. This feature request will prevent extended periods of data loss, in cases where an unhealthy OPC server marks all data from a DCS system as bad. The OPC/UA interface has a default setting that requires 80% of data from each interface to be of good quality, or else it marks the interface as being in "CONNECT/NODATA" state. That setting can be lowered, but if it is lowered to 0, it will cause excess resource usage at the PI interface hardware and network level. The percent good quality limit, if not reached, will force the interface to shutdown, despite interface redundancy. Because the bad tags are not ever rechecked, the interface does not restart again even after all data returns to good status when the OPC server returns to health. This delay in PI interface restart can cause data loss over large numbers of PI tags, and the period of data loss can be extended because problem notifications and interventions are required before the interface can be restarted.

    cjrancur supported this idea  · 
  20. 70 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    10 comments  ·  PI Server » Analytics & Calculations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Looking for more inputs on how to determine what the last good value is (was). While it’s simple to say a numeric value is good, but what if it’s a non-sensical numeric value like 1000 for temperature? It is also possible to the source system to send out status like NoData. How should that be interpreted? Please provide your inputs.

    cjrancur supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base

Posted ideas will have one of the following statuses.
Full definition of these statuses can be found on the Home Page.
No status
TELL US MORE
EVALUATING
PLANNED
IN DEVELOPMENT
COMPLETED
DECLINED