Quality Issue in PLC with nodered

General
1

Hi There,
@Steve-Mcl
As per Previous Topic Discussion and the thing worked well for read in mcprotocol for Address D Related

Now i Have Issue with C0 it gives Quality Issue For that Address Whereas Other Address are working well in D

plcs
plcs1769×805 364 KB

Also Note That When i tried with Write Node For Address Like X or M
As discussed in Previous Topic

it shows True Every time, but it does not work when i implemented with plc does not change anything in real things

[
    {
        "id": "740345a62700fe61",
        "type": "inject",
        "z": "4e72602639ad151f",
        "name": "",
        "props": [
            {
                "p": "payload"
            },
            {
                "p": "topic",
                "vt": "str"
            }
        ],
        "repeat": "",
        "crontab": "",
        "once": false,
        "onceDelay": 0.1,
        "topic": "X25",
        "payload": "1",
        "payloadType": "num",
        "x": 110,
        "y": 940,
        "wires": [
            [
                "3305f3d67bd70a50"
            ]
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": "4c9a7e69f6b2988c",
        "type": "inject",
        "z": "4e72602639ad151f",
        "name": "",
        "props": [
            {
                "p": "payload"
            },
            {
                "p": "topic",
                "vt": "str"
            }
        ],
        "repeat": "",
        "crontab": "",
        "once": false,
        "onceDelay": 0.1,
        "topic": "X25",
        "payload": "0",
        "payloadType": "num",
        "x": 110,
        "y": 980,
        "wires": [
            [
                "3305f3d67bd70a50"
            ]
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": "3305f3d67bd70a50",
        "type": "MC Write",
        "z": "4e72602639ad151f",
        "name": "",
        "topic": "",
        "connection": "d74ee8972f7b510f",
        "data": "payload",
        "address": "topic",
        "addressType": "msg",
        "dataType": "msg",
        "errorHandling": "throw",
        "outputs": 1,
        "x": 340,
        "y": 960,
        "wires": [
            [
                "63beb50fbaceaa0e"
            ]
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": "63beb50fbaceaa0e",
        "type": "debug",
        "z": "4e72602639ad151f",
        "name": "debug 4",
        "active": true,
        "tosidebar": true,
        "console": false,
        "tostatus": false,
        "complete": "true",
        "targetType": "full",
        "statusVal": "",
        "statusType": "auto",
        "x": 470,
        "y": 1080,
        "wires": []
    },
    {
        "id": "d74ee8972f7b510f",
        "type": "MC Protocol Connection",
        "name": "",
        "host": "192.168.2.30",
        "port": "5001",
        "protocol": "TCP",
        "frame": "1E",
        "plcType": "Q",
        "ascii": false,
        "PLCStation": "2",
        "PCStation": "255",
        "PLCModuleNo": "2",
        "network": "2",
        "octalInputOutput": false,
        "timeout": "1000"
    }
]
2

A counter has 3 parts. the Contact, the Coil and the Value.

See:

However, I strongly recommend against read or write directly to single values. It is inefficient and as a maintenance person, I have no cross-ref or visibility that some external program is reading/writing to the middle of the PLC memory locations.

I always recommend you write ladder that moves all values of interest into 1 contiguous block of memory (preferably in D or R area). That gives the maintenance folk cross-reference ability to understand which values are being read/written by an external application.

As a bonus, reading 1 large block of contiguous memory is MUCH faster and MUCH more efficient and will collect the values that are consistent with one another (i.e. not affected by PLC SCAN).

As a final bonus, since read/write operations on a Mitsi PLCs can affect the SCAN time of the ladder, reading/writing large blocks in 1 go will reduce any impact.

For further reading and understanding of the impact, have a look at this article I wrote: Modernize your legacy industrial data. Part 2. • FlowFuse

3

@Steve-Mcl,
So what should i do now For this above issue that i am facing i could not change any thing for this

4

I assume you are referring to "C0 it gives Quality Issue"?

Use the correct addressing (i.e. NOT C0 but instead CN0 or CC0 or CS0 - depending on what you need!)...

5

@Steve-Mcl
WHAT ABOUT WRITE NODE

6

you are trying to write directly to an X input (always a bad idea as previously stated)

but ignoring all the "good practices" for a moment, it is likely your PLC IO Assignment is writing to that X input area and it CANNOT be overwritten by a network command. you can prove this with ladder:

   X0
---| |------------(M99) // I bet M99 stays unchanged!
    

   M100 
---| |---------(X0)  // Simulate setting/resetting X0
 Toggle me

As a test, try writing to an X area outside of the physical IO Assignment (like a really high X address).