We use the project compare function quite often when checking for changes in various different versions of software. Some parts that are listed are different are shown, but these are not something we need to worry about, for example position within the application (X Y).

I understand that perhaps some items may be useful for checking depending on the industry or what you are checking for. Could we have a series of tick boxes allowing us to limit the compare for certain changes only, perhaps parameters, IDCs, position, default values, started values etc rather than just a blanket check for everything? We find that although its useful sometimes, we get horrendous numbers when we have just moved some items around the screen and no logic change...

I heard a couple months ago that it is the plan for the futur that there will be a new program that allow a tablet to run a machine, is it true or in development?

Would like to be able to setup COUT adjust items with different names based on the channels Mode Selection. We use COUT's to run different functions based on machine setup and it would make it less confusing if the adjust channel could be named more specific to the setup instead of a generic name or a really long channel name with each function in the name. Sort of like how measure channels can have different names for the same measured channel.

Showing the pin connections on the module screen in Version 5 is really nice.  However, not showing all of the available I/O makes it difficult to see how pins are shared between different channel types. For example, you may not realize that you could simply move a DOUT to a different channel assignment (i.e. DOUT:F rather than DOUT:I) to allow for an additional COUT that shares a pin assignment with DOUT:I (ref XA2 module).  Is it possible to have the option to show all the I/O like before, but keep the pin connections displayed?

I would like to see the G11 module added as a device to connect with via internet through IQAN ANALYZE similar to how RUN and DESIGN currently have the option. This would be a very useful tool for diagnosing issues in the field for customers that have the G11 but do not have a CAN sniffer available. 

The G11 has been a very useful tool for me and i would like to see its capabilities expanded. 

Adapting the MC4x modules on our first machines now, we had quite a struggle with the various pin characteristics (DIN Pull-up / Down, A15/17 suitable for relays on the MC3, et cetera). Such details can be found in the Specs of course, but it would be quicker & easier if we can see such details in IQAN Design, for example in the bottom-right corner when clicking an in- or output pin.

It would be great to have the capability to edit a settings file.

To edit the parameter's Default and Current settings, while offline and remotely from the controller.

This would permit a large number of parameters to be changed easily, as well to cross check them as all parameters are visible in your spread sheet type of format.

This would give me (the Designer) the ability to send a modified settings file to a service technician in the field to send to the controller. This simplifies the service technicians tasks and reduces entry/adjustment errors at site where he/she may have limited communications with the factory/designer.

Hello,

Are there any thoughts about integrating some kind of map app to the MD4?

Like google maps or something for navigation?

For example:

-Add a GPS device in the machine and then add some kind of map function in iqan design for the MD4.

-Connect a smartphone to the IQAN system and use the phones gps to show location in some kind of app on the MD4. Or maybe stream the phones map interface on the MD4.

Just some thoughts and ideas. Not high priority.

Regards

Fredrik Forsberg

For consistency reasons and short labels, you may have adjust items ( parameters ) with the same name in different adjust groups.

When in Iqan run reviewing actual settings it becomes impossible to know which one you are looking for,

My proposal is to have a possibility to organise the adjust items in the same way as in IQAN design adjust groups.

Hello,

It would be great if IQAN allowed for Byte Order (Intel/Motorola) to be used on messages that are less then multiples of full bytes. Currently byte order can only be applied on 8/16/32 bit messages, but in some instances we may have a 12 or 14 bit message that requires endianess. We need to do some magic to reorder the bits before sending them, which is a pain.

For example, it is not possible in Parker to send the messages below with different byte orders, as they are not full-bytes.