Would it be possible to have an exit condition that starts a process? I have two processes. One is for heating the strike water and the other process is for Mash. (all of my states would not fit in a single process)
It would be really nice if I could end my last state in the process of heating the strike water and have an exit condition which allows me to start the next process of mashing.
Request for Exit Condition
Re: Request for Exit Condition
One way to do it with the current firmware would be to use an Out/Din pair for interprocess communication. For example, the last state of the Strike process would assert an Out, which is physically wired to the Din. The first state of the Mash process would wait until that Din is asserted to proceed.
Adding in a new function to dynamically enable a process could be possible. Would we want the original process to be disabled? Probably. I'd also probably limit it to only enable the NEXT process, as opposed to 4 new proc enables from any given process. There are some nuances here that need more thought.
Adding in a new function to dynamically enable a process could be possible. Would we want the original process to be disabled? Probably. I'd also probably limit it to only enable the NEXT process, as opposed to 4 new proc enables from any given process. There are some nuances here that need more thought.
Re: Request for Exit Condition
Good point on using the DIN. The only issue is that I have a hose change requirement from the strike water to the mash tun recirculation in between when the Din is on or off. I could always start the process when the din is triggered and then put the state in a win button waiting state for the hose to be changed over.
I would want the current process to be disabled when the exit state is reached.
I would want the current process to be disabled when the exit state is reached.
-
JonW
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:51 am
- Bot?: No
- Location: Huntington Beach, CA
- Contact:
Re: Request for Exit Condition
BUMP!!
I'd like to see the ability to start/stop other processes from within a running process. This would be a huge step forward in fully automating a system. I see the need to be able to chain a process both while leaving the current process running as well as being able to stop the current process.
Here's an example scenario:
I will have separate processes for my mash, sparge water heat and fly sparge. Being able to trigger the sparge water heat process while half-way through the mash process will have the water at the temp I need before the fly sparge process is started. In this case, I would want to trigger chaining the sparge water heat process and keep the mash process running, then at the end of the mash process, I would chain the fly sparge process and stop the mash process, while still keeping the sparge water heat process running. Then, part way through the fly sparge process, I would start the boil process, while still keeping the sparge water heat process and fly sparge process running. At the end of the fly sparge process, I would then also stop the sparge water heat process.
There are not enough exit conditions within a single process to combine this logic. Rightfully, they shouldn't be combined because they are separate processes, but each process leads to another one. What's the point of automation if you have to still sit there and watch timers to kick off each process?
Maybe add to the exit conditions list some options to start/stop other processes. Maybe add a checkbox titled "Stop current process?" when starting/stopping the other ones?
Start : Proc 0
Stop : Proc 0
Start : Proc 1
Stop : Proc 1
Etc...
I'd like to see the ability to start/stop other processes from within a running process. This would be a huge step forward in fully automating a system. I see the need to be able to chain a process both while leaving the current process running as well as being able to stop the current process.
Here's an example scenario:
I will have separate processes for my mash, sparge water heat and fly sparge. Being able to trigger the sparge water heat process while half-way through the mash process will have the water at the temp I need before the fly sparge process is started. In this case, I would want to trigger chaining the sparge water heat process and keep the mash process running, then at the end of the mash process, I would chain the fly sparge process and stop the mash process, while still keeping the sparge water heat process running. Then, part way through the fly sparge process, I would start the boil process, while still keeping the sparge water heat process and fly sparge process running. At the end of the fly sparge process, I would then also stop the sparge water heat process.
There are not enough exit conditions within a single process to combine this logic. Rightfully, they shouldn't be combined because they are separate processes, but each process leads to another one. What's the point of automation if you have to still sit there and watch timers to kick off each process?
Maybe add to the exit conditions list some options to start/stop other processes. Maybe add a checkbox titled "Stop current process?" when starting/stopping the other ones?
Start : Proc 0
Stop : Proc 0
Start : Proc 1
Stop : Proc 1
Etc...
Re: Request for Exit Condition
Yeah, I agree that this would greatly increase the capabilities of the controller.
Exit conditions don't really work if you want to start/stop a process in the middle of another process (and keep going). They work if its the end of the current process, similar to the "Proc Off" next state option, which could be "Proc Off / start Proc0".. but the question remains where do you go if you exit and want to keep going.. There are too many options to exit to "State 0 and startProc0" with all possible combinations, 8x2x8.
I like your idea. How about simple checkboxes as a current state property? There would be 16 total checkboxes, Start Proc[0:8] and Stop Proc[0:8], and the function would be applied when the user enters the state. It would have to be a one-shot trigger so it wouldn't continuously try to start/stop a process. Then the user could use the existing Proc Off exit condition if they wanted to end the spawning (or killing) processes.
The down side of this method is that it could add an extra state onto the end of some processes to do the spawn. But I think in most cases it could be applied in the last state that was doing something else.
Another option that I've considered is to use the Ladder Logic interface, add State and Process coils/contacts. A State contact would be on when the State was active, and it could trigger the Process coil (NO/NC), which would start/stop the process. The Ladder Logic stuff hasn't been documented yet, and still needs some work to be robust. But I think it could add some options as well.
Exit conditions don't really work if you want to start/stop a process in the middle of another process (and keep going). They work if its the end of the current process, similar to the "Proc Off" next state option, which could be "Proc Off / start Proc0".. but the question remains where do you go if you exit and want to keep going.. There are too many options to exit to "State 0 and startProc0" with all possible combinations, 8x2x8.
I like your idea. How about simple checkboxes as a current state property? There would be 16 total checkboxes, Start Proc[0:8] and Stop Proc[0:8], and the function would be applied when the user enters the state. It would have to be a one-shot trigger so it wouldn't continuously try to start/stop a process. Then the user could use the existing Proc Off exit condition if they wanted to end the spawning (or killing) processes.
The down side of this method is that it could add an extra state onto the end of some processes to do the spawn. But I think in most cases it could be applied in the last state that was doing something else.
Another option that I've considered is to use the Ladder Logic interface, add State and Process coils/contacts. A State contact would be on when the State was active, and it could trigger the Process coil (NO/NC), which would start/stop the process. The Ladder Logic stuff hasn't been documented yet, and still needs some work to be robust. But I think it could add some options as well.
Re: Request for Exit Condition
I am still hoping this shows up as an option for us someday. I simply want a clean exit from a process to start another process. Sometimes I use the DIN and sometimes I don't. Just depends on how much time I want to put into setup while brewing. With the addition of processes, I would use it to exit from the "heat water process" to enter the "mash" process. Lastly, it would enter the "Mash Out" process.
It is a bit easier to break down the processes this way for me. If I have had an issue with one of the processes, it would allow me to finish the running process manually and simply start with the next process from the beginning. I know that I could accomplish this by jumping to current step, but sometimes it is confusing when lots of things are going on at once.
It is a bit easier to break down the processes this way for me. If I have had an issue with one of the processes, it would allow me to finish the running process manually and simply start with the next process from the beginning. I know that I could accomplish this by jumping to current step, but sometimes it is confusing when lots of things are going on at once.
Re: Request for Exit Condition
Implemented in v3.3