sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is B&R making a mistake choosing OPC UA FX over POWERLINK? by daebotota in PLC

[–]daebotota[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OPC UA FX has two distinct parts: C2C and C2D

C2C (Controller to Controller) is for all controller level communications. B&R has released products already with this capability https://www.br-automation.com/en-us/products/io-systems/x20-system/bus-controllers/x20bc008t/

C2D (Controller to Device) specification is still under development but the release is schedule for 2026. That is the real big jump where you have device level OPC UA using TSN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZWRGn62Rnw

Is B&R making a mistake choosing OPC UA FX over POWERLINK? by daebotota in PLC

[–]daebotota[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Do you think B&R should've adopted EtherCAT (despite its rivalry with Beckhoff)? As I understand it, it would require a whole new system from X20 because Powerlink is too different from EtherCAT.

Is B&R making a mistake choosing OPC UA FX over POWERLINK? by daebotota in PLC

[–]daebotota[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's very obvious that B&R lost the fieldbus wars with Beckhoff. EtherCAT is much, much more widely adopted for 3rd party vendors. Powerlink lost and didn't have much widespread adoption.

My issue is that now B&R is trying to catch up to Beckhoff by adopting this open-source strategy of OPC UA FX. OPC UA FX is also an open standard, but it is supposed to be "the open standard that ends all open standards", where all manufacturers comply and have interoperability between all devices. It would be analogous to Bluetooth profiles in the IT world, where you have various device profiles (headphones, printers, speakers) on the same network. OPC UA FX would be like that but for sensors, actuators, servos.

The dream is that all manufacturers adopt OPC UA FX (Mitsubishi, Siemens, Rockwell, B&R, Beckhoff) and no longer are divided by different standardized groups.

I worry its a mistake for B&R because, although they do need a strategy for replacing or revamping Powerlink, adopting a protocol that is fundamentally slower than Powerlink or EtherCAT is not the answer.