In version 3.6.1 and 3.6.0 we will be working on testing simple pieces of code and so we will create a new program with just a couple of lines of code. We store our work in progress programs in a folder and so when we create these small programs if we just hit play before saving them the system switches from the currently loaded installation to the root level default installation file. It used to ask if you wanted to load the current programs installation or use the currently loaded one at which point I’d just choose to run the currently loaded one and change the program to match. Once we saved the program into the current working folder then it would stop asking about switching installation files.
What happens now is it switches to the root level default installation and turns the controller off. This causes issues obviously and not the least of which is potential lost work if you have made changes to the installation file and have not saved it prior to hitting play.
Anyone else experienced this? We have seen it on every robot running 3.6.0 and 3.6.1
Thanks,
Matt
Matt,
Isn’t this covered in the release notes for 3.6?
There are a number of changes relevant to Installation files listed.
I understood the release notes to mean when loading a program that the program will now automatically load it’s saved installation file as defined in the program. I would expect a new program to use the currently loaded installation file, not switch to a different file.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, if we use a folder to store work in we will need to make sure to select that folders installation file each time we create a new program, even if the installation file is already loaded? Feels like a step backwards for creating new programs.
This really is an issue when all you are trying to do is test a couple of lines of code and so have no intention of saving the work, but still need to use the loaded installation file for TCP, payload, I/O, Modbus, etc. Adds steps now to the process.
Just recreated this in URSIM and I can certainly see why it would be annoying! Does seem like it might be an unintentional side effect of the changes Jacob mentioned.
Jacob has reported it, we may find that it’s unavoidable due to the changes in the safety system, but we’ll see.
If it’s a safety issue with the new change could it be made where the new program is created and temporarily saved in the current working folder of the currently installed installation file?
Matt