3D Graphical Editor for Automation Programming
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional automation software programming environments require manual configuration of separate tools, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of direct mapping between logical elements and physical hardware, resulting in incomplete simulation and programming challenges.
Innovation Solution
A system that integrates tightly coupled logic and physical simulation in a three-dimensional graphical interface, allowing users to design, simulate, and implement automation applications by associating logical and physical components within the same workspace, enabling simulation code generation and execution, and generating controller-executable code for physical controllers.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If separate tools are used for programming different aspects of automation behavior, then each tool can be specialized for its specific purpose, but the system complexity increases and manual configuration becomes tedious
Solution Approach 1:
The patent merges multiple separate programming tools into a single integrated programming environment. The system combines network protocol configuration, memory allocation, instruction encoding, and physical hardware mapping into one unified interface, eliminating the need for multiple separate tools and reducing manual configuration overhead.
Solution Approach 2:
The integrated programming environment provides universal functionality to handle multiple programming tasks simultaneously. A single tool can configure network protocols, allocate memory, encode instructions, and map to physical hardware, making the system multi-functional rather than requiring specialized separate tools for each task.
2Adaptability or versatility
If logical elements are indirectly tied to physical hardware through tool mappings, then tool independence is maintained, but the mapping between logical constructs and actual machine behavior becomes unclear
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements feedback mechanisms that continuously display the mapping relationship between logical programming elements and physical hardware components. As users configure logical elements, the system provides real-time feedback showing how these map to actual machine behavior, ensuring transparency and clarity in the connection between software and hardware.
Solution Approach 2:
The integrated programming environment acts as an intermediary that maintains clear, direct mappings between logical constructs and physical hardware. Rather than allowing indirect tool-based mappings, the system provides a unified interface that directly connects programming elements to their corresponding physical implementations, preserving information about the mapping relationship.
3Productivity
If simulation code is translated to lower-level languages for general-purpose execution, then runtime flexibility is improved, but the simulation no longer accurately represents the specific physical devices and environment
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary configuration of device-specific parameters, physical constraints, and environmental conditions before runtime execution. By pre-configuring the simulation environment with accurate physical device models and constraints, the system ensures that even when executed with runtime flexibility, the simulation maintains high fidelity to the actual physical system.
Solution Approach 2:
The integrated environment maintains device-specific parameters and physical constraints as configurable elements that can be adjusted at runtime while preserving the fundamental accuracy of the simulation. The system allows parameter changes for flexibility while ensuring that core physical relationships and device behaviors remain accurate representations of the actual hardware.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
A system for designing automation applications based on input from a user includes a library interface, a three-dimensional workspace, a simulation engine, and controller code generation unit. The library interface is configured to receive a user selection of a plurality of components from a library of components. The three-dimensional workspace is configured to display the components and create a system design in the three-dimensional workspace using the components based on one or more instructions provided by the user. The simulation engine is configured to generate simulation code based on the system design in the three-dimensional workspace and execute the simulation code in response to a command from the user. One or more of the components in the three-dimensional workspace may be animated during execution of the simulation code. The controller code generation unit is configured to identify one or more physical controllers corresponding to the components in the three-dimensional workspace and generate controller-executable code for those physical controllers based on the system design.