Dear All,
I see another pack of hotfixes is out for AMS 14.1.1 and I wasn't entirely happy with the last batch. Has anyone upgraded to AMS 14.5 and would you recommend doing so, or staying put until it's out in the wild for a while?
It's all depends what HSI Network interface you have. AMS DM v.14.5 has a lot of improvement on it's performance, device caching capability for 24 hours, AMS DM v. 14.5 has capabilities with FDI standards and 1st host be be certified, more secure with certificate trusts, etc.... Note: AMS DM v14.5 only support these HSI Network connectivity's such as DeltaV, HART IP, Smart Wireless Interface, Modem, and a few more at at this point in time. Find more info: www.emerson.com/.../ams-device-manager.
Another cool and improve AMS Device View capabilities (Device Screens on any workstation, Read-Only capability, Audit Trail in Context, Projects tracking, etc). Here is an interactive demo you can navigate around: https://www3.emersonprocess.com/ams/amsdeviceview/?_gl=1*f6h7h2*_ga*NjAzOTYwMjQxLjE2NDYyNDQwMzQ.*_ga_1MGRRDNV9H*MTY1MjgxMzEzOS40OS4xLjE2NTI4MTQ3NzIuMA.. Note: this version will not work with AMS DM v14.1.1.
In reply to Tinh Phan:
Thanks Tinh.
-John
In reply to John Rezabek:
Forgot about your first question. I don't see why it would not work. I see DeltaV and AMS DM architecture A.2 indicating both DeltaV ProPlus and AMS DM ServerPlus are on one system. I think this is OK on smaller DeltaV and AMS deployment. I do see folks do it and have not run into issue. It is recommended to have the AMS DM ServerPlus on the DeltaV Application Station. This is to protect the DeltaV database from possibly getting corrupted. That being said, make sure you have a good DeltaV database backup procedure in place if you are deploying both DeltaV Pro+ and AMS DM ServerPlus on the same station. Your DeltaV database is crucial to maintain. Please follow best practices. Especially, if you are doing bring data outside of OT. DeltaV Application station was created to allow data exchange to outside of OT layer.
In reply to Shaiq Bashir: