AVEVA™ PI System™ Feedback Portal

Welcome to our feedback site!


We created this site to hear your enhancement ideas, suggestions and feedback about AVEVA products and services. All of the feedback you share here is monitored and reviewed by the AVEVA product managers.

To start, take a look at the ideas in the list below and VOTE for your favorite ideas submitted by other users. POST your own idea if it hasn’t been suggested yet. Include COMMENTS and share relevant business case details that will help our product team get more information on the suggestion. Please note that your ideas and comments are visible to all other users.


This page is for feedback specifically for AVEVA PI System. For links to our other feedback portals, please see the tab RESOURCES below.

Add a new idea Subscribe
208 VOTE
Status No status
Product AVEVA™ PI Server
Categories Analytics & Calculations
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 20, 2022

RELATED IDEAS

Event Frame End Trigger Time True Functionality

As a user of event frames, I would like the ability to be able to set a time true condition for the end trigger of an event frame analysis, similar to how this functionality is available for the start trigger
  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Oct 26, 2022

    This would be a useful feature for maintenance activities where test runs are required for troubleshooting. If we were monitoring equipment run status, we would want to see the equipment running for an extended period of time to ensure that the event was actually closed and not a temporary status change.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    Refer to this discussion: https://pisquare.osisoft.com/ideas/1152
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    We are considering migrating from another alerting system that supports a "grace period" which applies to both the start and end of an event. The event frames true for allows us to define the "grace period" for the start of an event, but not the end. As such, migrating to event frames/notifications would result in more alerts being generated. We don't actually need an explicit end trigger in our case, so having something like "False for" on the start trigger would be more convenient, but we could easily create an end trigger if a "True for" was implemented for it. We have a workaround in some cases, not all, by using the TimeGT etc. functions, but I suspect these functions are more expensive than using a native grace period like true for. There are other limitations as well such as not being able to use other functions such as Compare to implement deadbands more easily.
  • jmjackson
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    I know this is an old request but I too think that this would be helpful to have. I tried accessing the discussion linked in the other comment but it doesn't resolve (or I am not authorized to view it). We can get around this by using functions on the End Trigger like James commented but would be a lot easier to just set a time "True For" setting on the End Trigger.
  • narburgh
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    This was from 4 years ago. Any updates on this?
  • leonard
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    It's done for start trigger but not for End trigger!
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    If we were to truly support downtime management using Event Frames (which is perhaps one of the most commonly requested operations management tools), we need a delay threshold for end of event like a "true for" at the start, but to close the event. Otherwise, a false start in the downtime event will close the event inadvertently and a second downtime event logged when it is actually the same downtime. Therefore, unless we use custom logic, we will create errors in KPI's like MTBF and MTTR. These are also some of the most common KPI's in operations.
  • Nur Widyanto
    Reply
    |     Aug 20, 2022
    please provide, it,s very important and usefull for us
  • +108