RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: 2026 white paper on EPICS vs commercial SCADA software

["Evans, Richard K. \(GRC-H000\) via Tech-talk" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Hi Diego,

 

Thank you so much for the time that you spent reading and thinking about the paper and for the quick response and technical insights.

 

I have been reading and processing this paper as well.  Your comments - along with some private responses I have received – have been truly helpful.  The consensus seems to be that the authors have essentially made a white-paper out of the obvious fact that EPICS isn’t an “out-of-the-box” SCADA solution and that, because of that, free software doesn’t mean free implementation – fair – but it’s seems clear that EPICS wasn’t understood adequately enough by the authors to evaluate it accurately either. That’s unfortunate.

 

Truest thanks to all who took the time to read and respond.

 

Cheers!

/Rich

 

From: Diego Omitto <diego.omitto at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 2:20 PM
To: Evans, Richard K. (GRC-H000) <richard.k.evans at nasa.gov>
Cc: tech-talk at aps.anl.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 2026 white paper on EPICS vs commercial SCADA software

 

You don't often get email from diego.omitto at gmail.com. Learn why this is important

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of NASA.  Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.  Use the "Report Message" button to report suspicious messages to the NASA SOC.

Subject: Re: Comparative SCADA evaluation - IFMIF-DONES paper

Hi Rich,

I read the paper and have a few specific concerns.

I noticed a factual error in the operational critique: the authors claim that changing a variable property in EPICS requires restarting the IOC database. Runtime field modification via caput, dbpf, and autosave/restore is standard practice. This is not a minor point. If the evaluators did not know this, the scoring in Table 2 reflects unfamiliarity with the framework, not its actual capabilities.

This also undermines the paper's characterization of EPICS as a legacy framework. EPICS 7 introduced PVAccess as a first-class protocol with structured data types, high-throughput streaming, and normative types that go well beyond what OPC-UA offers in accelerator contexts. The ecosystem around it is actively developed.

More damaging to the paper's credibility: it cites the ITER OPC-UA/EPICS gateway as prior art for the CODAC-MPS integration problem, then penalizes EPICS in the scoring for limited OPC-UA support. The solution they acknowledge exists was excluded from the evaluation.

Finally, the paper does not address the most obvious question: LIPAc, the direct operational prototype of IFMIF-DONES, runs EPICS. I don't see an explanation for why a framework adequate for the prototype is suddenly inadequate for the full facility.

That omission says more about the motivation behind this study than the scoring does.

Best,
Diego

 

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 1:29 PM Evans, Richard K. (GRC-H000) via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov> wrote:

Dear EPICS community,

I recently came across a new whitepaper that present a comparative evaluation of EPICS against various commercial SCADA platform alternatives. The evaluation uses a set of requirements that they state are representative of the IFMIF-DONES plant currently being constructed in Escúzar, Granada, Spain.  The paper is linked below.  If you have a moment and are inclined, please take a look at Table 2 and Figure 3 and let me know if you feel that EPICS has been rated accurately/fairly.

"A comparative study of industrial and open-source SCADAs to optimize the design of control systems for the IFMIF-DONES plant"
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403928088_A_comparative_study_of_industrial_and_open-source_SCADAs_to_optimize_the_design_of_control_systems_for_the_IFMIF-DONES_plant__;!!G_uCfscf7eWS!dLrszc_F4-MNU6rvR6_tBzD-oxGJWgrejzopanOX1p9BNsJxyEPjxFevbkdTX0hdTvbTDWos84abzN6ViuHnARMNORgosr0r$

Note - Figure 3 shows EPICS as seriously deficient as compared to commercial SCADA software, but then I saw what they said on Table 2 requirement #17 wrt video and it doesn't seem like they fully understood EPICS well enough to give it an honest rating. 

The paper is being circulated within my organization as strong evidence that EPICS is a poor option as a control system SCADA for a facility.  Any insights this community can provide in explaining the possible motivations of  the authors and/or highlighting any clear bias or incorrect assessments that the paper may contain would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
- Rich Evans
  NASA Armstrong Test Facility
  Sandusky, Ohio