What security system to pick for a new construction

TriLife

Active Member
Greetings,

Planning on a new home. Our mountain cabin has an Elk M1 Gold, which I am maintaining myself (RP2), but it feels like very last century.

Which system would you recommend, given needs for home automation, remote management, solar power etc?

I need to be able to maintain it myself.

Thanks in advance for your valuable input!

Cheers
 
I've chosen https://www.loxone.com/enus/ for a new home being built this fall. I've already purchased the Mini Server and have begun experimenting with it. I haven't decided if I will use it directly for security or interface to a dedicated security system. Likewise with HVAC control.
 
Based on your existing experience, and goals required, I'd recommend nothing different than another M1G. You aren't going to find a more capable panel on the market. The only comparison is an OPII and at that point you're getting an almost equivalent panel / capability, just another platform and different software.
 
drvnbysound said:
Based on your existing experience, and goals required, I'd recommend nothing different than another M1G. You aren't going to find a more capable panel on the market. The only comparison is an OPII and at that point you're getting an almost equivalent panel / capability, just another platform and different software.
Without discounting the modular ability of the M1 vs. OPII, you have to buy all the toys up front with the larger sticker shock.
 
While the server based item may be appealing to some, I'd still suggest staying with a UL listed and recognized panel and device. Software only works up to a point.
 
DELInstallations said:
While the server based item may be appealing to some, I'd still suggest staying with a UL listed and recognized panel and device. Software only works up to a point.
 
While I don't necessarily disagree with a dedicated security panel, your broad statement about "software" is inaccurate. The M1 and OPII are certainly software-based.
 
The OP has a point about "recognized" systems becoming increasingly outdated. Or, more correctly, less able to respond to broader requirements. The Loxone is more advanced IMO but still not homebrew Linux-based software which is maybe what you are referring to. If you are referring to the Loxone then its in the same general category of device as the M1 or OPII.
 
Having said that, I'm hesitant to give my security and HVAC duties to Loxone control. The added capability and flexibility of the Loxone means I will be using it for lots of non-critical functions and mixing critical things like security in the same system seems risky (gee, I didn't realize that change I made over here hosed my security functionality).
 
At this point I'm thinking a hybrid arrangement. Dedicated security system that is a slave to Loxone. Which then suggests that a M1 or OPII are more than I need (or want to spend) for a security panel. So the trick will be finding a relatively dumb security panel that I can have complete control over via an interface that Loxone can talk to.
 
jeditekunum said:
While I don't necessarily disagree with a dedicated security panel, your broad statement about "software" is inaccurate. The M1 and OPII are certainly software-based.
 
The OP has a point about "recognized" systems becoming increasingly outdated. Or, more correctly, less able to respond to broader requirements. The Loxone is more advanced IMO but still not homebrew Linux-based software which is maybe what you are referring to. If you are referring to the Loxone then its in the same general category of device as the M1 or OPII.
 
Having said that, I'm hesitant to give my security and HVAC duties to Loxone control. The added capability and flexibility of the Loxone means I will be using it for lots of non-critical functions and mixing critical things like security in the same system seems risky (gee, I didn't realize that change I made over here hosed my security functionality).
 
At this point I'm thinking a hybrid arrangement. Dedicated security system that is a slave to Loxone. Which then suggests that a M1 or OPII are more than I need (or want to spend) for a security panel. So the trick will be finding a relatively dumb security panel that I can have complete control over via an interface that Loxone can talk to.
 
I'm completely unfamiliar with the Loxone other than viewing the single page of the link you provided above. I really didn't bother poking around much. Having said that, is the Loxone UL listed for security? 
 
The OP specifically asked, "What security system to pick for a new construction?" But you're saying you are hesitant to give it security [or HVAC] duties. 
 
The loxone looks fancy, or at least the websites presentation. Looks like you can directly purchase from the manufacture. I wonder what the costs are in comparison. 
 
drvnbysound said:
 
I'm completely unfamiliar with the Loxone other than viewing the single page of the link you provided above. I really didn't bother poking around much. Having said that, is the Loxone UL listed for security? 
 
The OP specifically asked, "What security system to pick for a new construction?" But you're saying you are hesitant to give it security [or HVAC] duties. 
 
Probably not UL listed for security.
 
The OP also said "Which system would you recommend, given needs for home automation, remote management, solar power etc?" which is a lot more than security.
 
The preferred products here, Elk and OPII, are good products. But they start with security and then have expanded to other things. The problem in my opinion is that the "other things" has become stale. Loxone is also in this boat of trying to be everything for everyone and being deficient in some areas. That is no doubt partly due to the fact that the product originates in Europe and still has some growing to do in the US.
 
We see this kind of trend everywhere. Consider TVs, AV receivers, Blu-Ray players, and sat/cable boxes. Do we really need similar "web" functionality in multiple places - and mostly doing it badly? It isn't very successful there and I feel the same issues occur in this category of products.
 
I'm currently leaning towards avoiding the do-it-all approach. It is probably better to leave security to a security device and HVAC to HVAC devices and automation to automation devices. In a tiered way so that the security system, for example, communicates with the automation system. Sure, that adds a bit of complexity and probably increases the overall cost.
 
To give one example of why I'm not going to use Elk or OPII for automation... I've had it with "powerline" and "RF" products. I couldn't do anything about it in my current house as it was retrofit. But I'd never build new without a "wired" system wherever possible. Elk/OPII are fine for wired security - how about wired dimmable lighting?
 
jeditekunum said:
While I don't necessarily disagree with a dedicated security panel, your broad statement about "software" is inaccurate. The M1 and OPII are certainly software-based.
 
The OP has a point about "recognized" systems becoming increasingly outdated. Or, more correctly, less able to respond to broader requirements. The Loxone is more advanced IMO but still not homebrew Linux-based software which is maybe what you are referring to. If you are referring to the Loxone then its in the same general category of device as the M1 or OPII.
 
Having said that, I'm hesitant to give my security and HVAC duties to Loxone control. The added capability and flexibility of the Loxone means I will be using it for lots of non-critical functions and mixing critical things like security in the same system seems risky (gee, I didn't realize that change I made over here hosed my security functionality).
 
At this point I'm thinking a hybrid arrangement. Dedicated security system that is a slave to Loxone. Which then suggests that a M1 or OPII are more than I need (or want to spend) for a security panel. So the trick will be finding a relatively dumb security panel that I can have complete control over via an interface that Loxone can talk to.
You are incorrect in your assessment, and this is coming from someone who works in the trade daily with far more complex systems than a basic HA/security application.
 
The M1 and OPII are embedded hardware. The core functionality are not software based.....a rule or software setting (other than incorrect zone definition or report code) will not stop the alarm panel from reporting or the core output(s) from firing. They are not a server or based off any core services running or OS. What is concerning with your suggestion of a controller is the DDoS articles and compromised functionality....that's scary stuff, especially considering it causes the "security controller" to reboot. Alarm panels don't do that, even access control panels, which are 3-4X the cost of an OP and far more complex.
 
Security really should be handled by an embedded and listed panel. HA functions are generally ancillary to safety functionality. Easy enough to get actions out of a security panel to a HA controller, which is what most typically view as the more robust and reliable option, with a secondary controller providing the more granular action.
 
DELInstallations said:
You are incorrect in your assessment, and this is coming from someone who works in the trade daily with far more complex systems than a basic HA/security application.
 
The M1 and OPII are embedded hardware. The core functionality are not software based.....a rule or software setting (other than incorrect zone definition or report code) will not stop the alarm panel from reporting or the core output(s) from firing. They are not a server or based off any core services running or OS. What is concerning with your suggestion of a controller is the DDoS articles and compromised functionality....that's scary stuff, especially considering it causes the "security controller" to reboot. Alarm panels don't do that, even access control panels, which are 3-4X the cost of an OP and far more complex.
 
Security really should be handled by an embedded and listed panel. HA functions are generally ancillary to safety functionality. Easy enough to get actions out of a security panel to a HA controller, which is what most typically view as the more robust and reliable option, with a secondary controller providing the more granular action.
 
I agree with your conclusion as I stated in my later post.
 
However, coming from someone with 37 years as a software engineer, I have doubts about your assertion regarding software. I am not an expert in security panels but I am an expert in software and electronics.
 
What do you mean by "embedded hardware"? What makes it "embedded"? Not sure that even makes sense in a hardware context. From your description I assume that the basic wired inputs are connected through some "software configurable" logic that results in wired output. Meaning that the input event does not have to go through software to cause an output event. Which is fine although limited to extremely primitive intelligence. I'm not suggesting that is inappropriate for the very basics of security. But everything "smarter" is going to require software. And the mere fact that "hardware" is "software configurable" means there is risk of software negatively impacting the desired behavior.
 
The line between software and hardware is very blurred these days. Most people would think an Insteon wall switch dimmer was "hardware". While very specialized and minimal, it is based on software. One can construct very sophisticated "hardware" that behaves like software in the form of FPGAs - but someone still writes software that is translated into FPGA programming.
 
I would welcome any references to information describing the implementation approach of these more sophisticated panels.
 
"software" doesn't mean less reliable or inferior. There is plenty of life-critical equipment that is software-based - airplanes, pacemakers, etc. Of course most software is not of that quality for a variety of reasons and Loxone certainly isn't. But that doesn't mean that software couldn't be made as bullet-proof as any hardware approach.
 
It is all a mater of degrees. No doubt any security panel is a very high quality for the basics. A combination of simple hardware and software that can be easily reviewed and tested and rarely needs updating is a big help. But there is a huge range between that and "server or OS". Loxone is somewhere in that range.
 
I appreciate the confirmation that separate security and automation is ideal.
 
Just a post of an indirect analogy here of the methodologies of function.
 
Your knee will jump if you tap it just in the right spot near and below you knee cap.  This is called the Patellar reflex.
 
Striking the patellar ligament with a reflex hammer just below the patella stretches the muscle spindle in the quadriceps muscle. This produces a signal which travels back to the spinal cord and synapses (without interneurons) at the level of L3 in the spinal cord, completely independent of higher centres. From there, an alpha motor neuron conducts an efferent impulse back to the quadriceps femoris muscle, triggering contraction. This contraction, coordinated with the relaxation of the antagonistic flexor hamstring muscle causes the leg to kick. This is a reflex of proprioception which helps maintain posture and balance, allowing to keep one's balance with little effort or conscious thought.

The patellar reflex is a clinical and classic example of the monosynaptic reflex arc. There is no interneuron in the pathway leading to contraction of the quadriceps muscle. Instead the bipolar sensory neuron synapses directly on a motor neuron in the spinal cord. However, there is an inhibitory interneuron used to relax the antagonistic hamstring muscle (Reciprocal innervation).

 
A pacemaker (software/firmware) talks to the Purkinje fibers which is your second brain.  A glitch here in software will kill you.  I am not saying that it doesn't work here.
 
(Purkinje fibers are special fibers that are located in the atrioventricular, or AV, bundle of the heart. Their function is to send nerve impulses to the cells in the ventricles of the heart and cause them to contract and pump blood either to the lungs or the rest of the body.) Best methodology though is to beat the heart (literally) or shock the mini brain in to submission sometimes.
 
Simple and functional firmware in the aforementioned combination security / automation panels relates to speed of action or response time.
 
Adding slush to this via software is like thinking about a reflex and having to think about bypassing the pathway while concurrent checking it.
 
Today you drive a car or fly a plane which still utilizes a base of old serial bus (the meat) for vital communications mostly because it just works.   (unrelated / related - read about an aerodynamic stall).
 
Air France Flight 447 (AF447/AFR447) was a scheduled passenger flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France, which crashed on 1 June 2009. The Airbus A330, operated by Air France, entered an aerodynamic stall from which it did not recover and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean at 02:14 UTC, killing all 228 passengers, aircrew and cabin crew aboard the aircraft.

The Brazilian Navy removed the first major wreckage and two bodies from the sea within five days of the accident, but the initial investigation by France's Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA) was hampered because the aircraft's black boxes were not recovered from the ocean floor until May 2011, nearly two years later.

The BEA's final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012, concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements – likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals – caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately caused the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall from which it did not recover. The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France. It was also the Airbus A330's second and deadliest accident, and its first in commercial passenger service.
 
Ultimately, I think we're all on the same page here, or very close to it. 

jeditekunum, to comment on your latest post... I agree, software can be very robust, but it's only as reliable as the hardware it's installed on. If you took the software written for a pacemaker, and ported to a RPi, would you recommend it for your family? This is obviously where the regulations, certifications and UL listings for security panels come into play; where life safety devices (security and fire panels included) separate themselves from everything else. 
 
So lets assume that a dedicated UL listed security panel is used along with a separate but integrated automation system. Lets further assume that one doesn't want to spend as much on said security panel as Elk/OPII since that is paying for a lot of features that will never be used. Then add DIY requirement as OP and I desire - easy to obtain hardware, access to programming software and protocol specs, etc.
 
The ideal security panel would then be what? In the past others have recommended DMP (hard to get for DIY) or DSC (not open enough?). The last time I asked this I was driven towards Elk. Which doesn't  exactly fit the requirements due to unneeded features and cost but apparently the best available option.
 
The bottom line is the market doesn't really offer the right solution for either all-in-one or frankenstein.
 
pete_c said:
Just a post of an indirect analogy here of the methodologies of function.
 
Your knee will jump if you tap it just in the right spot near and below you knee cap.  This is called the Patellar reflex.
 
...
 
Simple and functional firmware in the aforementioned combination security / automation panels relates to speed of action or response time.
 
Adding slush to this via software is like thinking about a reflex and having to think about bypassing the pathway while concurrent checking it.
 
Yeh, and an EMP will take out hardware too. The quality here is gray, not black and white.
 
If I understand what you are saying I have a difference of opinion about firmware vs software. firmware is software. The core of any operating system is effectively firmware. I think what most people here are referring to as software are just upper layers in more general purpose environments.
 
If that is indeed the perception then the fact that a "UL listed panel" has firmware that gets an interrupt when an electrical state changes and then "does something" with it that is relatively simplistic - like activating a digital output - does not make it any less the definition of software. And its certainly not anything special that can't be done within a commodity operating system. In fact its pretty common for an interrupt to trigger a subsequent hardware action (that is within a driver itself).
 
Certainly the response time of that - and reliability - is going to be faster and better than if the event gets propagated up the stack for some high level decision making.
 
In the end I think this entire discussion is splitting hairs. The UL listed panels IMO are just much smaller, more limited, pieces of software that by their design - and more thorough review and testing - gives higher confidence in correctness. As it should be.
 
Back
Top