Concord 4 and z-wave ?

[twilo123]

Dan i try not to post the solution until i have it done usually. as you know i have a zwave app already (www.totalcontrolapp.com). it was actually approved by apple finally yesterday. i am just waiting for it to actually show on the store before adding to my original post regarding it. it's the same process as elk but with different interface. i use global cache with the rzcop instead of elk interfaces. i have a blackberry version being finalized now also. it's just a matter of developing a security portion of the app now and concord 4 is what the people i personally know in the security business like to use so i have access to it along with its automation board. besides they are a very popular typical security board.


the original post was for concord4 + zwave which was why i wanted to discuss with knut. seems we are going in a similar direction.

i will definitely post back once the solution has been completed.

 

[Rupp]

Is cheap a weeks worth of groceries for a single guy who eats like a bird, or for a family of 4 that eats like black bears?

Good point

 

[knut]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm looking into pricing an Elk-based system based on your suggestions. The UPB suggestion makes sense too, as a fallback position.

With an Elk, is there any reason to prefer either Z-wave or UPB ?

Greetings from Austin,
Knut

 

[Monk]

Doesn't the lower end ELK system offer the ability to interface with Z-Wave devices?

Yup, it works just like its M1 big brother. Need a serial expansion (XSP) and then an RZCop (preferred).

I have an M1XZW zwave interface module - Why is the RZCOP interface being preferred? I haven't started using it yet, and may ditch it for the RZCop and serial expander if that is more flexible somehow.

 

[Steve]

Doesn't the lower end ELK system offer the ability to interface with Z-Wave devices?

Yup, it works just like its M1 big brother. Need a serial expansion (XSP) and then an RZCop (preferred).

I have an M1XZW zwave interface module - Why is the RZCOP interface being preferred? I haven't started using it yet, and may ditch it for the RZCop and serial expander if that is more flexible somehow.

Because Spanky said so? I don't have ZWave either but my daily reading here would seem to indicate the RZCop is better supported. I think Elk is basically discontinuing development of their own interface in favor of a more standard and supported interface. I guess its easier to just interface to an existing an well supported device then try to build your own and keep it updated. At least that's my impression.

 

[twilo123]

the rzc0p is pretty solid IMO. i haven't noticed much difference in the newer vrc0p although it supposedly supports a newer firmware and the faster speed. what i would like to know for anyone using it with the elk is do you need the leviton master remote vrcpg to program the rzc0p? if not then how are you programming the modules/routes into the rzc0p? are there any other remotes that you can use as a master to program the rzc0p?

 

[Monk]

Doesn't the lower end ELK system offer the ability to interface with Z-Wave devices?

Yup, it works just like its M1 big brother. Need a serial expansion (XSP) and then an RZCop (preferred).

I have an M1XZW zwave interface module - Why is the RZCOP interface being preferred? I haven't started using it yet, and may ditch it for the RZCop and serial expander if that is more flexible somehow.

Because Spanky said so? I don't have ZWave either but my daily reading here would seem to indicate the RZCop is better supported. I think Elk is basically discontinuing development of their own interface in favor of a more standard and supported interface. I guess its easier to just interface to an existing an well supported device then try to build your own and keep it updated. At least that's my impression.

Thanks Steve - I need to research that further, maybe Spanky could comment as well...? i.e. why specifically a non-Elk product for Z-Wave interaction..

 

[Steve]

Thanks Steve - I need to research that further, maybe Spanky could comment as well...? i.e. why specifically a non-Elk product for Z-Wave interaction..

Monk,

I think Spanky did pretty much comment on it. Read it here. I would have to agree with them. Why keep putting the engineering and support effort into their own proprietary product when there are other products that are kept updated and can be easily used? Unless there were no other useful products or Elk could easily and cheaply make their interface better in some real way, their decision makes sense to me.

 

[Monk]

Thanks Steve - I need to research that further, maybe Spanky could comment as well...? i.e. why specifically a non-Elk product for Z-Wave interaction..

Monk,

I think Spanky did pretty much comment on it. Read it here. I would have to agree with them. Why keep putting the engineering and support effort into their own proprietary product when there are other products that are kept updated and can be easily used? Unless there were no other useful products or Elk could easily and cheaply make their interface better in some real way, their decision makes sense to me.

Gads....
I suppose I will end up selling mine then. Hasn't even been programmed yet - Although I did update the firmware once.

 

[knut]

Fyi everyone - I have an Elk on the way, for UPB. Thank you for all the input.

Knut

 

[personalt]

as others mentioned the concord4 has a rs232 interface. I run CQC so was planning on going from the conccord to QCC and let CQC control zwave.

I have the rs232 interface but so far it just made it to me list.


I like the concord4 as that is what alarm.com uses and I like their cellular data monitoring service.