CQC or Girder?

[coppercox]

I'm trying to decide between CQC and Girder: CQC costs about 3X more than Girder. Am I missing something here? They seem to be very similar in what they do.

I have an ElkM!G and am using Insteon lighting (although that may change). I plan on getting the alarm system up and running but also want to coordinate my lighting with it. My alarm will consist of motion sensors, door contacts, smoke/fire alarms, etc. Half of my alarm/ motion sensors will be wireless.

Currently my automation needs are minimal but I don't want buyer's regret a year later when I may want to expand to things such as steaming music, temperature control and anything else I could possibly think of.

Does anyone have experience with both Girder and CQC with an ELKM1G? Has anyone switched from CQC to Girder or vice versa?

 

[IVB]

I used Girder for 2 years before switching to CQC. I think they're both great packages, and their target markets are very different. If you want to use a single PC for control purposes, and can handle a little legwork integrating NetRemote with Girder, you'll be absolutely fine.

CQC is really better suited for "grander" installs, where you want to use a true client/server setup, administer any machine from any machine, use a secure PDA to control the house inside & outside your network, have a rich automation rules engine, and want deep deep GUI controls.

I may be a huge CQC fan, but if Girder meets all your needs, I'd advise sticking with that and if you outgrow it, then contemplate moving up.

 

[coppercox]

IVB, thanks for the fast reply. I figured there was a difference but just couldn't see it after surfing and reading for hours trying to settle on the software: I was leaning toward CQC until I saw their price!!! and the $95 yearly license fee thereafter...(tastes like the maintenance fee you pay yearly on timeshare property!)...and yes, my needs are minimal so I may just wait a bit ...i am patient and usually research well prior to making purchases of this magnitude!!!

 

[IVB]

Sounds like a plan. FWIW, one last point to make:

... I was leaning toward CQC until I saw their price!!! and the $95 yearly license fee thereafter...(tastes like the maintenance fee you pay yearly on timeshare property!)...

License fee is a weird word for it. With a maintenance fee, you don't actually get anything. But with CQC, for $95/year, you get all new versions released during that timeframe. Considering that at this scale of implementation, most folks end up spending a few hundred every few years on upgrading packages, the $95/year averages out to be the same price (or potentially cheaper).

 

[jwilson56]

I used Girder for 2 years before switching to CQC. I think they're both great packages, and their target markets are very different. If you want to use a single PC for control purposes, and can handle a little legwork integrating NetRemote with Girder, you'll be absolutely fine.

CQC is really better suited for "grander" installs, where you want to use a true client/server setup, administer any machine from any machine, use a secure PDA to control the house inside & outside your network, have a rich automation rules engine, and want deep deep GUI controls.

I may be a huge CQC fan, but if Girder meets all your needs, I'd advise sticking with that and if you outgrow it, then contemplate moving up.

Actually Netremote/Girder5 is a true client/server setup. Girder sits on the server and Netremote GUI clients connect and allow you to control any home automation you want. Netremote also comes with Mediabridge that lets lets you control a number of media players. Those people that played with Girder3 back in the day do not realize just how powerful of a home automation package it has become. I recently migrated all my Homeseer functions over to Girder5 and am currently writing a new NR skin for my Now Playing project.

I use 4 clients running my Now Playing skin for Netremote all connecting to my home automation and whole house audio server. Each client can have its own view of what zone of music it wants to play and control. Each client is totally independant. In fact each Netremote cleint can connect to a number of Girders. Lets not forget that besides all the added home automation functions, Girder is one of the most powerful applications for controlling many other applications like Windows Media Center.

As for controlling your setup via a PPC Netremote is extremely powerful at that. You can create your skins using the Windows environment and then hotsync your CCF file to your PPC and go.

Take a look at the Netremote/Girder 5 solution. Its come a long way. www.promixis.com

As for my project you can get information here. I have my current light control panel working but I am working on a new style for my new skin right now alomg with my weather panel.

http://www.cocoontech.com/index.php?showtopic=7106

John

 

[Steve]

The truth of the matter is that nobody can tell you the best system for you. We all have our opinions based on what we've tried and bought and used. The only real way for you to decide is to figure out what your current and 'predicted' needs are, look at the options, and try them. Some software just 'fits' people better. Just like a suit, everyone is slightly different and even the same top of the line designer suit may not feel right to everyone. Yes, its a bit tough because some of these packages take a pretty decent investment to gather the feel, but its the only way to know what really fits you best.

 

[coppercox]

John, thank you also for the fast reply. I have been following your project (I had to become a member to view the pictures you posted :unsure: and am impressed. I am curious about when Girder 5 will be available to the general public: Do you have any information on the time frame?

 

[Dean Roddey]

I'm not completely sure of the Netremote/Girder functionality, but when Vivek said network distributed, he didn't just mean that you have clients that give you access to the device control features of the backend. CQC is fully distributed, so you can completely manage the whole system from any machine, so all of the administrative, configuration, and design parts of it are network distributed as well. So there's distributed and there's distributed, and there can be a fair amount of distance between them sometimes.

That may be of not interest to some people at all, or not worth the price difference (though I'm sure it's not the only difference between them either), but just wanted to make that distinction.

 

[jwilson56]

John, thank you also for the fast reply. I have been following your project (I had to become a member to view the pictures you posted :unsure: and am impressed. I am curious about when Girder 5 will be available to the general public: Do you have any information on the time frame?

That I am not sure of the timing but I know they have extended the trial keys for G5. Right now its stable enough for me to use on my production server as I have now shut down Homeseer.

As for managing the software.... hmmm... I rarely sit in front of my servers which are located on the opposite side of the house. While I am developing the software I just log into the server remotely to configure G5 from the same PC I am developing the skin for with NR Designer. I never really had any problems. As for distance there is no limit as I know people that have controlled girder to girder over the internet. I was just pointing out some of what NR/G5 can do since its pretty recent that Promixis has expanded the home automation abilities (with input from me as well as other HA enthusiasts over the past year).

Its totally up to you.... for me it fits... they have a great Slink-e plugin so I didn't have to toss a $250 8 zone IR device out. They support J Rivers Media Center 'natively' which many believe to be the best music database/player (it supports true multizone effortlessly). If you want high end and have the money then certainly CQC or Mainlobby suite would add some eye candy here and there. I just wanted to point out what I am doing with NR/G5. There is also a Powerhome Netremote plugin being developed so that you can use NR GUI to control PH. I would log into the Promixis forum and post some of your ideas on what you want to do.

John

 

[Rupp]

I'm not completely sure of the Netremote/Girder functionality, but when Vivek said network distributed, he didn't just mean that you have clients that give you access to the device control features of the backend. CQC is fully distributed, so you can completely manage the whole system from any machine, so all of the administrative, configuration, and design parts of it are network distributed as well. So there's distributed and there's distributed, and there can be a fair amount of distance between them sometimes.

That may be of not interest to some people at all, or not worth the price difference (though I'm sure it's not the only difference between them either), but just wanted to make that distinction.

Dean does this "fully distributed" aspect involve installing software on all clients?

 

[CollinR]

Coppercox, you should get in with IVB when he does is weekly (???) demo of CQC, until I saw him give it a once over I really had no clue as to how it works.


I use EventGhost so I don't have much Girdner experience.



From what I gather... from what I have seen...

Both can do what you want on about any level you want. CQC has boatloads of preconfigured modules to interact with tons of hardware, ontop of an easy method of creating new modules. Girdner and EventGhost have totally open configurations, they can do whatever you want however it takes more time to achieve the result.

I think Vivek gave it to you straight up, if you want to integrate many many systems CQC may have an advantage in the TTL dept.


CQC if you your hardware is already supported it seems like a no brainer to develop with it. For a Pro thats a major bonus as you can force your customers into already supported hardware.

Mainlobby similar to CQC however totally different licensing structure, I don't think as many devices are supported.

I see those two as the "hand holders" in that the software does tons of the work for you.

Girdner/Netremote, many supported devices as well. Takes a little more knowledge to develop however totally customizable. I know jack about netremote so take my advice as waht you paid for it. $0.00

You might try and download EventGhost (free) and use it's webserver capability. This method is free but takes the maximum amount of labor to build a functional system. However I'm pretty sure it allows for features and functions not available from CQC, Mainlobby.


I doubt you really care much about the client server relationship, in all of these systems if the server dies your system crashes. If the server has a power supply or harddrive failure the entire system is down. I'm pretty sure with Girdner and EventGhost you can actually run the app from a client and share a configuration file. If you use a datacenter to serve the config it's pretty impossible to have a total system failure due to a single device (dead router).


Basically I say the purchase comes down to how much time you want to spend in development, and I listed them in order of what I percieve as their TTL.

If this is work for you, spend the $ on a hand holder. If this is a hobby that your really enjoy technically,
EDIT:

Also I think Girdner and EventGhost are those most likely to already have Insteon RF support. I would be really suprised if Insteon really recreated the wheel and went off on their own transmission method. I would be surpised if it wasn't just X10 IR commands issued over radio, if thats true then I think both softwares already have provisions for wireless X10 commands.

 

[IVB]

I doubt you really care much about the client server relationship, in all of these systems if the server dies your system crashes. If the server has a power supply or harddrive failure the entire system is down. I'm pretty sure with Girdner and EventGhost you can actually run the app from a client and share a configuration file. If you use a datacenter to serve the config it's pretty impossible to have a total system failure due to a single device (dead router).

Actually the reason anyone who's married with more than 1 PC should care *heavily* about client/server is that you can do anything from anywhere. There's none of this file-sharing nonsense or copying templates from one machine to another - you just open up any CQC tool from anywhere and you're good to go. This makes it easy to modify your code or templates from any PC that's convenient to you. This helps when:

1) You want to have more than one server. I have one location where all my HA wiring is run, so that's my HA server. I have another for my HT wiring, so that's my HT server. CQC deals with all the network communication, I just pull up the toolset at whichever PC I'm on; I can work on my HT stuff from my HA PC location and vice-versa, mucking with wiring as need be.

2) Ease of use. I know for me, my wife constantly wants whatever machine I happen to be working on. I simply shut down the CQC programs, go to another machine, and resume my work.

Hell, even if you're single, the ability to use any machine in any location and have them all work together adds value.

I don't see a server failure as that big a deal as I can switch servers to another PC inside of 24 hours and if I rename the box, the clients won't even know.

But for single box installs, I agree - that's huge overkill.

 

[IVB]

Dean does this "fully distributed" aspect involve installing software on all clients?

Sure, you'll have to install whatever software you want to use. Can't really do Interface Editing on a client machine unless the Interface Editor is installed there.

You'll want to install at least the Interface Viewer on all your clients - no other way to get rich graphical controls on that PC. You could use Internet Explorer, but that's pretty awful in terms of native graphics capabilities - heck, i'm trying to figure out how to get back to fat client installs at work because I just can't accomplish my information dissemination goals using IE. But if the highly limited capabilities (well, for us non-techies anyhow) of Internet Explorer aren't an issue, you could always do a thin-client.

You could always use RDP if fat-client installs on view-only clients is an issue, I know many folks who are doing that too.

 

[coppercox]

Steve, thank you for the reply.

Unfortunately, with my schedule I will not be able to try several out to see which one I like (once I decide on one I can devote the time to learn it and adjust accordingly). I trust the knowledge of the contributors on cocoontech since there are several that have been into HA for years. I can make an informed decision based on input from those who have the been-there-done-that-experience and are willing to share it. Cocoontech is like a mechanic: when I am purchasing a used car I want that mechanic with me!

CollinR, thank you also. You are right about the client/server: I have two puters in the house and one is exclusively for Missus and I, the other for the teens... once the teens are gone...I will have one puter in the house.

Once i decide on which software I purchase I will limit my choices of hardware to what is supported with the software: that way I will not have a compatibility problem. Although I could make this a hobby I am actually just delving into this until I get the HA needs satisfied (yes, I know it can spiral out of control) but...I have several hobbies already and don't figure I can fit another one in

License fee is a weird word for it. With a maintenance fee, you don't actually get anything. But with CQC, for $95/year, you get all new versions released during that timeframe. Considering that at this scale of implementation, most folks end up spending a few hundred every few years on upgrading packages, the $95/year averages out to be the same price (or potentially cheaper).

good point! ...you've made me lean back to the middle with that!!! :unsure:

 

[jwilson56]

I doubt you really care much about the client server relationship, in all of these systems if the server dies your system crashes. If the server has a power supply or harddrive failure the entire system is down. I'm pretty sure with Girdner and EventGhost you can actually run the app from a client and share a configuration file. If you use a datacenter to serve the config it's pretty impossible to have a total system failure due to a single device (dead router).

Actually the reason anyone who's married with more than 1 PC should care *heavily* about client/server is that you can do anything from anywhere. There's none of this file-sharing nonsense or copying templates from one machine to another - you just open up any CQC tool from anywhere and you're good to go. This makes it easy to modify your code or templates from any PC that's convenient to you. This helps when:

1) You want to have more than one server. I have one location where all my HA wiring is run, so that's my HA server. I have another for my HT wiring, so that's my HT server. CQC deals with all the network communication, I just pull up the toolset at whichever PC I'm on; I can work on my HT stuff from my HA PC location and vice-versa, mucking with wiring as need be.

2) Ease of use. I know for me, my wife constantly wants whatever machine I happen to be working on. I simply shut down the CQC programs, go to another machine, and resume my work.

Hell, even if you're single, the ability to use any machine in any location and have them all work together adds value.

I don't see a server failure as that big a deal as I can switch servers to another PC inside of 24 hours and if I rename the box, the clients won't even know.

But for single box installs, I agree - that's huge overkill.

All that is not all that useful in my opinion. Lets face it, you are going to have the heart of the software installed on the 'server pc' that has the hardware your trying to control. If that server has the media files and sound cards to play your multizone audio on it and it goes belly up your going to have to swap the hardware and restore the files no matter what. I have been using client application for the GUI interface to a server ever since I wrote my own after I grew tired of using a web browser for my needs. You can install Netremote on as many clients and Girder5 on as many systems you want and get all of them to talk to each other. I can VNC into the main server (the one that has the hardware physically plugged into it) from any PC in my house just in case I ever have to do some tweaks. If you mean that the software you install on any machine can be or act as both the client and the server then it is really bloated for being a client or really efficient. I would say that 5 PC's, 2 3400's and a PPC constitute a networked environment and far above a 'single box install'.

If you have to constantly tweak your configuration and whatever else you need 'distributed editing capabilities' for then the system would not be much fun for anyone. But to say that CQC is for 'grander installs' and that somehow you feel it has real distributed networking (whatever that means) and that all the other solutions are not capable of a true client/server topology is just plain misleading. I know someone that has his work computer Netremote controlling his home Girder machine.

I have always given CQC and Mainlobby the respect they both deserve. If you have the bucks and want more hand holding when putting together a system they are a nice fit. But please don't speak for what Girder and Netremote can do. Leave that to people that have experience with those applications to give their opinions.

John