CQC vs Cinemar? What to do!?

Thanks david - i guess i was expecting them to show on the main trial page - now i see the link on theindividuals!!!

Note - the callerid link fails... and do not see doanloads for weblobby, weather, dvdlobby, musiclobby ppc

Again, thanks for your support here - installing now!

When you are in MLServer3, click on Help / Additional Software Downloads and you will see a boat load of downloads.
 
I just realized that you said your house isn't nearly done yet. Why are you worried about the software side at all?

If I were you, I'd focus on making sure I had the right pre-wiring done, then go select the appropriate hardware. The software decision should come months and months down the road, not until you actually move in. By then, the world will change many times over in the whole HA software landscape.

I know Dean is already working on an auto-generation utility for CQC to automatically build some basic media functionality to counter the "CQC is too hard to get going with" bit, god only knows what will be done by the time you move in. I'm sure Cinemar/Girder&NR(looking *very* strong)/HomeZix/HomeSeer/etc won't be standing still either, so you can take advantage of the competitive environment and push this decision off until the absolute last moment possible, then decide.

I take my own medicine too. I used Girder & myHTPC for 2-3 years, all the while demo'ing ML & CQC every 3 months. I was waiting for an "event" to push me over the edge, and when an event came that forced me off the fence I looked around at the then-current state of Girder/CQC/ML and made my decision.
 
CQC is really oriented towards high flexibility, since we are primarily targeting custom installers, all of whom want to create their own look and feel in order to differentiate their product offerings. So quick and dirty setup is something that always ends up taking a bit of a back seat on the priority list.

As IVB mentions, we are starting to add some auto-generation stuff to the interface designer, to spit out commonly used sets of interface widgets, for 2.2 it'll be a numeric keypad and a whole media browser set. These will save a lot of time, and we'll add more such scenarios as we go forward. They don't have any particular look, so you still will apply whatever look you want to them, but you don't have to manually create all the widgets, which saves a lot of time. Generally you would get one of them the way you want, copy its attributes, select the others, and paste those attributes into them. So generally it'll take just a couple minutes to auto-generate and then appy the look you want.

Another nice thing for 2.2 is a multi-document interface editor. Currently, you can only have one interface open at a time. If you want to steal stuff from existing templates to more quickly create a new one, it's a pain. But now you can just open up multiple windows and copy and paste stuff as desired to a new one.
 
IVB, thats a very good point. Your right, I do not need to make a decision at this time on software. The choices have been made at this time on the hardware and most of the wiring is done. The home is only 3000 sq feet but there are 100's of wire runs done. I really want this to be a true model of what HA can do.

One decision I need to make is where to put the touchscreen and which one. There are many post on touchscreens and I am reviewing them now. I need to find a thread/post on those touchscreens that you can add on to an lcd. Wonder if those are a waste. It will all be built in the wall. Likely best to just find a full touchscreen and not mess with those add ons.

Dean, those improvements sound very encouraging. While this model home is our first big install, we are looking at becoming a leader in our markets for HA (there truly are no real competitors that offer REAL automation). What better way than to have your own home the guinea pig, LOL. A serious consideration is being given to you product. We like to partner with only a handful of vendors and focus on their products. I will monitor the sites to make sure I can attend the next online training you offer.

I will soon post some pics of the cans and what hardware solutions we are using. I am CONFIDENT I will get some feedback and likely some good points will be made. All comments will be encouraged of course! Good or bad.

I really am lovin this!
 
I might also suggest you use the demos of both to create a few interface screens that mimic some of the things you think you might want to do. You don't need any operational hardware. Just build some screens and see how easy or difficult it is to build an interface that looks good and operates as you feel it should for a touchscreen. Both ML and CQC can do the same thing but they do it differently and that it what convinced me to use one over the other. I became increasingly frustrated trying to build what I thought was a very simple interface with one package but was able to construct the same thing with the other package in minutes. Perhaps I didn't spend enough time with one but the other just seemed easier to use and fell in line with the way I thought a package like this should operate.

I own both ML and CQC and yes this is an expensive way to test the products. It came down to which one was easier to use for interface construction and for me there was a clear winner. Thirty days (trial period) isn't much time but if you spend some effort trying to build an interface with both you might get a better perspective on which one is better suited to your needs.

Dale
 
Dale that is a good suggestion. As I understand it, however, there are changes forth coming on making things easier with cqc. I look forward to learning more about that. If the ease of install changes and both are pretty equal on installing and changing, I think my focus will then be on what system is more flexible and stable. I am in a good position as a decision does not have to be made anytime soon.

I would imagine if you could show either vendor that you are seriously evaluating their products and based on the eval, you will make a company decision to implement their products and commit to using only their product on future projects, that either vendor would accomodate your desires to extend an eval if thats what it took. If I was a vendor I would bend over backwards to help a prospective installer if the possibility existed that that installer would eventually implement my products in many future installs. However, if an end user needed more time, I would likely stick to the typical policy on evals.

I have no desire to offer and support installs from multiple vendors if I can limit it to one for a particular function. Of course, the market doesnt always allow us to do that, LOL.
 
Preface, I own CQC so up front with my bias.

I looked at all the packages before purchasing CQC, and IMHO, CQC is far and above the rest when it comes to scaleability and the underlying client/server architecture. I have four different PCs sharing CQC tasks just because I can. My HTPC in the theater is the Master server and also controls my Extron switcher, Sony DVD changer, Pioneer DVD changer and the Grafik Eye in the Theater. My Audio Distribution rack has an old PIII PC that controls my Nuvo Concerto, Nuvo T2 Tuner, my Caddx security system, by caller ID modem, and two touchscreens. My Office PC happens to be behind my 50" plasma so it controls that. My Laptop which I sit on the couch and do most of the development with also runs CQC. Each of these machines talks with the master server and everything is seamless. No copying files anywhere. If I open up my driver development harness on my Laptop, my office machine, or my HTPC it's all the same. I don't have to copy any files anywhere as it is all done through true client/server and the files are all kept at the Master Server level.

I will say that MainLobby has the more flashier (it uses FLASH ;) ) interface development, but CQC has come along way with their widget development and it improves with every release. There are literally dozens of templates already developed that users share, so you don't have to create from the ground up if you don't want.

In the end, you'll probably be happy with either package. 30 days may not be enough time to get into the real meat of each where you'll find the important differences, but you can certainly get a feel for them.
 
robert, that is helpful input and its much appreciated! there are many posts on this subject so again i am thankful for the additional input.

its all going to boil down to be just making a decision as i am confident both packages have their place and offerings. I doubt i can go wrong with either solution.

what i DO want though is just ONE computer running everything. thats what i have to figure out next. want to make sure i dont have to have a server housing one piece and another pc doing the client or another piece of the software. One reason is i dont see alot of my future customers being intersted in running a bunch of hardware.
 
robert, that is helpful input and its much appreciated! there are many posts on this subject so again i am thankful for the additional input.

its all going to boil down to be just making a decision as i am confident both packages have their place and offerings. I doubt i can go wrong with either solution.

what i DO want though is just ONE computer running everything. thats what i have to figure out next. want to make sure i dont have to have a server housing one piece and another pc doing the client or another piece of the software. One reason is i dont see alot of my future customers being intersted in running a bunch of hardware.

You certainly can do it with one PC. However I would recommend that you at least consider a NAS or stripped down file server to hold/maintain all your digital content. And if you plan on using a PC to render Video/Audio and distributing that, I would also consider offloading that onto it's dedicated machine. Not that a single machine couldn't handle it all, but when you start mixing multimedia with HA control, it will become fairly taxing on a single machine, IMHO.
 
robert, i DO agree with that! at some point i will be adding some type of meda server for all the content files. you made me think of something for sure. there WILL be customers that will want media storage and that should be a seperate machine. that said, its a good idea to have a seperate box for media but your saying its also ok to put the ha software (be it cqc or mainlobby) on that box also?? sounds good to me.
 
robert, that is helpful input and its much appreciated! there are many posts on this subject so again i am thankful for the additional input.

its all going to boil down to be just making a decision as i am confident both packages have their place and offerings. I doubt i can go wrong with either solution.

what i DO want though is just ONE computer running everything. thats what i have to figure out next. want to make sure i dont have to have a server housing one piece and another pc doing the client or another piece of the software. One reason is i dont see alot of my future customers being intersted in running a bunch of hardware.
This is the strong point of using HomeSeer. It runs on one sever and can be accessed with any machine that can run a web browser. One machine and only one is needed. I run my media library, Weather Display, WebCam32, and HomeSeer on one server and it's still hardly taxed. HomeSeer has also recently introduced the HomeTroller which is a PC that is small and uses very little power. You can read about that here:
http://www.homeseer.com/products/hardware/hometroller.htm
 
thanks rupp. i joined the homeseer site yesterday asking questions as a newbie. but have not gotten a reply. hopefully i will because i still cant understand why i need homeseer. thanks.
 
Ok, didn't realize you were looking to get into the integrator biz if this works out, that changes things completely, and there are a few new points I haven't made. My recommendation is that if you're really interested in getting into this for $$ is to think past installing your own system, assume that's a done thing regardless of package, and think about what you'll do once you start selling it. (btw, some folks are running CQC on a 40W low power mini-itx PC, to make it more "controller" like).

1) According to some of the pro's that I talk to on a regular basis, VR is not yet ready for problem-free deployment in customer's homes without massive tweaking, so I wouldn't use that as the tipping point for anything. If you think installation of CQC might be too much, you'll be crushed by the tweaking required for VR. (if you want details, ask QQQ on avsforum and remotecentral; he's played with it for years without acheiving the desired level of success for professional implementations)
2)
If the ease of install changes and both are pretty equal on installing and changing, I think my focus will then be on what system is more flexible and stable.
With all due respect, I think you've got that backwards for a pro install. Certainly for a DIY'er, they need rapid deployment because they're not making $$ at this. Plus they can deal with resetting stuff here/there, and a lack of flexibility. However, a pro needs to know that the tech support won't kill them, that they can easily modify to suit divergent customer types. You can come up to speed on any system incl CQC in not much time at all, and once your base templates are built out you'll roll them out to anybody who buys that system. That's how pretty much all the pro's that I know of work regardless of CQC/AMX/Crestron/etc; while they may tweak certain flows for clients, they rarely diverge greatly from the base template set as that's how you introduce new bugs.

I'm not saying anything about the other packages, only that at least for the very successful integrators I talk to, they've got 100+Hours in their templates, and for them flexibility to create the interface of their dreams is paramount. Like you, they only want to support 1 system, so ramp-up time is less meaningful than deployment and customization time.

3)
The choices have been made at this time on the hardware and most of the wiring is done....One reason is i dont see alot of my future customers being intersted in running a bunch of hardware...I was a vendor I would bend over backwards
Again, think past your own install given your future desire. You may have decided on your hardware and can now do what BSR suggests and see which package works better with that, but that doesn't mean one of your customers is willing to buy everything that you did. They may have a buddy who works for (Lutron/Autopatch/etc) and recommends it strongly, or heard good things about it, or have a large investment in it already (either current home or other), or their buddy can get them a deep discount. There's any of a gazillion reasons they may not want *all* the same hardware you do. Matter of fact, talking to the pro's, they rarely want the same shopping list.

In that case, support of a high # of hardware devices, and ease of integrating new devices, is king. CQC supported 100 devices on 8/2/06, 125 on 1/29/07, 140 on 5/9, and of the 49 in progress now, there's already been several more submitted for V2.2. Given that CQC distributes the driver development tools to everyone as part of the license with no NDA required, it's enjoyed a rapid rise. Plus they're all written in a CQC native langauge (either CML or PDL) so it's a "contained coding freedom" and there's no possibility of a badly written or rogue driver bringing down your system. There's 23 different users or integrators working on those drivers, and these have a history of not getting completely done until there's a callout in advance of a release, so I wouldn't be surprised to see many of those get submitted.

4) If you really want "HA model home" that will drive buying decisions, don't forget custom template PDA support. For my wealthier friends, that's the "flashy" stuff that makes them drool and want to pull out their checkbooks. When I told them I could use pretty and intuitive screens to adjust my HVAC/security/etc over the Cingular network, they were shocked. See if you can replicate this screen in the other packages. I know of at least one where it's physically impossible. No idea if that's due to an architectural shortcoming or some other reason.

Plus, it's not like you need to learn another language for this stuff. Use the same interface editor that you do with your other templates, just make the template size smaller and steer clear of the widgets not currently supported by the Dot Net /PDA viewer. (only a few of those).

These screens literally took me <30mins as all I did was copy/paste from my existing setup and resize the objects.

The "expert" screen that only I use (too complex for wife). The buttons are functional - I can turn on/off the lights, plus pressing the "disarm" button pulls up the security screen. During the heatwave in the summer, I used the HVAC one a bit to adjust the fan and cool down the house a bit before I came home. In the winter I turn up the heat when i'm enroute home, rather than leave it on some form of timer. My life is too random for that.

ppc_overview.jpg


PPC_Home.jpg


PPC_Elk.jpg


PPC_HVAC.jpg


PPC_Lights.JPG
 
iv, very impressive screenshots and input.

You are correct in that I need to focus on flexibility and tech support. returning to customer locations and be a profit killer. and i do recognize all that.

i hope that i am soon impressed with cqc as you. i want to be. i cant even get the trial to download right, LOL

maybe we can talk on the phone someday. wouldnt mind sharing my company goals and ideas with you down the road.

thanks once again for your input.
 
i hope that i am soon impressed with cqc as you. i want to be. i cant even get the trial to download right, LOL

What problem are you having? It's just a zip file so either clicking on it, or right clicking and selecting Save As should do it.
 
Back
Top