So from the end user perspective, is the following true?
- Z-wave is well implemented in HomeSeer. That's the good news.
Well thanks, I hope so. But it has taken a long time to get this far and we made plenty of mistakes along the way. The difficulty these days is that Zensys is always making improvements, and so it is a constantly moving target trying to make the software support the new, the old, and the really old because we have users with all of it.
- Z-wave may not have the "advanced - for lack of a better word" implementation in other software systems. This would seem to be a disadvantage to the end users. Is z-wave really *that picky* about things? If so, this would seemingly stunt growth.
I am not familiar with other software systems. The one Leviton referenced by Chris Walker (ControlThink) was very thorough in its day, and may still be, but he went to work for Leviton for a while so I am not sure what the situation is with his software. I do know that we definitely have more years working with it under our belt than others.
Z-Wave is not so much picky as it is doing the best it can with a difficult situation. RF does not guarantee transmission from point A to point B, and so the algorithms designed by Zensys were done so with the knowledge they had at the time of other systems that came before it, and they did a pretty good job. The problem is, they could only develop one system (and even that does not fit easily within the code space on their chips), but one system does not fit every situation. Think about a system with very few nodes, a system with nodes spread far apart, a normal system, a system with a huge number of nodes, and in each case they could have done something different in their design to better accommodate it. When this stuff first came out years ago and we did not have the tools we have today, I shudder to think about somebody having put 100 nodes in a home back then - it would have been a nightmare. So the thing is, they could not design one perfect system, but with the knowledge we now have and the tools we have, we can make it work well. What is clear is that the system "out of the box" as they intended it does not work for the less common situations, but then again, X-10 never did either. Richard Scholl (Worthington) used to point out that anybody who put X-10 in a 10,000 sq ft home was crazy, but despite that it was done sometimes, and the only way it could be done was with the knowledge we gained over the years and by using the right products. This is the same - if you have products that (for example) do not support instant status, so they cause people to poll them often thus generating more traffic, or they do not support the scene class so that causes us to send more signals to control a lot of lights - those are all examples of where spending more money can save you headaches in the long run.
- Z-wave looks to be pretty complicated at the user end, if one wants to really get things "just so". Maintenance also seems to be tricky for the novice. This would be another shortcoming of the technology. Gee, isn't there anything we can just plug in for it work without all of this pain (rhetorical).
It's a very good question, and Rich and I at HomeSeer had high hopes for it being that way with Z-Wave. Consider this though - X-10 would not work at all without a phase coupler, and yet for years, X-10 would tell you "it isn't needed". When Z-Wave came along, it truly was "plug and play" and really still is - it does work for most situations without any playing or maintenance - it really becomes an issue when you make changes, or your system grows into being a "large" one. But if you bought 50 devices and put them in a 3,000 sq ft home, which is what the majority of the market (in the U.S. anyway) probably is, then it is going to work very well every time.
The situation outlined here is interesting, because it sounds closer to that model I just mentioned, so it makes me wonder if Leviton did more things in an attempt to "outsmart" Zensys, and ended up making the situation worse than if they had done a straightforward Z-Wave implementation?
In the end, this really has me more wondering if z-wave is a good technology to invest into.
Well, it depends on what kind of a decision you are facing. Have you committed to automating the home and are deciding between technologies? Have you already automated your home with something that you know does not work and are looking for an alternative? Have you not even decided whether you are going to automate? Depending on which of those situations you are in depends on the answer I would give you, but ultimately the answer is much more complex. What if you are committed to automating, but have a shoestring budget? In that case, good old X-10 and 35+ years of history and knowledge make it a very good consideration. What if you are committed to automating, but absolutely will not use powerline technology? In that case, you have to ask whether you can hardwire or not, and if not, then you have proprietary and expensive RadioRA, proprietary and closed and expensive Zigbee, or proprietary and open and moderately priced Z-Wave to choose from. There are more permutations to this, especially if you include the powerline technologies such as UPB, but the point is that the decision to go with it is not entirely based upon the technology, because everything has its downsides or quirks about it. It is more about your timeframe, your budget, and how much of those two you are willing to trade in for reliability. Given all of those factors, Z-Wave or UPB will usually win, with Z-Wave really edging out because of the wide variety of devices out there. (UPB has several manufacturers, but they are all making much of the same devices - Z-Wave has water sensors, door/window sensors, smoke detectors, wireless keypads and keyfobs, etc.) If you are capable of replacing the wiring, then it is a whole 'nuther story, but Z-Wave does not compete with that. So for most people, I would say it probably is worth the investment, but I cannot say in your case - you have to figure that one out Kemo Sabe.
) That was a very helpful explanation of what is going on with zwave. I'm not controlling my zwave lights yet, but was planning on using the Elk rules for some basic commands beyond the inwall controllers Leviton sells. Does HAI's zwave diagnostics work outside of an HAI-based system? I was planning on getting Control Think, but if your stuff works better I'd get that instead! (And I realize you are biased, but would like to hear your opinion of the options.)
