Powerlinc Serial and Powerhome

[Mike]

I checked it and it was working when I got home. Well mostly. A combination or two was off, but when I checked it in powerhome, it reflected the same issue (so it was my mistake).

Nice to get it working...

 

[Mike]

Ok, once you get the hang of it it makes a little more sense.

I have found two things that are strange though:

1. It seems to take forever to update things. I have made changes and come back hours later and it still has not done anything. I have hit F5, am I missing anything?

2. I have one switch that has some wierd entries:

Resonder Rec 1 Group 1 Button 0 (same unit, dimmer)
Controller Rec 2 Group 1 Button -1 (same unit, dimmer)
Controller Rec 2 Group 1 Button -2 (same unit, dimmer)
Responder Rec 3 Group 1 Button 0 (powerlinc)

I don't understand why there is a button reference for the dimmer (and the extra records as well). This may just be a powerhome representation (bad data).

Anyone else have similar results?

EDIT: And I need to check out the forums on myx10.com as well.

 

[upstatemike]

Definitely check out myX10.com because I think there were some version related issues that speak to the stuff you are seeing.

 

[Mike]

Thank you. I ented in the address and I put a 0 instead of a D in one case and it got stuck on that switch. i'll see what the response is now, I'm sure this will be better now.

EDIT: and thank you.

 

[Mike]

It seems I had another switch it must have had trouble communicating with. It seems you need to keep an eye on these 'hang's, but at least I know why I was waiting 12 hours without an update to the switches.

I'm still kind of awkward with this, but I'm starting to see how it works.

 

[upstatemike]

I think Dave was going to do an update where communications failures would time out and be sent to the end of the queue for retry after everthing els was done. Don't know when/if that is coming though.

 

[Mike]

Yeah, I saw that. My remaining issue seems to be with setting up Keypadlincs. The keypad itself for each group doesn't seem to get past 'CHECKING' as controller status.

It looks like this:

Group 1
Keypad - Button 5 - Controller: Checking Responder: Verified
LampLinc - Controller: Verified Responder: Verified

Group 2
Keypad - Button 3 - Controller: Checking Responder: Verified
LampLinc - Controller: Verified Responder: Verified

Group 3
Keypad - Button 4 - Controller Checking Responder: Verified
Lamplinc - Controller: Verified Responder: Verified

What is wierd I can go into the Keypad linc config and it will pull the results, but it doesn't seem to build the link or verify the keypad. I'll have to dig more.

 

[Mike]

Well my trial expired and I still could not get it working right. I get lots of unknowns, some links don't seem to propogate.

I've spent more time trying to get this to work than it would have taken to setup the links manually.

It seems others have been happy with this even if only to setup links for the Elk, I couldn't get past it reliably doing links for insteon in general (and didn't even attempt using it with the elk). It does not appear to be there yet from my experience at least.

 

[Digger]

I never got my Powerlinc to communicate with Powerhome and moved on. I guess I can just sell the Powerlinc on eBay if I decide not to give it another try. I unfortunately paid for Powerhome and will probably never use it since I wanted it for linking Insteon to the ELK.

I know someone that uses Homeseer and swears by it but he doesnt have Insteon (and never will he says). He knows someone that is affialted with them and says they internally know that it is not up to par and they need to rethink it.

 

[upstatemike]

I know someone that uses Homeseer and swears by it but he doesnt have Insteon (and never will he says). He knows someone that is affialted with them and says they internally know that it is not up to par and they need to rethink it.

Are you saying they are going to rethink Homeseer or rethink Insteon?

 

[Mike]

Sounds like Insteon. I hope that is inaccurate after outfitting the whole house with Insteon.

 

[upstatemike]

Maybe just rethinking the firmware swapouts... pretty darned costly. Maybe they will change their minds about upgrading firmware in the field.

 

[Digger]

They are rethinking the Insteon since it is apparently not living up to what was expected. The information comes third hand from one of the developers. I cant say any more so nobody gets in trouble.

I think in perfect enviroment it would work great. The protocal would work if they actually implemented it fully and did not rush to get it out the door with half of the features not incorporated. You read the protacal and think it will do certian things and then you get it and it doesnt do a lot of things they say in the protacal.

 

[gregoryx]

Perhaps worth noting that the latest (unreleased?) SDM seems much faster and more reliable. It even remembers the PowerLinc port. :angry:

I see references in logs to extended messaging, though no replies noted.

Amazingly, it seems that PowerHome and HouseLinc are able to use the SDM at the same time! :blink:
It seems to create some problems at times, but I'm pleased that the SDM finally works at least a bit that way. That's more what I expected from it - kinda like the Slink-E-Serv setup where multiple apps can talk to it. I don't know if it'll work better in time or stop working that way.

I have noticed additional "issues" with lights after monkeying with PowerHome link tables. I'm going to try to chalk those up to using the same PowerLinc and/or SDM with both since they require different SALADs from what it appears. I'm going to segregate them to different PowerLincs and/or PCs to see if that helps both.

I haven't sent the PowerHome stuff to Elk yet because of the issues it's created so far... but that's the goal.

 

[upstatemike]

They are rethinking the Insteon since it is apparently not living up to what was expected. The information comes third hand from one of the developers. I cant say any more so nobody gets in trouble.

I think in perfect enviroment it would work great. The protocal would work if they actually implemented it fully and did not rush to get it out the door with half of the features not incorporated. You read the protacal and think it will do certian things and then you get it and it doesnt do a lot of things they say in the protacal.

So now I'm more confused. Are you saying that the protocol is OK and they just screwed up in making the hardware and firmware for the current products or are you saying the protocol does not do what was intended and they are rethinking the design?