I have to back up some other poeples comments here. While there are these few small little niggly things in CQC, such as keyboard shortcuts, they are far from a deal breaker. Also have to agree with znelbok above that when it comes to true automation there are a lot of 'remote' type apps that really can't be even considered in the same category.
There is little doubt that CQC has a steep learning curve and for me I found it somewhat counter intuitive at the beginning.....(as I did OOP) but if you give it the time to see past the initial counter intuitive nature of the product, the structure does reveal both its reasons and benefits along the path.
The only thing that kept me focused on CQC was the various positive if not passionate reviews from unbiased users that I discovered while doing my research.
I guess the best way to sum up what I see wrong (or more like get it more 'out there') with CQC is as follows;
Prior to looking at CQC I had used one of the hardware based Homevision Pro units to do automation for the particular solution I needed it for. For me the homevision pro unit software was intuitive and it was easy to see the blocks being built as I expanded my project. I'd recommend anyone (including Dean) to take a look at Homevision XL by Schelte Bron at
http://hv.tclcode.com/ . For me I found this software easy to use and intuitive and the fact that I rarely had to look at manuals etc. was testament to this.
Ok, then I discover CQC because my hardware based controller cant do the level of serial control I need. Also the fully customisable touch screen interfaces, open source drivers and media possibilities are extra sweeteners. It took a good while to figure it out. The whole concept of the event server threw me off initially. In Homevision I could do an instruction like;
If INPUT A HIGH
DELAY 10 min
do something else
In CQC I have to go to the field browser for the driver of the input device, create a trigger to be sent out depending on the change of input. Then I have to go to the event server and define there what trigger I want to listen for and what actions to do in response. The list of filters available are extensive but almost to the point that I don't know which one I should/need to use. So my action in this case would be to start up a 10 min countdown timer. Again I have to go back to the field browser to set up another trigger to be sent out when the timer hits zero (after I set up a timer driver btw), and back again to the event server to make sure it picks up that trigger and list another action to execute. So the concept of network triggers and a central event server do indeed make sense when you understand the concept. However for me, moving from a case of being able to do the same thing in 3 lines with the homevison software to this was frustrating, and overly tempting to throw in the towel. It gets frustrating and this can only be overcame with patience. Also the problem with having so much to define for a relatively simple few steps, can make it hard to keep track of all these triggers and so on. This can make diagnosing something not working as expected more difficult also.
All the above may not be entirely correct as I am just recalling it from memory but I just want to give an example of how the strength of CQC does certainly become its weakness where new users are concerned. A good analogy is that ~ 90% of people don't go past the first page in google search. They either find it on the first page or they begin to get weary (and lazy) when they need to hit page 2. If you bring that analogy across 90% of the people who try CQC and are not able to get something quite simple up and running in 5 mins will bow out and try something else that 'makes sense' to them. I believe this is where customers are lost all to easily. They need to get their hit fast!
I believe CQC has an excellent, robust foundation and the driver/field model is incredibly intuitive and useful. I know Dean has been doing a lot of work on the auto-gen stuff and that is some thing that should be kept alive.
However there is a middle ground being missed out on here. And it is the homevision unit above that is the best reference for this point. Its a single window display where I can do all my automation 'programming'. I can implement the idea in my head using this software in a couple of seconds and I don't meet any unnecessary hurdles along the way. CQC cannot do this because its designed to be so extensive. I think this middle ground that is required to get new users 'hooked' lies somewhere between the existing programming interface and the auto-gen stuff. The great thing is however, is that CQC has all the necessary background pipework already. I just think there needs to be a new button on the Admin Interface that allows some quick automation to be done that doesn't require bouncing around between field broswers, event server, adding timer drivers etc. make it simple. Please take this in context of new users only.
One thing I love about CQC are the forums. Everyone there is so helpful and some users are great at informing the community of new products etc that possibly could be used with CQC. Someone takes an interest in one of these products and then a driver is available to all. I like the spirit of it!
I can only wish Dean all the best and he has a long term user on his hands here. Also very clever thread. I hope some lessons can be found
