oberkc

Given that one can already separately specify triggers and conditions (disable the condition program, write a separate program for triggers), the question seems to me to boil down less about program limitations and more about intuitiveness and user friendliness.

Nice! Now the fun and addiction begins.

I believe you are correct, in that the mutually-exclusive option for those buttons function only when the buttons are activated locally. If you are going to have an ISY program activate the scene, then it would be a simple matter to add a program step to turn off the correct buttons. If you are activating a scene from the ISY admin panel, you could manually turn off the buttons off. In my experience, there is very little reason to control my lighting from the admin panel, except for troubleshooting purposes. Since you have established mutually-exclusive relationships between the three KPL buttons, only one will be on at any given point in time. There should be no reason to write a program to cause this to happen. Based on what I understand from your post, you should be able to handle your needs with one scene, three buttons as controllers, each button having it's own settings, with the three buttons in a mutually exclusive relationship. Am I missing your question?

My understanding is that current versions of most devices support "off" as a viable response to a scene "on" command. Are you suggesting that, when you select button A within the scene definition, "off" is not an option you can choose for the load-controlling device? Yes, a program can do this also, but I did not think it necessary.

This is to offer as much flexibility as possible. The scene level generally refers to the settings when called from the ISY and programs. The device level is the settings when called from that device. This allows multiple scene settings to be set based on the device from which it is controlled. In case you wanted the same scene response from a particular device as you would get when calling from the ISY. Am not sure what is your question here. If you turn a scene on from a program, all responding devices (controllers are also rsponders) that are part of that scene, including KPL buttons, will go to the "on" settings, as defined under the master scene definitions.

That seems very strange to me that these would show different status. I would have assumed that the information displayed would be from the same source. Good. I think, however, I would still remove the offending devices from the ISY, perform a factory reset on the devices, then add them back to the ISY using the automatic method. The version 00 still has me concerned. The automatic detection should give you an accurate version number. Do you not have any access points? Is your PLM a dual-band version? Are any of your other devices dual band? I am wondering if the lack of version number is indicative of failed communication. Yes, this sounds like a viable option, but I think you will find adding the devices back into programs and scenes still easier. Besides the discrepancy in status, is your system (programs, scenes) working as expected?

I am not sure that I understand the difference between "regular page" and "admin console". This definitely concerns me. In devices that are easy to access, I have never seen the value in manual linking. I would do this by "start linking" and autodetect. It will not delete scenes and programs, but it will delete this device within the scenes and programs. You will have to re-add it. The other factor that could come into play is the version of ISY software you are running. I would upgrade to the latest available version if you have not already done so. Sometimes, support for the latest generation of devices is included in these upgrades.

As others have addressed, I assume there is a possibility that the switch is the one directly controlling the load. If so, then it sounds as if you need to take the advice of Sub-Routine. To which I would add.... One other factor that I recall when trying similar things is that older versions required resetting of power before local control settings such as this take hold. I do not remember the cut-off version. Hopefully, yours are newer.

Of course, this is already achievable by disabling programs. The remaining question is whether you believe this would be more "intuitive". I cannot help but wonder if there would be fewer or greater numbers of questions and confusion. My suspicion is that neither (existing or proposed) option is inherently more intuitive than the other.

I am not overly hopeful that this will solve your problem, but it is worth checking. What is often not clear to me is whether hooking an insteon switch into a noisy load would contribute to communication problems, even when the switches are off. Or...does replacing a dumb switch with an insteon switch create new communication problems if that switch controls a noisy load. BTW, what are the loads on the four new switches? How did you add the devices to your ISY (manually or "start linking")? Did you experience any problems (or even apparent delays) with adding these devices to the ISY? I wonder about the possibility that there is a corrupt link database in the device or ISY and what affect that may have on the performance of your existing scene.

I have always accepted that there is a trade-off between simplicity/intuitive and flexibility/power. Maybe such a trade is not necessary, but I have always taken it as a a granted. Given this trade, I will take flexibility/power every time. My suspicion is that if you are able to find a way to get both, you will be rich.

My first suggestion is to return your house to the pre-new-device status (in your case, pull the power tab from your new switches) and see if this restores proper operation of the welcome home scene. To confirm (or eliminate) a couple of other possibilities, did you add any new lights to your house, or change the type of lamps (CFL, LED) in any of these fixtures? For example, do your new devices control a low voltage fixture or CFL? Did you change the bulbs in any of the fixtures that are part of your welcome home scene? Have you recently added any electronic devices to your house? This could be coincidental to the addition of your new insteon devices.

If you are asking whether lights can be turned on with one program and off with a second, I believe the answer is a confident "YES".

apostalakisl, dnl, don't get too hung up an this particular program example to conclude there is no value in this particular control condition. I created this program just to verify a theory. There is no practical application intended. But both of your conclusions are the same as mine, however: this particular sets of conditions has a pretty limited appeal. Consider, however, something such as: time is from sunrise to sunset (next day) or control 'xxx' is not switched On This simple change in conditions give a much broader set of possibilities. I think the possibilities are limited only by our imagination.

I may not get it, either, but here is how I see it regarding the sample program. Firstly, I believe that this program will be evaluated ONLY as a result of two triggers. One trigger is time=7:44pm. The other trigger is any receipt of an "on" signal from the switch "exterior sconse". Secondly, one must look at the results of the evaluation, once they are triggered. An "on" command from the switch would yield a "false" condition, but given the nature of "controls", that condition would be only momentary (at the time of command receipt). If the control condition were evaluated at a time other than upon receipt of the "on" command, the condition would be evaluated as "true". The time condition would yield a true result only if evaluated at exactly 7:44. So....at 7:44pm an evaluation was triggered. Time condition was true. Control condition was also true (because there was NO simultaneous receipt of an on command from the switch). Both conditions were true: program was true. The triggers forcing evaluation would be unchanged. However, the results of the evaluation would require only one of the two conditions to be true for the program to be true, rather than both. I originally believed the same thing about an IPad, but once available, I came up with some uses. I continue to be amazed at the creativity of the folks around here. While I don't currently use it and cannot immediately think of a use, I am not ready to conclude that there is absolutely no use for it.

I do know my way works. Yes, of that I am sure. For what it is worth, in support of another thread I ran a quick experiment with the following program: At 7:44, the status of this program changed from false to true. It remained so until I switched the sconse on, at which point it went false. This tends to support the theory that time-based conditions themselves only trigger an evaluation at the specified time. This is consistent with my understanding and tends to support the GregE's apparent suspicion that this particular example can be accomplished as a single program. It sounds as if GregE has the same personality as me....deriving some irrational pleasure in minimizing lines of code. I think, however, it may be good general practice to break them into two programs, just in case of something we were not smart enough to foresee. That is, unless we specifically want to take advantage of the ISY ability to halt programs midstream (such as certain motion sensor programs).

Hi dnl, I just created a sample program: If Control 'Basement/Garage / SW GRS Garage Exterior Sconse' is not switched On And Time is 7:44:00PM Then - No Actions - (To add one, press 'Action') Else - No Actions - (To add one, press 'Action') When the ISY clock went to 7:44, the program status changed from false to true. I expect it to remain true indefinitely, unless the switch is turned on manually, at which point it will stay false until 7:44:00pm the next day. BTW: this is consistent with my single test point....I turned the switch on and the program reverted to false. If I remember to check tomorrow, I will see if the program turns true at 7:44p.

But, I thought that the time condition, in this case, would only evaluate once per day (at sunset). I see no other trigger condition forcing an evaluation that could result in a false condition, halting the program. (You are not suggesting that the "wait" statement, itself, triggers an evaluation, are you?) I expect this program to be "true" indefinitely...and that a single program would work here.

The response from Chris made me think differently. The expression WOULD evaluate as "true" IF it were evaluated. However, in this case, the only trigger that would force an evaluation (apart from additional conditions in the "if" statement) would be receipt of an "on" command, at which point it would evaluate as false. I think this is the case of differentiating between what causes an evaluation versus the results of an evaluation. Statements such as this are probably most useful in conjunction with other conditions, or if you want an "on" command to trigger an "else" statement. For example, I would expect the following statement to trigger an evaluation at 0900 and the evaluation to yield a "true" result: if time is 0900 am and control "XXX" is not switched on Consider the opposite.... if control "XXX" is switched on By the same thought process, this one never evaluates as "false".

So, is this statement always evaluated as "true" except at the instance when "On" is received. Is the implication also that the trigger for evaluation of this statement is still just an "On" command from the device (off, dim, bright, xx% will NOT necesarily trigger an evaluation)?

I use a keypad button to define occupancy (home or away). I don't have them, either. Mine are X-10. However, I understand the same as you...they issue commands like any other insteon device. Perhaps they operate most like the Remotelinc. I also understand that there are several jumpers which can be used to define certain characteristics of the sensor. I have been following your two threads on this subject, with interest. Given the responses, I wonder about the value of one line in kingwr's logic: Or Control 'Living Room Light' is not switched On In the back of my head, I also keep thinking about how people often complain of a "feature" of ISY programming...halting program execution (with wait or repeat) when an input condition changes. I find it interesting that this type of programming actually exploits this feature. I am curious about your (and other's) thoughts on this.

I am not so sure that the motion sensor changing to "off" is an indication of someone being present, but if that is what you want, then I am starting to understand the approach you took. The only other question remaining in my mind is whether there would be any difference if you used "control" rather than "status" to track your motion sensors. In your case, based on my understanding, my guess is no. Thanks for the dialog. i found it interesting and enlightening. Some people enjoy Sudoku. I enjoy logic. I am hoping it keeps my mind fresh. I don't use my mind as much as I should.

I suspect the answer to your question is no. I understand that those devices that cannot be configured as controller in a scene are this way because they fail to transmit status updates. Based on this understanding, not only can you not use them as controllers in a scene, but you could not use them to trigger programs. I suspect that is why you don't see appliancelinc as one of the devices listed when you try to add a control or status to a program.

I just ran another experiment with "control" rather than "status". Indeed, the program did NOT change conditions as a result of a remote command. I don't recall writing such a thing, but it appears that I was correct, if I did. Regardless, I did not have a lot of time to try to understand your problem earlier. Now that I have looked a little harder, I realize that I misunderstood (I thought your livingroom light stayed on forever, but it was your motion sensor that was getting stuck on). Given my current understanding of your desires (and based on our experiments), I am now wondering if the following addition to your first program would solve your needs: If Status 'Motion Sensor' is On Or Control 'Living Room Light' is switched On Then Disable Program 'Night Lighting' Wait 24 hours Enable Program 'Night Lighting' Run Program 'Night Lighting' (If) Else Wait 24 hours Enable Program 'Night Lighting' Run Program 'Night Lighting' (If) Every time the motion sensor sends "on" or every time the living room light is turned on, the program (then path) will disable the second program and start a countdown. If no motion activity of any kind is sensed (even if the motion detector fails to send an "off" command) for the next 24 hours, the night lighting program will start. If the motion sensor is turned off, then a new 24 hour countdown starts. Each 24-hour period would be interrupted by a motion "on" or a manual turning of the light "on", starting a new 24 hour countdown. Thoughts?

This is something that is pretty easy to confirm yourself, should you care to do so. Under the program summary tab, you can see the status of your programs. Watch the status of your program "occupancy detector" after "night lighting - then" path has run. If you see "occupancy detector turn from "false" to "true", then you have confirmed your original (and my current) theories. I don't use this type of logic in any of my programs, or else I would confirm this myself. Update: I would not be too quick to discount your original theory. I just created a simple program, looking something like: if status "light" is on then else I then sent commands from the admin panel to device "light" (a togglelinc). The program changed status as a result of commands from the ISY to turn the light on or off. It required no physical press of the switch. I take this as tentative confirmation that actions from a program can cause an evaluation of another program, with resulting status based on evaluation results.