oberkc

I am not sure that I completely understood the details of your first post.... I have not experienced flashing loads, except during the process of linking. Is this condition repeatable for you? Does it happen randomly? Certain times? In response to some action on your part? I would think that it would be pretty easy to eliminate the ISY as a potential cause. Remove power and unplug it from the PLM. If your problem goes away, then I would conclude most likely that the tech support at smarthome was correct. If the problem persists, then there is some additional troubleshooting to look forward to.

Yes. Some of my older versions require cycling of power. I understand that this is a relatively recent feature. I have some switches v27 and these DO require cycling of power. The dimmer switch that I have that worked was v38.

Besides the light going on, nothing. There is no condition in your program which would be triggered by turning your light on. However, if you turn it on again , then turn it off again (all during the ten minute wait), the program will trigger an evaluation (one of your conditions is control...off). This will halt further execution of your program and start another "then" or "else" path, depending on the results of your evaluation.

Just to be clear.... 1. You created a program that included a statement "adjust scene" 2. You chose the scene, then the device within the scene 3. The new level you set to 30% 4. The scene now shows 30% 5. You don't believe it is working because, when you press the switch of the changed device, it does not respond with the new value. Is this all correct? As suggested by LeeG, and then by sub-routine, rather than selecting the scene at this step, select the actual switch. I think this is the single change that you must make. You would do the same thing, again. Just to be sure we are speaking clearly, could you provide us with the actual name of your scene, and the names of the devices within that scene. While I am certainly not overly experienced on this command, what I suspect is happening is that you are setting the "on" level for that switch that is applied at the scene level, rather than at the local level. I performed a quick experiment on one of my newest dimmers. I created a simple program where it adjusts the scene. Instead of selecting the actual scene in which the device resides, I chose the device itself. From there I chose the device, itself, again, from the choices given. When I executed the program, the device now responded to the new setting. I believe this is how you want yours to respond.

This option (enable internet access) is to enable one to log in to the ISY from a remote location, outside your home network. The types of problems you are experiencing are usually followed by questions about routers and firewall settings. I have tried my best to stay ignorant of such things, so I will not try to fool anyone into thinking I know anything about them.

Easier is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I am just not percieving any of these changes as so. To me, these are just different ways of achieving the same goal...no easier or harder to understand. Sorry...I am having trouble getting excited about this type of change. People have told me that different opinions are what makes the world interesting. In my mind, too, if you are sufficiently advanced to desire (or even understand the purpose of) separate triggers, you are sufficiently advanced to understanding existing trigger mechanisms. This change is not going to benefit those who have no clue about programming (in my mind, at least). But I enjoy discussions on these topics. I guess we will see if, and how, Universal Devices responds.

I don't disagree with this either, but your proposal for a wholesale change in criteria wording is not (as near as I can tell) part of the proposal to which I was responding.

I must count myself among the skeptical regarding this point. While it appears that this may add some flexibility for the advanced user, and may make the ISY more consistent with other advanced programming languages one may be used to, it does not reduce the level of understanding required. On the contrary, I see this as potentially adding one more thing that can go wrong. Example new thread: One still must understand the concept of triggers and conditions. One must still understand the existing defualt triggers. No....I don't see this forum going out of business any time soon. It is just that the questions will change.

Indeed, it is. I just wanted to make sure you were not laboring under a false pretense.

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).