Help for elegant solution separating a switchlinc frm motion

[CPRail1]

Hello all,

I have been doing some relatively simple programing and scene work with my ISY and Insteon. I am hoping someone can suggest a more elegant solution to a problem I am trying to solve than the one I envision.

 

Current situation : I have several scenes with up to 8 switchlincs involved as there were 4 3-way circuits originally. The scene lights a multi-light path between two areas triggered by a motion detector and the lights happily ramp up and later fade down when a person enters the path. All working as intended.

 

Desired situation : If the person wishes to stay in the area but out of view of the triggering motion detector, I want him to be able to explicitely turn on one of the switchlincs which will cause that light to stay on while the others fade out. I would prefer not to use more motion detctors.

 

My draft solution : Based on the thread viewtopic.php?f=27&t=10736&hilit=motion+detector+and+scene , I am thinking I have to eliminate the motion controlled scene and instead create multiple programs, one each per switchlinc, as outlined in the thread. The switchlinc's being turned on manually disables it's control by the motion detector.

 

Ask : Can anyone suggest a simpler, more elegant way of accomplishing this that will not require so many individual programs, perhaps using aspects of the ISY folders or other scene or programming features I have not yet become versed in ? I need to repeat this path model several times.

 

Thank you for any help, Peter

[BitSmith]

I hope I'm answering the question the right way, this is my first post.

 

I have a working answer, here;

http://wiki.universal-devices.com/index.php?title=Motion_Sensor_(Security_light)_with_latch

 

And I've written a few other hopefully helpful routines;

http://wiki.universal-devices.com/index.php?title=User:BitSmith

 

Cheers, BitSmith

[CPRail1]

BitSmith,

 

Very good ! And personally I like that you added the code to the Wiki as an example for those who read through it first, as I had.

 

Thanks !

 

Cheers, Peter