Insteon vs Zwave "3way" switch approach

[kck]

I've been thinking about zwave options for automating switches in a new house and considering the typical zwave approach to handling 3-way switches (and up to some degree) versus our typical Insteon approach.  Insteon requires each switch to be a real switch and then we use scenes to configure 3 way setups.  This has some advantages and disadvantages:

 

Pro:

- all switches are the same

- ultimate flexibility in how any switch interacts with rest of home

Con:

- some switches use only part of their function (which adds cost)

- wiring into an existing house requires repurposing travelers in some non-standard ways

- if selling the house, may need to remove the Insteon switches to leave new owner with functioning setup (assuming that they don't want to keep your ISY setup)

 

Zwave seems to have generally opted for an architecture that has both real switches and auxiliary add-on switches.  This yields:

Pro:

- cheaper since the aux switches are generally 1/2-1/3 the cost of a real switch.

- installation is really plug and play in that the aux switch seems to drop in to the existing traveler setup pretty seamlessly

- even if you turn off zwave house wide automation that switch pair still operates as expected as a 3 way setup

Con:

- need to understand when to buy switch versus aux and may complicate spare stocking for dealers (or users who keep an extra around)

 

Am I missing anything?  On balance it seems to me that the zwave architecture is actually better for after installs and at least would be cheaper for new construction as well (although for new construction one can argue for complete divorcing of the human control, i.e., wallswitch function, and load control, i.e., electrical on/off).

 

Thoughts?  In part these musings are based on thinking about what I may have to undo to sell our current house at some point.

 

[paulbates]

I would consider that all insteon switches transmit their status when activated locally, zwave is product by product based on an expiring patent.. some products can use the patented feature, some can't and have to be polloed. Since N way circuits are likely to be used at the switch frequently, this can be important. I have them in stairways / halls where I want to turn it back off with a program after n minutes of activation, with other actions at specific locations

 

If you want more automation possibilities at switch locations, you have to know / spec / shop various zwave switches to know, with insteon its part of the product. Its trading configuration flexibility for ease of install

 

Edit: this might be what you mean by flexibility, but its absence and using travelers can be cons for zwave, I think

 

Paul

[kck]

Yes - I'm well aware of the Instant Status ZWave fiasco and would only be interested in switches that support that (e.g. the Homeseer ones do).  I was more thinking about the approach that the Zwave vendors seem to have taken toward special support for 3/4 ways that allows then (perhaps) to fit into existing homes more easily.  Assuming they get past the patent silliness or that you choose correctly, it would seem you can opt to provision a home using zwave in the same way to do with Insteon but zwave seems to provide an advantageous alternative.  Just trying to think through all this out loud since there are lots of knowledgeable folks on this board and what's a holiday for if not random musings..   

[paulbates]

KCK, I get it. Having gone through the traveler / accessory switch version with X10 in the past... and then adopting to the insteon method, I generally prefer the Insteon way.. I have specific cases where I get more automation control out of knowing which switch was switched in a n way, in addition to the the n way working.

 

It comes down to if your requirements call for switch by switch configuration flexibility, or easier (utilize existing traveler) and potentially less expensive installation

 

Paul