Zwave multiple isy994i?

[ellisr63]

I have 2 Isy994i boxes of which I am only using 1 currently. I just purchased the zwave module and a couple of zwave dimmer relays. my Isy is about 25' from the location where the zwave dimmer relay will be and about 10' from the nearest Insteon outdoor outlet. Will that be close enough for the relays or should I install the 2nd Isy and run only the zwave on it? If I install the 2nd Isy, I might be able to get the Isy about 15' away.
 
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
 

[lilyoyo1]

Your best bet is to use a single Isy and if it can't reach your zwave switches add additional zwave devices to repeat the signal. There are numerous posts on this zwave subforum detailing the need for repeaters and building a solid mesh network.

[silverton38]

The use of Multiple ISYs is something that should be added. One could be the master the other the slave. We could use this feature to control Z-wave, Insteon and Zigbee.

[paulbates]

16 minutes ago, silverton38 said:

The use of Multiple ISYs is something that should be added. One could be the master the other the slave. We could use this feature to control Z-wave, Insteon and Zigbee.

That functionality has great potential as a Nodeserver. I think the concept of master would be where a device ... Insteon, Zwave, Zigbee is actually installed, not the entire ISY. There would be a device master for each device. There's the opportunity to "kick the extra point" and support devices provided by nodeservers across ISYs.. thermostats, etc.

Alternatively, support it in the ISY Portal.

Paul

[silverton38]

The good thing for Universal Devices would be the increase in unit sales

 

[MWareman]

There was (originally) a plan to allow v5 ISY Pros to act as a NodeServer to another ISY Pro.

I wonder if that’s still in the planning stage, or if it’s somewhere buried in the beta code already....

[Michel Kohanim]

@Mwareman,

Yes, in the plan but way down there in the list.

With kind regards,
Michel

[cwolfgang]

Seems to me with the REST API you are already pretty close, if you are taking votes, I would love to see this offered. In fact I have been considering writing it myself, but I would rather it be supported.

[simplextech]

On 12/2/2018 at 12:50 AM, Michel Kohanim said:

@Mwareman,

Yes, in the plan but way down there in the list.

With kind regards,
Michel

Any news or status on having secondary/slave Z-wave controllers?  Doing this through a Nodeserver seems logical and the benefit of network attached provides the greatest flexibility.  This is completely possible as HomeSeer, Vera, Fibaro and Home Assistant have implementations of this.  Each are slightly different in implementation but the functionality is the same of goal of a single "master" with visibility of all devices from the controller to be used in programs.

Using the ISY nodeserver technique would (I think) allow the additional ISY units the ability to also have polyglot nodes attached to them as well.  I have not determined if there's any or much load put on the ISY from Polyglot nodes, but if there is then it would allow for the offloading of certain tasks to additional controllers while the nodes/devices could be visible under a global umbrella?

[Michel Kohanim]

@simplextech,

I do not think you are talking about the same things especially when you mention HS, HASSIO, Fibaro, etc. ISY already allows for Z-Wave secondary controllers and shifting primary back and forth. What MWareman was discussing is to use one ISY as a node server to another. Has nothing to do with Z-Wave.

With kind regards,
Michel

[simplextech]

7 hours ago, Michel Kohanim said:

@simplextech,

I do not think you are talking about the same things especially when you mention HS, HASSIO, Fibaro, etc. ISY already allows for Z-Wave secondary controllers and shifting primary back and forth. What MWareman was discussing is to use one ISY as a node server to another. Has nothing to do with Z-Wave.

With kind regards,
Michel

Well the NodeServer idea is similar if I'm understanding @MWareman post it would be a primary controller on it's own network but creating nodes that the "master" ISY would then "see" for status/control and programs.  This is how Vera, Fibaro, HASSIO do this.  In this regards a full z-wave stack is available on the remote system and they are independent for all purposes except one of them "slave" is sending their device information to the "master".  It's not a z-wave secondary but "virtual" devices/representations of them are visible on the master for status/control/programming.  All configuration is still local to each system.

The Z-Net method is different in that the Z-Net is a dumb box with a z-wave adapter and is running the ser2net program which exposes serial devices across the network.  HS then adds the network device to it's own z-wave configuration as another interface as if the interface were local.  This additional interface can be added as a new primary controller of it's own network or as a secondary to the existing network and a secondary inclusion controller for the existing network.  All z-wave configuration, device configuration etc is centralized to the one system running the z-wave plugin.  The rPi is a dumb box providing the z-wave interface only.

[Michel Kohanim]

@simplextech,

Thanks for the details as we never compare our features with other things out there and have never copied what others have done. 

ISY as a node server is on the list. But as I mentioned, it has very low priority.

With kind regards,

Michel

[simplextech]

1 minute ago, Michel Kohanim said:

@simplextech,

Thanks for the details as we never compare our features with other things out there and have never copied what others have done. 

ISY as a node server is on the list. But as I mentioned, it has very low priority.

With kind regards,

Michel

Not saying you should "copy" anyone.  However a large limitation with Z-wave is the number of hops for devices and how well individual devices actually implement NWI.  If the devices were all equal and followed the standards as they should then it would be possible to have a very large z-wave network where a device could be included/excluded without issue from the very farthest outreach of the network.  Yet we all know this is not possible especially with how sensors and secure devices are handled.  I get it that ISY is first and foremost an Insteon controller and a very capable one.  I'm just new to this controller but with a background in z-wave and trying to acclimate to Insteon which so far I like a lot but also again in an attempt of trying to be helpful by bringing up possibilities of enhancing the z-wave support and functionality.  

[Michel Kohanim]

@simplextech,

Thank you for the feedback and I do appreciate it very much. As Nietzsche once said: "He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying."

As I mentioned, this is on our list but low priority.

With kind regards,
Michel

[simplextech]

10 minutes ago, Michel Kohanim said:

@simplextech,

Thank you for the feedback and I do appreciate it very much. As Nietzsche once said: "He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying."

As I mentioned, this is on our list but low priority.

With kind regards,
Michel

On the list is the first step right?  Kinda like how I'm looking at my home z-wave environment deciding what to replace with Insteon... I'll just take my home stuff and add it to the lab environment   I tend to overlap the home/lab environments to get a "real world" test scenario of wife/kids screaming at me so I learn what does NOT work well together and how to then fix to provide for our integrations