Device group?

[simplextech]

To start I'm not referring to "group devices" functionality of grouping devices in the AC.  I'm trying to see if there's a way to create a group of devices like a "scene" but more of a group of controllers.

Today in a program I do (pseudo code):

If dev1 is switched On
  or dev2
     dev3
     dev4
Then
  turn on deck lights

I'm curious if there's any way to create a group of devices like a scene where if any device in that group is switched on then the program will execute?  As these are door sensors I don't want them as controllers in a scene that would turn on/off the lights with the doors opening/closing.

[jec6613]

I create a scene with just the controllers, assuming the sensors aren't controllers for another scene. 

Another alternative is to have one program with the sensors and OR statements, then reference it from other programs with an "If True" or park the state in a state variable set to 1 or 0.

Edit: one other thing I've done is if the sensors support split nodes for On and Off, just link the On nodes to the scene, then have the off part in a program.

[lilyoyo1]

6 hours ago, simplextech said:

To start I'm not referring to "group devices" functionality of grouping devices in the AC.  I'm trying to see if there's a way to create a group of devices like a "scene" but more of a group of controllers.

Today in a program I do (pseudo code):

If dev1 is switched On
  or dev2
     dev3
     dev4
Then
  turn on deck lights

I'm curious if there's any way to create a group of devices like a scene where if any device in that group is switched on then the program will execute?  As these are door sensors I don't want them as controllers in a scene that would turn on/off the lights with the doors opening/closing.

There isn't a way to do what you want to do. The program you wrote is the way I accomplish what what you're doing.

Generally speaking, when it comes to sensors, I do off commands in a separate program to allow for more freedom. 

[larryllix]

2 hours ago, lilyoyo1 said:

There isn't a way to do what you want to do. The program you wrote is the way I accomplish what what you're doing.

Generally speaking, when it comes to sensors, I do off commands in a separate program to allow for more freedom. 

It seems that Insteon is still designed around the technique of devices creating their own links without any common controller.
On that note, I don't know how a device would "tap into" an existing scene as a controller, using simple taps on a single pushbutton. 
Insteon has never seemed to recognise ISY (or their own Hub) as tools or even existing.

[simplextech]

Thanks all.  I didn't think I was missing the option but I wanted to ask and see.  A dynamic grouping or "container" for things is a nice to have but not really a requirement.

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, larryllix said:

It seems that Insteon is still designed around the technique of devices creating their own links without any common controller.
On that note, I don't know how a device would "tap into" an existing scene as a controller, using simple taps on a single pushbutton. 
Insteon has never seemed to recognise ISY (or their own Hub) as tools or even existing.

It is designed around that premise and I like it that way. Wouldn't change it one bit. I like having the peace of mind knowing should the isy fail, the important stuff will still work. I also think their design allows for much greater flexibility as it's not tied as closely to a controller.

[larryllix]

3 hours ago, lilyoyo1 said:

It is designed around that premise and I like it that way. Wouldn't change it one bit. I like having the peace of mind knowing should the isy fail, the important stuff will still work. I also think their design allows for much greater flexibility as it's not tied as closely to a controller.

I agree tha Insteon created a good technology for just that reason but... They are missing some newer idea capabilities by not..

• creating smart setup applications
• installing a second linking pushbutton
• finding a double tap technique using existing PB
• adding voice recognition for advanced features
• installing a magnetic sensing switch (most smart meters have one)
• etc.. etc..

So that they can support more advanced techniques like.....allowing a device to be involved in multiple controller scenes.

I would trade Insteon for the world after seeing all the horn tooting about all the other wonderful, kick-***, new protocols that fill the forums with "How come this doesn't work?", two years after their grandstanding release subsides.

ZigBee is the latest and greatest, but people actually living it, constantly tell the public how "it is gonna''". I think it may give Insteon a run for it's money maybe in 5-10 years.

Zwave is RF only and I just don't ever see RF only working properly inside any metal box, including a receptacle box.I have a completely metal coated workshop outbuilding = total radio silence there.  I remember a guy here updating his parents pool control from X10 to Insteon and wondering why it totally flopped. Consisted of about 5-6 Insteon modules inside a 12 x 18 metal enclosure with all the standing waves one could generate almost destroying all their RF transmitters.  Note the 1 x 1.5 size ratio?  At least now most Insteon modules allow their RF to be disabled and work on powerline only.

In short, All protocols have their individual problems and lack of real userbase experience is what sells most of the new ones.
 

I am sticking with Insteon. Yes, I think they are antiquated in places, and very behind in their paying the Chinese creators to design better things for them, but the best I have heard of, by experienced non-vending users, so far.

[lilyoyo1]

1 hour ago, larryllix said:

I agree tha Insteon created a good technology for just that reason but... They are missing some newer idea capabilities by not..

• creating smart setup applications
• installing a second linking pushbutton
• finding a double tap technique using existing PB
• adding voice recognition for advanced features
• installing a magnetic sensing switch (most smart meters have one)
• etc.. etc..

So that they can support more advanced techniques like.....allowing a device to be involved in multiple controller scenes.

I would trade Insteon for the world after seeing all the horn tooting about all the other wonderful, kick-***, new protocols that fill the forums with "How come this doesn't work?", two years after their grandstanding release subsides.

ZigBee is the latest and greatest, but people actually living it, constantly tell the public how "it is gonna''". I think it may give Insteon a run for it's money maybe in 5-10 years.

Zwave is RF only and I just don't ever see RF only working properly inside any metal box, including a receptacle box.I have a completely metal coated workshop outbuilding = total radio silence there.  I remember a guy here updating his parents pool control from X10 to Insteon and wondering why it totally flopped. Consisted of about 5-6 Insteon modules inside a 12 x 18 metal enclosure with all the standing waves one could generate almost destroying all their RF transmitters.  Note the 1 x 1.5 size ratio?  At least now most Insteon modules allow their RF to be disabled and work on powerline only.

In short, All protocols have their individual problems and lack of real userbase experience is what sells most of the new ones.
 

I am sticking with Insteon. Yes, I think they are antiquated in places, and very behind in their paying the Chinese creators to design better things for them, but the best I have heard of, by experienced non-vending users, so far.

All that sounds good but my concern is at what price???!!! As I've said many times, it's a race to the bottom in regards to pricing. Are people going to want to pay for what a switch would cost especially if they don't use those features. 

Even still, once you get beyond pricing, overly complicating a switch is just as bad as a featureless device. Take voice recognition. It's easier to program from the isy multiple devices vs 1 device at a time. Not only that, Multi billion dollar companies with the infrastructure to handle it still struggle to get things right. Can you imagine how bad it would be with a small company. 

[asbril]

1 hour ago, larryllix said:

very behind in their paying the Chinese creators to design better

I think that you hit the Insteon nail on the head with this comment.  Though I have gone Zwave all the way (after disliking the PLM setup of Insteon) I read about where Insteon outperforms Zwave and understand why some stick to Insteon.  But I rarely see new Insteon products or innovation, and unless a Google, Amazon or equivalent puts its money behind Insteon, by acquiring it, Insteon is bound to fade away with the honorable faithful sticking  with it till the end.

That is why I would not recommend a newbie to focus on Insteon. The more intriguing question is Zigbee vs Zwave, and what else is still behind the horizon. Surprisingly I have seen no traction of Apple's Homekit.  Alexa and Google Home, at least for time being, largely focus on their hub capabilities working with 3rd party devices, with the exception of Google's  Nest family.

Having gone Zwave all the way, but making good use of ISY's Nodeservers, I also keep my eyes and ears open for what lies ahead. One of the reasons that I still favor Zwave is the Zwave Alliance's insistence on uniformity and innovation, Series 500 and now Series 700. However I will not make a bet on whether 3-5 years from now Zwave will still be my preference.

[simplextech]

3 minutes ago, asbril said:

Though I have gone Zwave all the way (after disliking the PLM setup of Insteon) I read about where Insteon outperforms Zwave and understand why some stick to Insteon.

There's no difference in rational behind the PLM or Z-Wave/ZigBee controller.  Quality of the PLM components has been an issue and the same issues has occurred through many vendors of Z-Wave controllers and now ZigBee.

5 minutes ago, asbril said:

The more intriguing question is Zigbee vs Zwave, and what else is still behind the horizon.

They have nothing beyond the horizon.  Z-Wave is still the slowest of the protocols and locked into RF frequencies based on world region.  This RF lock-in gave rise to ZigBee being on the 2.4Ghz (wifi) spectrum to be a worldwide success and problem.  The origin of ZigBee are from commercial applications for sensors and yes ZigBee kicks A$$ for sensors and the speed of reporting and battery life.  The newer applications for lamps with ZLL is also very good because of the speed of the protocol which is why Hue has made it big and others are following.  The "new" ZigBee in power meters and such is actually OLD but is new "news" to people getting involved in "Smart Home" tech.  What are they going to do make a "new" switch or dimmer or contact sensor, motion sensor?  That does what?  they have temp/humidity/lux etc combos... is it going to have a speaker like the Sengeled lamps?  And do what?  Tell you the light is on?

10 minutes ago, asbril said:

One of the reasons that I still favor Zwave is the Zwave Alliance's insistence on uniformity and innovation, Series 500 and now Series 700.

As a Z-Wave Alliance member... well I'm questioning renewing this year.  The so called uniformity and innovation doesn't exist in reality only on paper.  Why would a device that is "certified" work great on one system and not function well on another if there are standards and uniformity?  The purpose of a standard is to define functionality to ensure compatibility and functionality of features across all certified hardware and controllers.  This reality does not exist and never has.  It all sounds good on paper though!  One issue here is a enforcement problem of the standards but it's hard to have thousands of devices in your marketing list if they all were actually functional and would inter-operate correctly.  I'm not knocking on ISY but I have certified Z-Wave Plus devices that don't function properly.  Who's fault is this?  The controller or the device?  BOTH are certified... so who's at fault of the problem?

 

[asbril]

1 minute ago, simplextech said:

As a Z-Wave Alliance member... well I'm questioning renewing this year.  The so called uniformity and innovation doesn't exist in reality only on paper.  Why would a device that is "certified" work great on one system and not function well on another if there are standards and uniformity?  The purpose of a standard is to define functionality to ensure compatibility and functionality of features across all certified hardware and controllers.  This reality does not exist and never has.  It all sounds good on paper though!  One issue here is a enforcement problem of the standards but it's hard to have thousands of devices in your marketing list if they all were actually functional and would inter-operate correctly.  I'm not knocking on ISY but I have certified Z-Wave Plus devices that don't function properly.  Who's fault is this?  The controller or the device?  BOTH are certified... so who's at fault of the problem?

Interesting and worthwhile perspective. Did this come up in your discussions as member of the ZWave Alliance ?

[jec6613]

9 minutes ago, asbril said:

But I rarely see new Insteon products or innovation

...

One of the reasons that I still favor Zwave is the Zwave Alliance's insistence on uniformity and innovation, Series 500 and now Series 700. However I will not make a bet on whether 3-5 years from now Zwave will still be my preference.

The counter-argument to this of course is: what's really innovative out of Z-Wave that Insteon doesn't have already?  About the only things I've seen are the Aeotec Wall Swipe and various sensors that offer more capability, but Z-Wave is seriously behind in a lot of areas.  And the 240V load controllers and door lock controller that are now discontinued, of course.

Insteon has both 2-wire and 3-wire dimmers, relays capable of 20A operation, both paddle and toggle style switches, DIN rail, micro modules, and in-line modules, all capable of true N-way operation.  Think about that list for a second ... no Z-Wave manufacturer comes close.  Even putting two or three together, Z-Wave is still behind, and some functions simply don't exist with Z-Wave at all.

And that's not even considering the device limit.  I have 214 Insteon devices, not counting the Z-Wave I have as well.  That's far too many for a Z-Wave network to support without significant congestion.

[jec6613]

Aside: one thing I'd like either Insteon or a Z-Wave vendor to make is an ELV capable dimmer.  The Lutron PD-5NE is the only DIY smart device on the market right now, and though it would be expensive, I'd purchase the heck out of an Insteon version of it.

[simplextech]

9 minutes ago, asbril said:

Interesting and worthwhile perspective. Did this come up in your discussions as member of the ZWave Alliance ?

It falls on deaf ears....

[simplextech]

7 minutes ago, jec6613 said:

Aside: one thing I'd like either Insteon or a Z-Wave vendor to make is an ELV capable dimmer.  The Lutron PD-5NE is the only DIY smart device on the market right now, and though it would be expensive, I'd purchase the heck out of an Insteon version of it.

Although not Insteon you can get UPB ELV dimmers....

http://www.pcslighting.com/pulseworx/products/load-controls/dimmers-switches/ws1e

 

[lilyoyo1]

39 minutes ago, jec6613 said:

The counter-argument to this of course is: what's really innovative out of Z-Wave that Insteon doesn't have already?  About the only things I've seen are the Aeotec Wall Swipe and various sensors that offer more capability, but Z-Wave is seriously behind in a lot of areas.  And the 240V load controllers and door lock controller that are now discontinued, of course.

Insteon has both 2-wire and 3-wire dimmers, relays capable of 20A operation, both paddle and toggle style switches, DIN rail, micro modules, and in-line modules, all capable of true N-way operation.  Think about that list for a second ... no Z-Wave manufacturer comes close.  Even putting two or three together, Z-Wave is still behind, and some functions simply don't exist with Z-Wave at all.

And that's not even considering the device limit.  I have 214 Insteon devices, not counting the Z-Wave I have as well.  That's far too many for a Z-Wave network to support without significant congestion.

I say the same thing all the time. It's easy to look innovative when your playing catch up. With the multitude of companies making zwave products you're bound to find more products out there than Insteon. With that said, real world use (overall), Insteon is equal or ahead of anything zwave. 

There are also more product types with zwave. Even then, I question how good they really are. Aeotec has strip lights and fibaro has their rgbw controller. Neither one comes close to anything else commercially available. Especially if using multiples together in proximity. I would take hue or lifx any day over both.

Same thing comes down to thermostas. The zwave thermostat is better than insteon's. Much better. Yet when it comes down to it, there are still better alternatives out there.