2008-11-28, 20:19
waldo22 Wrote:@miamiwice,
I think I'm mis-communicating this somehow.
The only device that was serial in the past is the controlling module (X-10 firecracker for example) that you send the commands to in order to get it to relay those commands to the other modules that you want to control.
The X-10 modules don't communicate with each other using the RS-232 protocol, they use the X-10 protocol. I guess I don't understand what you mean. The only adapter that is serial (RS-232) is the one that you send commands to via your computer. I think we both understand this, right?
Again, I don't really understand what you mean. I'm sure a lot of people have serial control modules, but it's just one module, not a whole house of modules that would have to be replaced...
The Insteon 2412N that I keep mentioning uses TCP for control. (well, it uses a web page, so you send commands to it over http.)
I think we both understand that, too.
The point is that the Insteon device supports both Insteon modules AND all devices that use the older X-10 protocol.
Therefore, all you have to do is replace ONE adapter, the serial control module, with the new http Insteon module, and you're done. Now your "installed base" is http instead of serial.
I guess what I'm saying is, if your home automation uses the X-10 protocol or the Insteon protocol, you need to spend $120 and buy this adapter, and we can make it work easy as pie.
If you're concerned that the people who have serial control modules don't want to spend $120 on ONE module that could do all of this, I think you're mistaken.
It will just be too much work to control an RS-232 controller via a computer when all you have to do is send http data to this new device, and you have backwards compatibility with all of your old X-10 devices.
-Wes
I understand totally what youre saying, i know all you have to do is replace the serial with a tcp module. But there are more than just x10. X10 is an older technology. There are newer powerline technologies available, such as UPB thats WAY more reliable and has a stronger signal. When implementing whole house lighting control, almost every house has a place or 2 x10 wont make it to. There are others also. I know in several houses where x10 wouldnt work on several lights and outlets, even when using phase couplers, and trying to rewire the switches, etc. so UPB switches were put in and worked flawlessly. I was just thinking of having the option for every available lighting control technology out there. I agree the insteon should be supported, tcp is the way to go, , and everything will use tcp modules in the future, but most people that use lighting control in a whole house way has some sort of home automation system controlling it. Unless its a fairly new system, it wont have the tcp communications. Personally for me tcp is fine, and thats what i use. I just said it thought it would be nice to use serial also, as to be backwards compatible with the largest install base out there. Open it up for more folks. also with serial there are many tvs, AV receivers, video matrix switches out there that take serial commands only. If it sent a serial string out, you could have it turn on your tv, set it to the right input, turn on your receiver to the right input when you send a play command. Just my 2 cents. I know its hard and probably wont happen, but it would be nice to have. I hope the insteon things gets worked out soon, im looking orward to that.
), but it's actually really fast !