Insteon Review
Dave Houston
modules) on loan from a Home Automation dealer. I set it up a few days ago
and will test it over the next couple of weeks, posting a review here and
adding to it as the test progresses. A final review will be published on my
web page.
My residence is not particularly friendly to either PLC or RF. The building
dates from the 1950's. It has a brick exterior with plaster on all interior
walls and ceilings. There's a lot of wire lathe. It has hot water heat with
large metal radiator covers in each room. Initially, the main floor had two
apartments. At some point they were combined into one large apartment (3BR,
2 Baths, WBFP, formal DR, eat-in kitchen, walk-in pantry) and there are
still two electric meters with no communication between the two sections.
With X-10, I've used two transceivers to reach both sections and use a
Pronto (converted to send 310MHz RF), palmpads and stick-a-switches to
control things. Since Insteon takes more or less the same basic approach,
this should provide a good test bed.
Initial Tidbits:
My (pre-ELK) ESM1 shows the 131.65KHz Insteon PLC signal. I'm not sure
whether it gives an accurate reading of the amplitude as it's nearly always
fullscale. Of course, there's no way to determine whether the signal is good
or bad but it does provide a quick confirmation that Insteon is putting
something on the line. When the signal is sent to the local phase (i.e.
local to the tabletop controller) the signal lasts only half as long as when
it's sent to the other phase so it's obvious that the second RF link repeats
the signal after the initial signal completes. The signals seem to be
somewhat slower and to last much longer than the specs would indicate. Later
I'll put my scope on the powerline to get some screenshots of the actual
signals.
Unfortunately, I do not have an RF receiver module for the frequency range
they use.
Personally, I find the bright bluish-white LEDs annoying - they are too
bright. YMMV.
I also find the "beeps" whenever a button is pressed annoying. If I were
planning to use this permanently, I'd have already put my wire-cutters to
work. ;)
Dave Houston
hands on experience with Insteon.
It is possible to set an Insteon lamp dimmer module to respond both to
Insteon _AND_ X-10. This wasn't clear from the online documention.
This means the lamp can be controlled by the Insteon tabletop controller (in
Insteon mode) as well as by a palmpad + transceiver (or any other X-10
controller).
Dave Houston
screenschots at http://www.mbx-usa.com/insteon.htm.
RF Dude
I received the Insteon starter kit too. Have a few Smarthome and X10
products in the house including their KeyPadLinc, and active booster/coupler
that plugs into the dryer outlet. The later works in compliment with the
Insteon RF repeater/coupler which is active ONLY on Insteon. The X10
booster on the dryer plug must remain for repeating X10 signals.
The tabletop controller has a neat feature where it blinks the white LED
very brightly when receiving X-10 or Insteon confirmation of a command. It
does not blink if X10 activity is initiated elsewhere.
The response time is much better than X10.
I'm waiting for the new Insteon enabled PowerLinc and Keypadlinc which will
make better use of the Insteon 2 way functions and inherent reliability. The
present suite of Insteon offerings is still basic. Nice, but no big deal.
RF Dude
Dave Houston
seconds response time vs. 0.6 seconds for X-10 but I really cannot see much
difference between pushing a button on the tabletop controller and pushing a
button on something like my mini-timer. Most X-10 modules will respond to
the first copy of the X-10 code which takes 11/60 (0.183) seconds to
traverse the powerline. IOW, I think most of the speed claims made by
Insteon (and UPB) are bogus.
I find RF range to be abysmal (~20 feet). That's not a problem where only
the two SignaLinc RF modules are used to bridge the phases since most people
will be able to find opposite phase outlets that are within range but it may
mean you'll need a lot of the RF modules once they have RF remotes (which I
assume are coming).
It's disappointing that they didn't design the RF units to act as an X-10
bridge but I can understand why - it would really complicate things. The PLC
protocols are just too different and the RF frequencies are also different.
Still, in my limited testing, I'm impressed. The interoperability with X-10
is a big plus although the fact that the more Insteon units one has (all are
two-way) the more the X-10 signal will be attenuated, tends to negate that.
Given the terms of the Insteon SDK license, I did not buy it. I would have
liked to use the PC interface to create some more rigorous tests but the
license would prevent me from publishing any results. :(
So far, the reliability has been 100% with no missed signals. Interestingly,
things like the CM11A, CM15A and RR501 will sense collisions with the
Insteon PLC signal. I will try to devise a way to test how Insteon fares in
a noisy environment.
In the past, I have not been impressed with SmartHome's engineering
capability. Somewhere, I think in one of their many press releases but I
can't find it now, I read the name of the engineer who headed up the Insteon
design effort. It was not a familiar name so I suspect they brought in
someone new for this.
RF Dude
You can try to do various tests, see how fast Insteon compares with X10 over
a bridge, etc. But from a purely subjective perspective, Insteon seems a
lot faster than X10. Under ideal conditions, I can press a button on my
palm pad and have the outdoor motion on 0.6 seconds later. Realistically,
some devices take longer if they are on the other 120V leg of the house and
have to wait for the repeater to do its thing.... or not work at all if
there is interference. For instance, it took three ATX power supplies on my
old computer before I found one that didn't cause interference. How about
coming home and finding a light turned on for no apparent reason... in the
middle of the day. So I got into the 2-way stuff. I noticed that it takes
my KeyPadlinc almost 1 second to turn on a Switchlinc Relay, the LED gets
the status back about 2 seconds from the initial key press and keeps
flashing for 3.5 seconds after key press until the active repeater finishes
doing its thing. Thats a lot of slow data moving around on my power lines.
I programmed one key on the Insteon Tabletop controller to send both an
Insteon command and an X10 command. Why? A larger room with table and wall
lamps all controlled together. Really neat! Press the button to turn on
the lights and the Insteon LightLinc is very quick (like you say, 0.2
seconds) followed by the X10 wall switch/lamp shortly thereafter.
Insteon will likely shine when applied to macro's or automation. While on a
one for one command, the difference isn't big, delay would grow significant
with X10 if trying to do a series of commands in rapid succession. Now add
2-way and it is no contest in favour of Insteon.
I opened up one of the units. Quality looks an order of magnitude better
than X10.
So I have expectations for a Insteon version of the PowerLinc, and
KeyPadLinc followed later by other useful modules. When more gadgets are
available, the power of Insteon will be much more useful. Until the new
products come, I agree that the differences aren't too exciting.
Keep testing and let us know what you find.
RF Dude
Dave Houston
>I programmed one key on the Insteon Tabletop controller to send both an
>Insteon command and an X10 command. Why? A larger room with table and wall
>lamps all controlled together. Really neat! Press the button to turn on
>the lights and the Insteon LightLinc is very quick (like you say, 0.2
>seconds) followed by the X10 wall switch/lamp shortly thereafter.
I had also made that same setup but I can see no difference in the time it
takes the lamps to turn on and off. That may be because the Insteon lamp is
on the opposite phase. I'll try later with both on the same phase.
>I opened up one of the units. Quality looks an order of magnitude better
>than X10.
I'm sorry but there is no way to make that comparison by just looking at the
insides of the module. All of the SmartHome devices are of more recent
design than are the X-10 devices but the fact that they use SMD components
and look prettier doesn't necessarily translate into better. I bought a very
early PowerLinc - it had design flaws. I bought one of the first two-way
LampLinc modules - it had design flaws.
>So I have expectations for a Insteon version of the PowerLinc, and
>KeyPadLinc followed later by other useful modules. When more gadgets are
>available, the power of Insteon will be much more useful. Until the new
>products come, I agree that the differences aren't too exciting.
The SDK already includes a PowerLinc.
I'm impressed with the concept and, so far, with the execution but am still
leery because SmartHome has such a poor track record. I also do not have
problems with X-10 but do understand that others would probably prefer
something that is more reliable (in their view) and easier to install so I
hope that Insteon will succeed. The prices are attractive.
br...@nobody.com
copies) to be sent totaling 44 cycles. The soonest an x-10 module
will respond will be the first command message which is 33/60 of a
second (0.55 seconds). The soonest INSTEON will respond is after the
first complete message which is 5 zero crossings or 5/120 of a second
(0.042 seconds). 0.2 seconds is actually a very conservative
estimate. If the INSTEON device doesn't hear the message until it has
been relayed 3 times (the maximum number of 'hops'), it will respond
in 0.2 seconds. To truly evaluate the response times of the system,
make sure the fade rate is set as fast as possible. As a dimmer fades
up, the lamp is usually not visible until the level reaches 15 or 20
percent. A slow dim rate would add a significant delay to the
perceived response. Better yet, use appliance modules; you can hear
the click of the relays and instantly determine the response.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:08:12 GMT, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston)
wrote:
Dave Houston
the module was set for the fastest ramp rate. I still see no big difference
between the time that an Insteon lamp turns on from the tabletop controller
and an X-10 lamp turns on from a mini-timer button. Insteon is marginally
faster but it's really not all that obvious to an uncalibrated eyeball.
I have explored a bit more. If the Insteon controller does not receive an
ACK from the Insteon module, it will resend the command several times. The
documentation says up to five and it looks like it's about that long using
the ESM1. I don't know whether the number of retries is a user setting. The
LED on the controller flashes rapidly for several seconds after such a
missed command. I tested across phases by unplugging the target module. The
result gives a rough indication of PLC signal reliability and I think the
PLC signal reliability will prove to be very good since it's two-way with
ACK/NAK. Only experience will tell whether the hardware/firmware reliability
will be as good.
BTW, it's possible to disable the controller's "beeps" and even the LEDs on
the modules. It's amazing what one can learn from reading the manual. ;)
I have one of the RF links near a CRT type monitor. It's LED flickers
faintly constantly. The LEDs on other RF module and lamp module on that same
phase are steady except for occasional brief flickers off (once or twice per
minute). This reminds me of the flaw in the X-10 protocol LampLinc two-way
module where the LED would flicker at random and the module would go deaf to
the powerline.
The LED on the other lamp module is rock steady except it will also flicker
off briefly. When it does, I see a brief flash of the ESM1. It's shorter
than the normal Insteon messages. I do not know whether its noise or some
brief housekeeping signal from the module or controller. Tomorrow I'll move
the ESM1 to the other phase to see if there's similar activity when the LED
flickers.
Troubleshooting when problems do arise may be difficult. The ESM1 will
indicate PLC signal presence but when it's absent, finding the cause may
require dedicated test gear to measure/analyze PLC and RF signals.
Betaatsmar...@smarthome.us
>Given the terms of the Insteon SDK license, I did not buy it. I would have
>liked to use the PC interface to create some more rigorous tests but the
>license would prevent me from publishing any results. :(
The license terms of the SDK does not prevent one from publishing their
results, findings, or efforts with the SDK kit. Try it, use it, talk
about it.
The only restrictions are on the publishing for sale software developed
with the aid of the kit. Smarthome has made a short FAQ about this
subject....
Will I be able to sell the product(s) I develop with the developer's
kit?
Yes, you will be able to sell your software product(s) developed from
the INSTEON software Developers kit. Prior to offering for sale, you
must submit the product to Smarthome for INSTEON compatibility testing
and INSTEON certification. This is a free sevice that Smarthome
provide to insure the software complies with proper Instoen protocals.
Once you are at a stage where the product can be tested contact Bob
Cusey (bobs email goes here).
How do I sell my software or hardware I created using the developer's
kits?
Once the product passes compatibility testing, you sell the software
and/or hardware through any distribution channels. Additionally, the
product may also be submitted to Smarthome category managers for
consideration to distribute through Smarthome web and catalog channels.
Dave Houston
>Dave Houston wrote:
>>Given the terms of the Insteon SDK license, I did not buy it. I would have
>>liked to use the PC interface to create some more rigorous tests but the
>>license would prevent me from publishing any results. :(
>
>The license terms of the SDK does not prevent one from publishing their
>results, findings, or efforts with the SDK kit. Try it, use it, talk
>about it.
The hell it doesn't.
<quote>
3. CONFIDENTIALITY. The Kit and all related information are confidential
and proprietary to SMARTHOME. You agree not to disclose any information
relating to the Kit (including without limitation the results of use or
testing) to any third party without SMARTHOME?s prior written permission.
Unauthorized use or disclosure of such information would cause irreparable
harm and significant injury to SMARTHOME that would be difficult to
ascertain or quantify; accordingly you agree that SMARTHOME shall have the
right to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief to enforce the terms of
this Agreement without limiting any other rights or remedies.
</quote>
The above is a direct quote from the license and would appear to be legally
binding whereas the postings here or elsewhere of some anonymous person who
claims to represent SmartHome and who may or may not be authorized to speak
for SmartHome on this topic are not.
If you really mean it, change the terms of the license to allow
dissemination of test results.
>The only restrictions are on the publishing for sale software developed
>with the aid of the kit. Smarthome has made a short FAQ about this
>subject....
>
>Will I be able to sell the product(s) I develop with the developer's
>kit?
>
>Yes, you will be able to sell your software product(s) developed from
>the INSTEON software Developers kit. Prior to offering for sale, you
>must submit the product to Smarthome for INSTEON compatibility testing
>and INSTEON certification. This is a free sevice that Smarthome
>provide to insure the software complies with proper Instoen protocals.
>Once you are at a stage where the product can be tested contact Bob
>Cusey (bobs email goes here).
>
>
>How do I sell my software or hardware I created using the developer's
>kits?
>
>Once the product passes compatibility testing, you sell the software
>and/or hardware through any distribution channels. Additionally, the
>product may also be submitted to Smarthome category managers for
>consideration to distribute through Smarthome web and catalog channels.
Who, in their right mind, would spend weeks or months developing and testing
application software or Insteon hardware when you will have the right to
prohibit them from selling it?
I would assume that since you've designed the hardware and API that it would
be nearly impossible to create anything that was incompatible.
So far, I like the Insteon technology. It appears to work as advertised. But
I won't buy the SDK or waste my time developing anything under the terms of
your license. I doubt that anyone who consults their attorney will do so
either.
Dave Houston
flickering LED is no longer flickering. The one that was stable is now
flickering. So there is some environmental cause. I suspect some noise
source on the phase with the flickering LED. I'll try to isolate the source
later. It may be the pulses from an unknown source I've shown in the
screenshots at www.mbx-usa.com/insteon.htm which although present on the
other phase are very low amplitude or it might be noise from an ATX power
supply that's on the phase where the rapid flickring occurs.
Interestingly, while testing that all modules still worked, I saw my first
"missed" command. The module on the phase opposite the controller took a few
seconds to respond to an OFF command. The LED on the controller flashed
on/off for several seconds as it does when the target module is unplugged.
Note that the module did respond after a longer than normal delay - it
apparently sent a NAK (or failed to send an ACK) and the controller tried
again. I am more and more impressed with the Insteon technology.
I also moved the ESM1 to the other phase. It shows brief activity when the
LED blinks off periodically. The time between these events varies from 10 to
30 seconds. The powerline activity is not present if the RF unit is
unplugged so I speculate that it's either some Insteon housekeeping message
or maybe some other 900MHz device in the neighborhood. In a mixed
environment it presents a potential for collisions with X-10 PLC signals.
Dave Houston
into the same circuit as the RF unit. When the PC is off, the flickering
stops.
George Pontis
> ...
> With X-10, I've used two transceivers to reach both sections and use a
> Pronto (converted to send 310MHz RF), palmpads and stick-a-switches to
> control things. Since Insteon takes more or less the same basic approach,
> this should provide a good test bed.
>
It would be interesting to learn how Insteon performs in a purely X10 environment.
Perhaps they have a better X10 implementation than many of the existing X10
products, and would be attractive even for those with primarily X10 controllers.
Dave Houston
Except that the RF units intended as phase couplers do not repeat X-10 nor
do the individual Insteon modules. I don't know the capabilities of the
Insteon PowerLinc unit (now available only with their SDK) - it may or may
not send/receive X-10.
Historically (e.g. SwitchLinc, PowerLinc, LampLinc, BoosterLinc), SmartHome
has not done a good job with X-10. I doubt that will change in their Insteon
devices. After all they want to switch the market to Insteon. I think
Insteon will be able to coexist with a limited number of X-10 devices but
the more Insteon devices installed, the more trouble you will have with any
remaining X-10 devices.
Insteon devices, being two-way, attenuate the X-10 signal so you may need
their BoosterLinc to compensate. You will need an X-10 phase coupler.
The Insteon specs and concept look very good. My trepidation is solely
because it comes from SmartHome and I have little regard for their
engineering prowess as demonstrated for the past several years. I suspect
that Insteon came from different roots.
I still want to try to generate some noise on the powerline to see how
Insteon handles that but so far, in my rather limited tests, Insteon looks
very good. Those who have troubles with X-10 might want to consider it. My
X-10 set up is reliable so I have no reason to switch. If I were starting
anew, I'd look hard at Insteon.
Now, if they were smart, they'd create a 418MHz RF to Insteon bridge and
publish the protocol so that Pronto owners could control it wirelessly. I
don't think they're smart. :(
Dave Houston
I have now seen a few complete failures - cases where the target module
never responded and the controller LED flashed for several seconds. There
have been several other cases where the target responded but only after 3-4
seconds.
The ESM1 was plugged into the target circuit and it showed nothing during
the failures which was an indication that the RF link wasn't working. It
turned out that I had repositioned one unit (to avoid the bright LED which
really is annoying when looked at head-on) and had the antennas oriented
badly but this is with the RF units only 8' apart. I think this will be
tough to troubleshoot without dedicated diagnostic tools to indicate both RF
and PLC activity. In fairness, in a permanent installation the antenna
orientation is unlikely to change - but I suggest the RF units be within a
few feet of each other. And, it may well be that they have diagnostics in
the firmware that can only be triggered by a PC interface.
My test setup is less than ideal as the only way I have to send a signal is
by pressing buttons on the tabletop controller. I could devise more rigorous
and automated tests with a PC interface to send/receive and with a 900MHz RF
receiver to indicate whether a failure was related to RF or PLC. But then I
would be the only one to ever know the results given their license terms. :(
Over the week-end I will try to come up with a way to generate some noise on
the powerline and see how the system handles that. Then, I'll be returning
the kit to the dealer who loaned it to me.
Robert Green
news:42eb3351...@nntp.fuse.net...
Does filtering the PC with an X-10 filter help at all? I assume that if the
transmissions show up as noise on the ESM-1 that an X-10 filter might have
some effect.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
It doesn't show up on the ESM1 nor can I see anything on the scope. That may
be because it's outside the passband of the ESM1 and of the ACT Scope-Test2.
Anyway, I only have one X-10 filter and it's on my VCR. I'd have to
reprogram it if I stole the filter. ;)
Dave Houston
(~45mV) 131.7kHz CW signal does not hinder Insteon operation but a higher
level might.
All in all I'm impressed with Insteon and think it is worth consideration
with two caveats.
One: The weakest point is the 900MHz RF links which serve as a phase
bridge. They need to be fairly close together and are subject to
interference from other 900MHz devices.
Two: SmartHome has a poor track record so other flaws may appear under more
intensive use.
The two-way protocl is reliable (subject to caveat one) and reliability
should get better as modules are added since each module acts as a PLC
repeater.
Signal suckers will still require filters. Noise sources may not be as much
of a problem as they are for X-10.
The initial price point is competitive with X-10. If that remains true as
they expand the number of modules and devices I think it has a chance to
displace X-10.
Ralph
We're having the same issues with this license as Dave Houston, in
particular the actual license is much more restrictive than the quoted
paragraph:
<<
The distribution and commercialization of any INSTEON logo
enabled/compatible applications and/or products developed by you will be
required to pass certification testing and be subject to the terms of a
separately executed agreement between you and SMARTHOME.
>>
This is saying that applications to be sold must be according to the
terms of an agreement that Smarthome writes, otherwise you cannot sell
them with the Insteon label, or maybe at all. So what's to prevent
Smarthome from charging a substantial license fee for every copy sold?
This is really completely open ended.
We have no problem with a compatibility suite test, but aren't quite
ready to sign a blank check.
Ralph
interference. I had exactly that problem and changed the "channel" on
the interfering equipment and now have no RF issues. It's a design error
that Insteon can't change it's frequency or do spread spectrum. OTOH, it
seems to me that the whole RF coupling is not a big deal, why not just
use a wired bridge?
Dave Houston
>Dave Houston wrote:
>> The ESM1 was plugged into the target circuit and it showed nothing during
>> the failures which was an indication that the RF link wasn't working. It
>> turned out that I had repositioned one unit (to avoid the bright LED which
>> really is annoying when looked at head-on) and had the antennas oriented
>> badly but this is with the RF units only 8' apart. I think this will be
>> tough to troubleshoot without dedicated diagnostic tools to indicate both RF
>> and PLC activity. In fairness, in a permanent installation the antenna
>> orientation is unlikely to change - but I suggest the RF units be within a
>> few feet of each other. And, it may well be that they have diagnostics in
>> the firmware that can only be triggered by a PC interface.
>
>If your RF range is only a few feet, you've probably got some 900MHz
>interference. I had exactly that problem and changed the "channel" on
>the interfering equipment and now have no RF issues. It's a design error
>that Insteon can't change it's frequency or do spread spectrum. OTOH, it
>seems to me that the whole RF coupling is not a big deal, why not just
>use a wired bridge?
Ralph,
In my case I think it was just the way I had the antennas (mis)aligned and
the generally RF unfriendly walls and ceilings (lots of wire lathe). While I
concluded that the RF bridge is the weakest link, I suspect it will be OK
for most people (excluding other 904MHz devices).
If you've read the other installments of my running review, you've found
that my overall assessment is positive as regards the technical issues. I
like the Insteon concept and expect it will prove to be robust. As you know,
I have the same qualms as you about the terms of the license for the SDK. If
they weren't so bad, I might buy it and develop an RF to Insteon bridge so
that palmpads and Prontos could control the Insteon modules.
Dave Houston
[snip]
>If your RF range is only a few feet, you've probably got some 900MHz
>interference. I had exactly that problem and changed the "channel" on
>the interfering equipment and now have no RF issues. It's a design error
>that Insteon can't change it's frequency or do spread spectrum. OTOH, it
>seems to me that the whole RF coupling is not a big deal, why not just
>use a wired bridge?
I didn't see your last sentence the first time around.
I suspect the RF coupling serves two purposes. One is it lets them call it
dual band and infers that its better than Z-Wave, Zigbee, or X-10 which are
single band. The other is that its probably easier to manage the phase
coupling/repeating this way given that individual units all repeat signals,
too. Dan Boone (Ocelot, etc.) told me that incidental coupling between
phases made powerline CE-Bus unworkable.
The documentation that SmartHome released yesterday is helpful. It verifies
several things which I had inferred from my experiments with the starter
kit, answers a few questions I still had (e.g. max repeats) and gives a
fairly good overview of the system. Despite the marketing hype, it appears
that the RF is intended only as a phase bridge/repeater or as RF-only input
devices (i.e. remotes). I think the typical castle being built these days
will require multiple RF receivers to overcome range limitations.
Dave Houston
>We're having the same issues with this license as Dave Houston, in
>particular the actual license is much more restrictive than the quoted
>paragraph:
>
><<
>The distribution and commercialization of any INSTEON logo
>enabled/compatible applications and/or products developed by you will be
>required to pass certification testing and be subject to the terms of a
>separately executed agreement between you and SMARTHOME.
> >>
>
>This is saying that applications to be sold must be according to the
>terms of an agreement that Smarthome writes, otherwise you cannot sell
>them with the Insteon label, or maybe at all. So what's to prevent
>Smarthome from charging a substantial license fee for every copy sold?
>This is really completely open ended.
>
>We have no problem with a compatibility suite test, but aren't quite
>ready to sign a blank check.
Ralph,
Anyone considering development for Insteon should also look at the "SDK
Support Rates". They are charging for supporting the SDK, including by
e-mail. This is probably not a drawback for large companies but may be for
smaller ones.
The "Insteon: The Details" PDF released yesterday is worth studying. It
presents the overall design philosophy. It looks good (at least on paper). I
think it will be robust and especially like the plans for rolling code RF
devices.
Dave Houston
corroborates the points I had gleened from my limited hands on testing with
the starter kit (loaned to me by Martin Custer @ www.AutomatedOutlet.com).
Once they make it available on their website I will add a link from...
http://www.mbx-usa.com/insteon.htm
There are standard and extended message formats. Standard messages require 6
half cycles (5 bursts + 1 idle) and extended messages require 13 half cycles
(11 bursts + 2 idle). The idle cycles allow enough time to send the code via
RF to the other phase (which is far simpler than X-10 coupler/repeaters).
Each code starts with sync bits (10101010 for PLC) from which the receiver
can derive the clock and decide which phase represents 1 and which
represents 0. The BPSK modulation scheme is highly noise resistant.
The bursts are 1.8mS wide and start 0.8mS before ZC.
To avoid powerline storms, the number of repeats is limited.
Best case (no repeat necessary), it executes faster than X-10. Worst case
(max hops) its slower than X-10. It should be far more reliable than X-10
but will have to deal with the same signal suckers that bother X-10. If
there are problems, it may be very difficult to troubleshoot.
It has built-in security to block signals from outside the system and
includes provisions for encryption (inadequate in and of itself) and/or
rolling codes for secure applications. Rolling codes are secure.
It looks good on paper. I think they have addressed most of the issues that
denizens of CHA are familiar with. Only time will tell whether it works as
well in practice. I was impressed during my brief test period but have been
burned before by SmartHome designs.
For developers, the license terms are draconian. They charge for SDK
support. They use their SALad language which, those few who tried it 5-6
years back universally condemned as lousy, (Google CHA for SALad.) so I
would demand to see the documentation for it before agreeing to anything.
FWIW, in a former life I ran a multimillion dollar international company in
a technical field. I've been through license negotiations and, having held a
few patents, have been through that process, as well. I would not even have
asked our attorney to review the Insteon license agreement as I know it
would only have cost us several hundred dollars for him to tell me how bad
it was.
Dean Roddey
support. They use their SALad language which, those few who tried it 5-6
years back universally condemned as lousy, (Google CHA for SALad.) so I
would demand to see the documentation for it before agreeing to anything."
Use it how?
-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com
Dave Houston
>Use it how?
Assuming that you are referring to the SALad language, it is an interpeter
embedded in the firmware of _some_ Insteon devices. It lets developers
customize the behavior of those devices by writing tokenized event handlers
to download to them. I'm really not familiar with the specifics as I don't
have the SDK (and would be prohibited from saying anything about it if I
did). In the 5-6 year old posts you'll find in a CHA search, it was mostly
used to customize TouchLinc controllers. Innovative Pool Controls used it to
create custom touchscreens for their devices. The just released Insteon PDF
mentions modifying the "CoreApp" in the PowerLinc V2 controller. My guess is
that only controller type devices use it but that is just a guess. If you
want to know more I'm afraid you'll have to agree to their license terms and
buy the SDK.
I don't think it has anything to do with higher level external apps that
communicate with the controllers via serial or USB which, I assume, would be
your interest.
I think there may be a bit of a disconnect. So far, SmartHome has priced
Insteon agressively and touted it as an X-10 replacement. This means that it
will be mostly a DIY market that is unlikely to want to pay for premium
priced software.