RE: Re: All Lights On/All Units Off and Modifying an MT10

["Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>]

> I might just have to start an off topic thread to kill this one!

Like you need an excuse <g>

> Mark, you seem very keen to nail someone who certainly should know
what
> they're talking about ... Li knows X10 and X10 products inside out and
> has produced some great "enhanced" units that I couldn't do
without.

No, I took exception to the manner in which I was responded to. I expected
better of someone who as you say should not only know the product inside
out, but dealt with people on a regular basis in his business and has
always
seemed so reasonable and moderate in other postings.

> Your original query (which I've long since deleted) went along the
lines
> of "Groan, why is X10 so pants ... they implement All Lights On
and All
> Units Off but don't implement these other functions which I
want." ...

To confirm, there are 7 commands before you hit the extended commands - on,
off, bright, dim, all lights on, all lights off and all units on. Only one
(all lights off) is not implemented in any controller I have used and in
some lighting modules which is why it was noticable. I didn't ask why don't
X10 do all these commands for me, I asked why one command in the set seemed
generally unsupported. I thought that a reasonable query despite the lack
of
references to epods, bt, m**lins and cheesy chips :)

> well, believe it or not X10 wasn't implemented for you alone. It was
set
> up to cover a mass market. I've already posted why All Lights On and
All
> Units Off were implemented in preference to other commands on the
> controllers.

Yes, where you went on to "groan" about the limit of 16 in a
house code IIRC
:) I also further discussed this.

But there is only one command missing from the basic set so it is not
really
these instead of those, it is all except one. The answer could be as simple
as the all lights off command was a late addition to the basic set but I
have yet to locate a document describing the progression of the command set
other than wrt the addition of the extended codes so cannot confirm one way
or the other. There are many reasons why all lights off is useful besides
the uses I have for it so that is the only logical reason I can think of
for
it's absence since why provide 7 commands but only ever implement 6?

I never suggested X10 was invented for me alone and rather than asking for
them to do it queried it's lack of support and was making an effort to do
it
myself. I do not see how you perceived the converse but it was definitely
not intended that way.

As for griping about X10, I could spend hours doing so, as I am sure we all
could, if I were so inclined so that was not my intent either. Everyone on
the list seems to agree it is imperfect and wishes for more from it and
since in your own response that you mention earlier you had a short
"rant"
about the 16 house code limit, even were I griping I do not see it as a bad
thing to have been doing :)

> If you need to add functionality to X10 commands then you can do so by
> using a CM12 and triggering macros by using other X10 commands that
you
> can send which is what the rest of us do and which works very well.

In order to remap all units off to all lights off means losing all direct
control via the controller to macros resulting in a slower process overall.
Using a different button for a macro for this one task means losing that
button on the controller for controlling something. So a macro is a very
imperfect solution and if a better one were available I would prefer to use
it hence my investigation into it. If we all just put up with the way
everyone does it we would not have much innovation. Admittedly altering an
MT10 isn't *that* innovative and isn't going to win me any awards or
anything but we all have to start somewhere :)

The LM12 does not respond to All lights off which is a further issue, but
LD11s do and I assume the LM14 will so it is not an insurmountable problem
that the LM12 does not. I haven't found any technical specs for the LM14
yet
though. X10's site seems pretty poor for in depth info and obviously none
of
the better European sites have info since it is currently unavailable to
us.
:(

> You started on about your friends being able to extract the code from
> PICs etc. - well, PICs have hardware code protection fuses which are
no
> more difficult to use than checking a box on the programming software
> and -

Sorry, don't quite follow your point there. I think you might have an extra
no or something or maybe I am just plain not following :)

> given the huge numbers of X10 products that are sold - the
> controllers for many of the modules are hard coded rather than
> programmable units so you're not going to extract the code or modify
it
> by poking a byte with a different value.

Generally controllers transmit commands and modules receive. If a
controller
was modified to send a different command and a module supported it, it
would
respond appropriately. Not quite sure what point you are trying to make wrt
hard coding and programmability. I am not trying to invent my own commands,
just access one that already exists.

> Also ... something that you have also completely ignored is the fact
> that X10 hold patents and copyright on their products and code and so
> "reverse engineering" units might well be completely illegal
even if it
> were possible.

I am completely ignoring it yes. Given that a number of companies have
commercial enterprises reverse engineering chips and modifying hardware
with
devices like defeating macro vision and territory locks on AV hardware and
games consoles, I do not think the chances too high that X10 will sue me
for
resetting 2 bytes in a mini timer... well I would hope not anyway :)

There are a number of other possibilities besides reprogramming if it does
prove not to be an option. Starting with a new PIC and reprogramming from
the ground up for example. That might even be a better solution in the long
run since I could then make other alterations to the controller. However,
it
would require a much better working knowledge of the interfaces that the
PIC
is well interfacing with.

> This is my only posting on this matter ... I'm not going to get drawn
> into a pissing contest ... I hope we can all settle down and get on
with
> something useful.

Then my apologies if I have further annoyed by responding and it is not
intended as an entry into any pissing contest. But your post did actually
give me the opportunity to introduce the possibility of replacing the PIC
completely which only recently occurred to me. Until it gets shot down in a
ball of flames at least :)

Hopefully after Paul has worked on his Ultra Mini Timer project he will
have
some information which would prove useful in "upgrading" the mini
timer.


Mark.

P.S. Apologies for the over zealous use of smileys in this post.


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/