Control schemes (was How difficult would it be to...)

["Timothy Morris" <timothy.morris@xxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark McCall [mailto:mark@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 September 2002 13:01
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ukha_d] How difficult would it be to...


"Well, we've talked about that on this list for a long time now, it's<= BR> nothing new.=A0 However the Tosh does make it a lot neater with built in WiFi.=A0 But as you point out you'll also need an IR booster unless
someone comes up with a wifi-IR gateway which introduces even more
expense."

Actually the more I think about the more I come to the conclusion that
the gateway is essential for it to work for me. I'm installing an RF->IR=
blaster in the ceiling in front of my equipment stack in the new house.
The main thing that I want to avoid is having to use two devices - 1 for house control and another for IR. The Tosh appears to be the ideal
platform to me.

"The lecture I attended on the "Orange House" had some findi= ngs on using
PDAs as house remotes.=A0 Each member of the family was given their own
iPAQ for control of the lighting, AV systems etc.=A0 In the de-brief after<= BR> the families lived in the house for a few weeks apparently they all
hated the PDA remotes!=A0 They complained that they left the iPAQ in their<= BR> bedroom for example, so when they were in the living room and wanted to
conrtrol the TV there they couldn't.=A0 They also complained about battery<= BR> life from memory.

Orange refitted the house with web tablets instead.=A0 These are room
specific, so in the lounge for example, everyone knows the controller is sitting on the coffee table (in it's dock constantly charging)."

I suppose my experience differs because I am single, and only have two
main living areas. My Marantz RC5200 lives in the living area during the day, and in the bedroom at night. I also seem to remember reading
something somewhere about either the Orange or the Laing house, was that the families actually felt that the house had been over-engineered. I'm
only intending to use "Automation" per-se in around three areas w= here
the lights actually come on automatically.

What I'm really looking for is "Home Control" rather than "H= ome
Automation", as that in the bulk of cases I'm happy to make the decisi= on
myself as to when things need to be turned on, I just want to have a
button within an arms length, and carrying a controller around seems to
be the best way to do that.

I am installing strategically located 10 button wall plates at various
locations (three in the sitting room, and two in the bedroom for
example), but by their nature they can only control 10 scenes (or 10
macros). The way the Polaron system works IR remotes give you access to
32 scenes (or macros) via an IR remote talking to each control plate.
Without turning this into yet another Polaron thread (hey its better
than talking about BMWs all the time!) single box Wall plates have up to 10 buttons, doubles have up to 24, but they all have 32 buttons in
software which can be accessed via either the PC or via an IR remote
(which just simulates a local button press).

Obviously being able to access every scene (and individual lighting
load) over a web server is a benefit with any system, not just Polaron,
simply because the experience is bi-directional.

Just some rambling thoughts...

Tim.

Yahoo! Groups Spons= or

ADVERTISEMENT

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
List of UKHA Groups here - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UKHA_Grouplists/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.