Re: HomeBrain

["David Buckley" <db@xxxxxxx>]

The suggestion has been noted.

Not being an expert on X10 commands I spose I should look into it
more.  So many features, so little time....  Its really X10 reception
is the problem, particularly in terms of interpreting what some of
this stuff really means.  Transmission tends to be easier.

The idea of sending a single "go to level x command" actually
appeals
more than a dozen bright commands, I must say.


--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Dean Smith" <ukha@e...> wrote:
> Even if you choose not to spend much time attempting to track X10
DIM Levels
> (and I do understand why you wouldnt) you probably should allow
your box to
> send Extended X10 commands. Would allow people with large LD11 (Din
Rail
> Dimmers) to have commands sent which set them to specific dim
levels aswell
> as "instant on".
>
> I can only really speak for myself but I use both HomeSeer and
Comfort to
> send extended X10 to set LD11s (mainly for instant-on).
>
> Dean
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Buckley" <db@e...>
> To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:36 PM
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: HomeBrain
>
>
> > --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Kenneth Watt"
<kwatt@f...> wrote:
> > > You say not as good as HV with X10, can you explain that a
bit
more?
> >
> > Most of the HA controllers out there (HV, JDS, ADI etc) all
centre
> > themselves around X10, and thus have spent an extraordinary
amount of
> > time trying to support every X10 featureset item.  I think from
> > observation (though I dont know, as I'm not an HV owner) that HV
even
> > ties to guess the level of dimming on a light by estimating where
the
> > TW523 has not delivered dim commands.  A brave feat indeed.
> >
> > Furthermore, most controllers (and this includes many windowsy /
> > linuxy control apps) have specific syntax for different types
> > of "thing" they control.  There are different forms of
the IF
> > statement for each type of "thing".
> >
> > It is a design principle of HomeBrain that devices and their
> > peculiarities are isolated into the drivers, and the control
elements
> > of HomeBrain is device independent.  Thus in HSL there is only
one IF
> > statement syntax.
> >
> > Apart from my disinclination towards X10, the real problem is
that
> > X10 (aside from on/off) does things differently than most other
> > control technologies, and thus doesnt fit well with the device
> > implementation independent view of the world that HomeBrain uses.
> > HomeBrain (outside the drivers) cant tell the difference between
an
> > X10 thing and a (for example) hardwired digital I/O thing.  There
is
> > no syntax in HSL (more later) that is specific to X10.
> >
> > So, what does HomeBrain do with X10:  It natively sends on and
off.
> > It natively recognises on and off.  It'll probably do dimming
send,
> > when I get around to it.  The driver supports some commands that
map
> > really badly to anything outside of X10, such as "all units
off".
> > [when I say maps really badly, for example, in a system that is
10%
> > X10, what does all units off mean?  Does that include the alarm
> > system, for example?]  But (to keep the example) although all
units
> > off is not supported natively, but you can through scripting make
it
> > do whatever you want.
> >
> > But the stuff HomeBrain does it tries to do well.  For example,
each
> > housecode has its units tracked individually, so that an X-10
stream
> > like
> >
> > G1 G-OFF G5 G6 H2 G7 H3 G-ON H4 H-OFF
> >
> > the G-ON will switch G5/G6/G7 on, even though their was in
> > intervening set of H codes.  I dont know if other controllers
have
> > that logic, but I've seen lots of code out there that would not
do
> > the right thing when faced with that stream.  They have a single
> > housecode view, and thus when the first H2 arrived, the fact that
G5
> > and G6 are still outstanding would be forgotten.
> >
> >
> > > Programming, how is it done?
> >
> > Almost all programming tasks can be accomplished using the
bundled
> > scripting langaue, HSL, HomeBrain Scripting Language.  The
language
> > compiles to machine code, and is both fast and safe.  If you want
to
> > write a driver, get out your C compiler that produces 8086 code,
and
> > use the supplied examples, headers and/or precompiled /
preassembled
> > object modules to build a driver.  There may even be a suitable
free
> > C compiler out there, I have my eye on a suitable candidate...
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ** UKHA2004 BE THERE! ** - start planning now.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >