RE: Newbie - controlling lights and creating scenes (Ocelot?)

["K. C. Li" <li@xxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 31 May 2003, Ian Davidson wrote:

> current, however X10 is. Yes I agree it can be made better, improved
> sensitivity, and a little improvement to options but it is so limited.

Apart from the transmission speed, what exactly are the limiting factors?
The X-10 command set? The X-10 products themselves? Others?

> Speed is a big issue with a lot of users and this simply can not be
> improved upon, in fact as extended codes are used it actually gets
> slower.

I agree the speed of signal transmission cannot be improved by much
without disobeying the X-10 protocol timing. However, apart from some
situations when faster response time is required (eg. auto switching of
lights based on occupancy), the slow speed of X-10 signal transmission
shouldn't matter that much. For everyday automatic light and appliance
scheduling, the delay of a few seconds is hardly critical.

> X10 is so well established with millions of units out there, and
> supported by every HA system I know, but that should not allow us to
> continue to use and develop it when it can not deliver much of what we

Why not? Apart from the speed limitation, almost everything else can be
made to be better. And better modules are coming to the market from 3rd
party suppliers. With the expiration of X-10 patents, the X-10 system
protocol is effectively an open home automation system with published
detailed technical information on the X-10 protocol.

> need today. Look at the interest of the group over the last few weeks
of
> C-BUS, I believe that is because people can not achieve what they need
> with even the latest breeds of X10. Imagine a cross between C-BUS and

The group has also been very interested in a number of other things in the
past. It doesn't necessarily mean much as a reliable indicator for the
future. In my opinion, the negative image of X-10 is sometimes more to do
with the bland styling of its products than the functionality of them.

> X10, the flexibility, style and reliability of C-BUS with the no
special
> wiring needs and affordability of X10.

I agree.

> Yes I am biased, but only in the sense of the fact that I could not
get
> what I needed from X10 and other options were to expensive. That is
the
> sole reason I embarked on designing a replacement. I still do not know
> if it will be marketed, I needed the product and decided to give it a

I am not questioning the reasoning behind your decision to design your own
system. If you have the technical ability and desire to do so, then why
not? However, any resultant products will be judged not purely by its
technical capability but other factors such as reliability, cost,
appearance, availability and range.

> go. It proves the point that PLT can work more reliably than people
> experience with the older X10. I do think it is important not to group
> X10 and other PLT.

But X-10 is a form of Power Line Technology, may be even the first, and
X-10 can work reliably with improved modules.

> X10 does suit some people, but I do believe now is the time to start
and
> improve things.

As we have also found ourselves, it is not that difficult to improve on
the X-10 products but the cost per unit might go up proportionally. One
advantage of X-10 (if you can call it that) is that the latest products
are still backward compatible with X-10 products of, say, 10 years ago.

Regards,

Kwong Li
li@xxxxxxx
Laser Business Systems Ltd.
http://www.laser.com