Re: EIB versus CBUS

[Kevin Hawkins <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It was the 'resilience' comment that interested me as I've always
regarded C-Bus as very well designed in this area.  Was wondering how
Idratek or EIB was improving on this and in which aspect, not from an
argumentative or defensive aspect but just inquisitive.

C-Bus has a nice flexible topology with daisychain and (multiple) star
with the only constraints being no loops and overall length, the latter
being addressed by bridges.  It also has a very clever synchronisation
system such that all nodes on the network update absolutely
simultaneously.  Should for whatever reason portions of the network
become disconnected then upon reconnect a clever arbitration system
comes into play for any discrepancies (things that have changed since
the network break).   The network itself will handle power restore with
configurable settings , eg last state or defined state and will handle
phased starts to avoid power surges.

C-Bus has no dependence on a PC application so I guess that's 'Reflex'
in Idratek speak - but it's very capable - and can be expanded using
network attached devices like scene controllers, touchscreens and the
PAC controller. These latter two support very sophisticated
logic/scheduled control.  For me having a HA system that works - to as
greater sophistication as possible with no PC required is a core
fundamental.  I guess quite a bit depends on Reflex's capabilities in
comparison and again was a reservation I had for Idratek. Does Cortex
support integration with other PC applications and protocols ?

Build quality wise C-Bus seems great too although I have no experience
of EIB and so I can only accept a view they might be superior - I would
hope maybe that the Idratek industrial designs have strength here as
that was the main aspect that turned me off their solution.

Where C-Bus 'out of the box' has proven weak in my needs has been
integration with other HA products and hence my creation of the C-Bus
xAP HomeVision gateway that basically allows full integration of C-Bus
with other third party products via Ethernet. Again an all embedded
solution. Idratek has xPL support (??) I believe but I am not sure how
thorough or effective this is.   Now with imminent embedded xAP
controllers/schedulers arriving and the ability to use HomeVision as a
xAP controller I can do almost anything I can think of without the PC
and C-Bus is fully integrated within that.   Where I do still use a PC
is the more  involved interactions in my HA system eg weather and TV
listings, email, newsfeeds etc and in handling richer data eg the AV
areas.  Increasingly though as these AV devices have automation
interfaces included via RS232/485 or IP and with low cost hardware nodes
for xAP I can increasingly remove the PC interaction and dependence here
too.   I believe that's how HA systems should work with decreasing or
nill dependence on the PC.

I know I'm fortunate in that I do have the means to create my own xAP
nodes , and I realise that this isn't a route for a lot of people. In
this respect the hurdles of HA remain for the volume market, the
integration of many disparate devices people already own and want to
support. I hope Idratek, EIB  and many many others develop this market.
In this respect xAP provides a glue to tie things together for me.

I think Clipsal/Schneider have taken a well reasoned approach using
their own semi closed but neatly integrated solution incorporating
lighting,climate, AV, security and basic external integration (relays,
inputs, analogue, RS232 and IR - the latter not too well however IMHO).
Their focus is that it just works seamlessly all the time, every time,
and this must be attractive in new build.  I guess there's a sort of
parallel with Sonos in this respect  doing one or several things really
well but being somewhat secular.  Eventually as older devices are
replaced and things like UPnP (or similar) establish we move to easier
territory ... roll on those days.

K






Chris Hunter wrote:
> good question ... and I remember my conclusion better than the detail
> (!) ... but the main points were that Idratek has a free topology,
> has a good EPS & falls back to Reflex when Cortex goes down (eg:
if
> 'XP has a fit, there's a power-cut, etc) ... and EIB is built like a
> tank (well, not quite) and has an open standard with multiple sources
> (ABB, Siemens, Philips, Merten, Jung, and umpteen more) ... ISTR
> there was something about the C-Bus & EIB topologies, too, but
can't
> now remember why they should be different !   I'll dig into the diary
> to get more ... maybe this evening !
>
> Idratek also has things like multiple parallel PIR & digital input
> options, and a number of other features to help things run smoothly -
> eg: a good range on input & output devices, general affordability,
so
> you can actually have redundancy, with sufficient sensors, a multi-
> purpose controller module, for special needs, a good intercom, etc -
> all of which are important, ISTM, because an underspecified set-up
> ain't going to work too well !
>
> just my view, in our situation, of course !!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2007, at 10:45, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Chris - what aspect were you referring to here ... and how does
EIB
>> and indeed your choice of  Idratek address the issue ?
>>
>> Just interested.....
>>
>>     K
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>