Freddy - continued

[gixxer92]

Since there can't be PM's lets move the conversation to NAE's to here.

To what revision of MSEA are you familiar with. Are you above 3.0?

[freddy-b]

All of my first hand engineering beginning to end is from conception to 2.2. But have dealings with 3.xx on a regular basis. Sure they have made some improvements here and there, most are geared for the new product line with little reguard to a N2 integration. Actually lost some capability since the first release reguarding pass-trough mode.

[NINAX]

I'm with freddy on the LCT v. JCBasic. JCBasic programming capability FAR exceeds LCT. It's not even close.

[NINAX]

I suppose, since you're a JCI tech, you have to believe in the NAE. It's the best you have.

It is hard to keep up with all of the MSEA versions since it seems one comes out every other month. And then there are all the JAVA 'fixes' to fix the MSEA 'fixes'.

[freddy-b]

I'm with freddy on the LCT v. JCBasic. JCBasic programming capability FAR exceeds LCT. It's not even close.

Not even close is being nice. Not capable is more like it. You just cannot do alot of high end sequences that you could do with Basic. period.

[freddy-b]

I suppose, since you're a JCI tech, you have to believe in the NAE. It's the best you have.

It is hard to keep up with all of the MSEA versions since it seems one comes out every other month. And then there are all the JAVA 'fixes' to fix the MSEA 'fixes'.

Knowing what I know now....Keeping PMI and setting up a VPN connection for remote access would be miles ahead of what a NAE with a N2 migration would offer. Better, way more reliable,less headaches and alot cheaper.

[NINAX]

JCI has to get the NAEs in so they can start polluting the building with their BACcrap MSTP devices.

[freddy-b]

JCI has to get the NAEs in so they can start polluting the building with their BACcrap MSTP devices.

No doubt there. Lock em down!

[davem]

No doubt there. Lock em down!

Now wait a second! The BACnet line would lock a building into JCI? I don't mean to step into a turf war, but we've been buying the JCI BACnet line through distribution for a while now, and we love it!! We've deployed them under NAE's and FX-40's, and it's pretty much a seamless process either way - and we always felt that we were doing the customer a good service to supply a fairly open controller architecture (and no, I don't want to revisit the "open" vs. "proprietary" debate either - I'm simply referring to "open" as meaning off-the-shelf products, available to a wide number of contractors.)
Somewhat disappointing to hear that perhaps our selection of products was a closed-minded approach...

[freddy-b]

Depends on how you look at it.

Bacnet, Lon, Proprietary or whatever............If it works at the end of the day and the customer is happy...thats all that matters. But if it doesnt, they need their hands not forced with no other options.

And also Dave, their is a huge difference in philosophy between a JCI rep such as yours and the JCI Corporate Branch clowns.

[gixxer92]

Back from a long weekend.
I do understand that there are shortfalls with the LCT but it does seem that certain processes with LCT are more reliable. That and it offers a secondary back up if the first fails.
And yes JCI is in growing pains (over 4 years) with the NAE's, now in release 4.0 which I'm not sure what it has to offer over the 3.1 version yet.
I do know that the 3.1 + version did decrease the amount of traffic over a customers LAN/WAN and has a quicker load time when viewing data.
I personally hope that active X controls like M5 has come back into play with the graphics and that they have an import utility made that allows us to bring the process in from JC Basic/GPL and use them as they are. Even if we had to reprogram into an programming language to offer some flexibility, would be nice.

I'm not trying to argue that they don't have shortfalls, but they do have some pluses that i think will come up in the future.

BTW, I'm not bidding out to the customer on a 2-1 or a 4-1 basis on the replacement of the equipment that I have on site. It will be a 1-1 bid because of the amount of points that I have. There are a lot of VMA's on certain N2 trunks that will need to be split and repeaters are going to have to be added in since they were not initially put in. I have a few NCM's that are full and will be divided into other trunks with NC's that have a lot few devices on them.

[freddy-b]

Back from a long weekend.
I do understand that there are shortfalls with the LCT but it does seem that certain processes with LCT are more reliable. That and it offers a secondary back up if the first fails.
And yes JCI is in growing pains (over 4 years) with the NAE's, now in release 4.0 which I'm not sure what it has to offer over the 3.1 version yet.
I do know that the 3.1 + version did decrease the amount of traffic over a customers LAN/WAN and has a quicker load time when viewing data.
I personally hope that active X controls like M5 has come back into play with the graphics and that they have an import utility made that allows us to bring the process in from JC Basic/GPL and use them as they are. Even if we had to reprogram into an programming language to offer some flexibility, would be nice.

I'm not trying to argue that they don't have shortfalls, but they do have some pluses that i think will come up in the future.

BTW, I'm not bidding out to the customer on a 2-1 or a 4-1 basis on the replacement of the equipment that I have on site. It will be a 1-1 bid because of the amount of points that I have. There are a lot of VMA's on certain N2 trunks that will need to be split and repeaters are going to have to be added in since they were not initially put in. I have a few NCM's that are full and will be divided into other trunks with NC's that have a lot few devices on them.




IMO they are pieces of Garbage with very limited actual ability when dealing with N2 integrations. They may have their place with the FEC/Bacnet stuff but with N2 with alot of NCM Processes to recreate, its a nightmare.
All I can say is good luck. And dont blow your brains out for the dirtbags you work for.

[NINAX]

Now wait a second! The BACnet line would lock a building into JCI? I don't mean to step into a turf war, but we've been buying the JCI BACnet line through distribution for a while now, and we love it!! We've deployed them under NAE's and FX-40's, and it's pretty much a seamless process either way - and we always felt that we were doing the customer a good service to supply a fairly open controller architecture (and no, I don't want to revisit the "open" vs. "proprietary" debate either - I'm simply referring to "open" as meaning off-the-shelf products, available to a wide number of contractors.)
Somewhat disappointing to hear that perhaps our selection of products was a closed-minded approach...

If you ask this question, then qualify that responses must be restricted to your defined parameters, why ask the question? Especially when you want to disqualify pertinent items.

[davem]

The disqualifications were in the potential misinterpretation of what I meant by "open"...all I wanted to express was that in my area, the BACnet controllers are openly available through distribution, and their use would not lock anyone into using the local JCI branch.
Hard to believe, but my post was actually a vote of confidence in the BACnet product...but since those are so rare, I can see how the post was so misconstrued. The word "open" can mean a lot of different things, other than "non-proprietary"....

[freddy-b]

in my area, the BACnet controllers are openly available through distribution, and their use would not lock anyone into using the local JCI branch.

Software to program these controllers too? Very Unlikely!

[gixxer92]

IMO they are pieces of Garbage with very limited actual ability when dealing with N2 integrations. They may have their place with the FEC/Bacnet stuff but with N2 with alot of NCM Processes to recreate, its a nightmare.
All I can say is good luck. And dont blow your brains out for the dirtbags you work for.

I guess I look at it as more of a challenge. I have more than enough experience to figure it out. Support is only 3 senior techs away or a call to Milwaukee.

If I were to blow my brains away, its a good thing I work in a hospital, huh? :D

[freddy-b]

With the limited logic blocks in LCT, I believe you are in for one rough ride.
Good Luck

[davem]

Software to program these controllers too? Very Unlikely!

Sorry, Freddy, we get CCT as well as SCT from the same source...we buy our own Bluetooth adapters, but we've got over-the-counter access to the entire FEC/IOM/VMA line, tools and all...

And we love it. The FEC's custom programming is bit of a chore to sort out, but we're getting better at it with every project.

[freddy-b]

Sorry, Freddy, we get CCT as well as SCT from the same source...we buy our own Bluetooth adapters, but we've got over-the-counter access to the entire FEC/IOM/VMA line, tools and all...

And we love it. The FEC's custom programming is bit of a chore to sort out, but we're getting better at it with every project.

Thats great, but most people can not. Which means they are stuck with one option for service. Hence a Proprietary marriage for better or worse.

[NINAX]

Thats great, but most people can not. Which means they are stuck with one option for service. Hence a Proprietary marriage for better or worse.

HEY! No discussing that stuff.

[freddy-b]

HEY! No discussing that stuff.

WTF are you talking about?

[NINAX]

WTF are you talking about?

He doesn't want to hear about that stuff. Only good things, no bad things.

He wants left alone in his BACcrap nirvana.