I/O count for programmables

[sysint]

Whose controllers do you like to use for their I/O count? Seems like everyone offers things all over the map. What do you run out of first for I/O?

XL50? XL800? Distech's? TIA.

[eparizher]

If not too many I/O, I like ACT: very easy to work with.

[cal-cu]

PXCMs---500 point count with expansion

[ctrlguy]

I use a lot of Distech ECP400s - 12 UI, 12UO along with their ECP203 which is very inexpensive with 6 UI, 5 DO and 3 AO. Their DIO products are also very reasonable. XL50s are expensive and only offer 40 or so NVs and no plug-in.

I personally don't like to have too much processing power in one place utilizing DIO, so while a LINX may have 1000 NVs, do I really want to put an entire building's control logic in that one box? I've done it - with Honeywell XL Smart - and it worked fine, but I prefer distributed processing.

Not to hijack this thread, but I've been curious about the LINX and wondered where the L-Web application came into it. I take it that the LINX is less a web server and more of an OPC server and L-Web pulls the OPC data out and allows it to be displayed in a browser of some kind. Am I on the right track? What's the licensing on L-Web?

[381engineer]

What's the licensing on L-Web?

No licensing needed.

[crab master]

I personally don't like to have too much processing power in one place utilizing DIO, so while a LINX may have 1000 NVs, do I really want to put an entire building's control logic in that one box? I've done it - and it worked fine, but I prefer distributed processing.

Second that. I wish they made a less expensive version of the L-Proxy. Say a device that can handle 50-100 address tables for all of one/two ahu(s) vavs. I don't want to have a supervisory type controller on my network unless it is supervising something like the AHU's VAV's that it actually runs.

I like the TAC Xenta 300 series.
Mainly I use the 301 - 6 DO, 2 AO, 4 DI, 4 UI, 4 TI.
and 302 sometimes with 4 DO, 4 AO, 4 DI, 4 UI, 4 TI.

Either way I can add up to two I/O modules to this controller to get at the point count I need. The other option is the 401/700 series with 10-20 I/O modules under that. There is quite a range of I/O modules, but again I stay away from that kind of setup overall so the dependancy upon one controller lessens - ie your master controller that runs all the I/O modules goes down all your I/O modules are down.

However, a better count in my mind would be simply 12 UO and 16 UI with expansion modules available.

[osiyo]

However, a better count in my mind would be simply 12 UO and 16 UI with expansion modules available.

Yep, something like that.

With TAC systems, like yourself, we use a lot of 301, etc series. Occassionally 401 series.

With AAM systems, a lot of 8-12 UI input, 4 to 8 AO, and 4 to 8 DO devices. Their newer controllers, the GPC series fit into this onboard IO count plus have expansion capabilities.

We try to segregate things. Yes, all the points are on the network. But we want to minimize the overall system effects of a single controller going down, or the network getting blitzed by whatever cause.

Our customers like that approach also.

[sysint]

I use a lot of Distech ECP400s - 12 UI, 12UO along with their ECP203 which is very inexpensive with 6 UI, 5 DO and 3 AO. Their DIO products are also very reasonable. XL50s are expensive and only offer 40 or so NVs and no plug-in.

I personally don't like to have too much processing power in one place utilizing DIO, so while a LINX may have 1000 NVs, do I really want to put an entire building's control logic in that one box? I've done it - with Honeywell XL Smart - and it worked fine, but I prefer distributed processing...
That XL50 only exposes 40 variables. I like those. Very solid. I'm sure that Distech exposes more variables but, really aren't there variables essentially not exposed as SNVT's? Well, add that up and think about the ability to expose those. The LINX110 programmable was initially targeted at floor control, particularly the Asian market although very popular in Europe (see Sysmik). At the AHR show we had a LINX110 running "room control". Basically running 6 room control sequences for HVAC, Lights, Blinds, etc.. All that gets tied into the I/O per floor. Since the 110 is also a server full AST is in the box as well so AST is fairly distributed because typical requirements call for AST per floor outside the US. So, you can't have a central location completely responsible for AST.

I would think in many instances like pumping control, tower control, boiler sets, ERV's that you run out of points on a controller like a Distech quickly with the I/O. So you distribute the functions across multiple devices which at times can be a negative. Further, you may have some global type operation for something like total VSD system control and you can take the functions of taking data from many controllers and doing some more advanced calcs in a controller to run central plants. So, you could do something like Trane does with chiller plant control but spit it all out in LON variables if you wanted...

[sysint]

...Not to hijack this thread, but I've been curious about the LINX and wondered where the L-Web application came into it. I take it that the LINX is less a web server and more of an OPC server and L-Web pulls the OPC data out and allows it to be displayed in a browser of some kind. Am I on the right track? What's the licensing on L-Web?LINX are automation servers. They take the native protocol and it's available for interaction and also it is an OPC server. So, I guess it's both. (probably this takes a couple conversations to understand)

We have various versions but if we talk LON we have both the standard and programmable servers with either RNI or IP852 routing. LWeb is a free .NET application. Basically it is a dedicated browser. We didn't want to worry about somebody else's updates affecting our system like JAVA updates, different browser plugins, etc... Also, security issue play into this.

Anyway, the model is extremely distributed. You can have multiple projects stored in multiple locations referencing different things. For instance, lets say I have 4 buildings. I can have a global project (located somewhere) that is what we consider typical BAS display. I may also have 4 projects in each buildings LINX that are designed for smart phone. Then I may have another project available that just allows for schedule or energy data and control. Further, I may have a NOC at the office that accesses hundreds of servers across multiple sites to provide various services a company would offer customers. By using this model any LWeb app running a project accesses data from all servers directly. There is no need to tunnel this information to a supervisory server. This makes the data transfer quick.

Further, the LWeb allows us to create a graphical tool that you can use that doesn't require you to do JAVA, JS, HTML, etc... to make pages. Which allows Loytec to provide all the tools free of charge. No licensing or expired licensing if you don't send in a yearly PO. Buy a box, it does what it does and the config tools are free. Very straightforward. However, should you want your own front end bacnet side's open, LON side's open, and each is also a OPC server so select a SCADA or system you like to pay for.

Loytec has thought this out very well and took out a data moving roadblock many others have.

[NINAX]

So you distribute the functions across multiple devices which at times can be a negative.

Excuse my ignorance.
What would the difference be between distributing functions and distributing the IO? They're both dependent on the comm, aren't they?

[sysint]

However, a better count in my mind would be simply 12 UO and 16 UI with expansion modules available.Yes. this seems nice. BTW, LINX servers are much less than LProxy so there's your answer for that.

[sysint]

Excuse my ignorance.
What would the difference be between distributing functions and distributing the IO? They're both dependent on the comm, aren't they?Hardly ignorant.. ;) Let me revisit the logic in the floor control I have to be more detailed on exactly what they do but I can see where if you are running an ERV you would like to pack the logic in a single controller. Or, even something like a modular chiller bank.

On the floor control, I think it's more bang for the buck to have full AST and visualization along with a distributed management architecture by floor. I see two methods in use for this. One is something like our LINX110 with no physical I/O and the other method is like what Sysmik does with a server with attached I/O (as needed) Sysmik uses Phoenix contact I/O and you buy what's necessary and the Sysmik guy says they wire everything back to the central floor location. Think about this... no VAV controllers. They would wire the damper and flow directly back to the controller. (not saying good or bad but this is what they do)

Why does the JACE have 64 I/O capacity? What are people using that for?

EDIT: I'm drilling into a room control program. They have the following:
HVAC Mode Decoder - Used for evaluating what mode and occ the HVAC is in
Window Contact Monitor -
Setpoint Mux/DeMux
Room Temp monitor
Heating/Cooling control
Lighting control
Intrusion detection
Sunblinds

Then they are running 7 of these programs in a LINX110

EDIT: I think it has much to do also with the thought of the rest of the world works off of a space concept. Here we work per node. Maybe this is because the node concentration per square foot outside the US is greater. Who here does complete space control? I think if you had to bind in the variables for the blinds with the lumen detector and also the window contacts and HVAC (per area) I think maybe you can see where this method has some advantages.

[sysint]

Here's an example of what's inside (starting at level 2 and drilling to level 3)

17822
17832

[NINAX]

Why does the JACE have 64 I/O capacity?
What are people using that for?


You'll have to wait for one of the Tridium Fellows to answer those.

[orion242]

>Think about this... no VAV controllers. They would wire the damper and flow directly back to the controller. (not saying good or bad but this is what they do)

Sounds like a major headache to me. Bringing all that cable to a central point, into a massive panel. If that controller goes down, so does most of the building. I can’t imagine this setup would be cheaper to install and program than ASCs on each box. With VVTs I sometimes bring a 3 or so to a single controller, but that’s about it.

Now if it’s a small mechanical room I may bring a few AHUs to a single controller. But it is almost always easier for us to use a single controller, per piece of equipment. The programs can be copied and pasted, and linking the graphics is easer if there are multiple controllers running identical programs. Drawings are copy paste also if this is the case.

Our controllers can handle up to 128 hardware points, any combination you need via expansion modules. AST functions are built-in to almost every controller, including most ASCs. I can count the number of times on one hand that I pushed them over 100pts on a single controller.

[digo]

I'm looking forward to the spyder micros. Faster processor, more memory, expanded nv count (250), and smaller foot print. All that is missing is a turbo button when working with the app remotely on a JACE.:D

[digo]

What I do miss is the point count/density of the XL500 panels.
Too bad it's a pain to make them work with AX... you need to expose every point out as SNVTs, but you then run out of those very quickly...

[Snides]

Why does the JACE have 64 I/O capacity? What are people using that for?

From our perspective.
Chiller plant control. HLI to chillers, VSD's on pumps, Modbus to water treatment, elect and water meters.
I/O used for misc items sensors, valves, fans, alarms ect ect.
Cost per point "reasonable"
Engineering/commissioning quicker than Lon or Bacnet

[samurai_tech]

I use a JACE with ndio for boiler/chiller plants and large AHU's. A 34 I/O module plue (2) 16 I/O modules gives you 66 points. I normally use Smart Controls or Spyders for everything else. A Smart EC240 has 12UI's, 6UO's, and 6DO's. Controllers with lots of points usually run out of network variables quickly. By the time you add all your hardware points, set points, timer values, overrides modes, etc., you face a challenge of trying to get all your desired points exposed to the network. I agree that controls should stay distributed. I remember JCI DSC's had 8AI, 8DI, and I believe 16 BO's on one FIC board. You could have up to 63 FIC boards per DSC processor. I never saw more than about 6 per DSC but the problem is if the brain dies it all goes down.

[sysint]

>Think about this... no VAV controllers. They would wire the damper and flow directly back to the controller. (not saying good or bad but this is what they do)

Sounds like a major headache to me. Bringing all that cable to a central point, into a massive panel. If that controller goes down, so does most of the building. I can’t imagine this setup would be cheaper to install and program than ASCs on each box.... I'll address this. It's not the whole building but one floor. If you look at the cost of our programmable webserver it is inexpensive. Further, it's more industrial quality and the programming environment is definitely industrial quality. Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's. Can't do that with Distech or the JACE. Some also don't wire everything back but I don't think you find large sales of VAV ASC's outside the US. In fact much of the outside market has much more density per square foot than we have. What do we consider? -- Maybe 1000 foot per HVAC node and we call it a day. Meanwhile outside the US they have 3-4 times the variable count in the same footage.

[joey791]

Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's.

NM misread the statement

[sysint]

If you make a programming change in an already running control it adds it in on the next cycle. So, no reboot of the controller or a cycle off of outputs.

[osiyo]

I'll address this. It's not the whole building but one floor. ... Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's. Can't do that with Distech or the JACE. Some also don't wire everything back but I don't think you find large sales of VAV ASC's outside the US. In fact much of the outside market has much more density per square foot than we have. What do we consider? -- Maybe 1000 foot per HVAC node and we call it a day. Meanwhile outside the US they have 3-4 times the variable count in the same footage.

I'm not addressing the product you're touting. Not familiar with it, so it wouldn't be fair. Besides I've been reading your posts for long enough that despite disagreements we've had I'd trust your assessment of a piece of gear.

But some comments.

It depends on what criteria you're designing for, the goals one expects to achieve, and the expectations of the customer.

Saying something like "most of the rest of world", etc is a non-argument and not particularly pertinent. Unless you live and work in one of those other places.

Stating something like "Most of the rest of the world does this or that ..." is pretty meaningless. Never has been, never will be.

Such statements only take on meaning if one can also provide compelling facts, independently verifiable, that offers compelling reasons for the READER to also wish to adopt whatever practices as it has been shown to be FACTUALLY beneficial to the READER, or an improvement over current methods used by the READER.

In short, just because ... for instance ... Europe does this or that, or China, or whomever ... that does not in itself mean that their way is a better way.

Nor do I mean to imply that their way is not as good as ours, either. Depends. Each instance and argument must be judged on it's own merits.

I just mention this because you seem to often use such a statement in your debates. "Well, most of the rest of the world ...". Or more specifically, "In Europe they ...".

Okay, so what? Give numbers or some other factual proof, that can be verified, that whatever actually works better.

I'm not anti-The Rest of the World, BTW. Some things other people do better than we do. Some things they do a damn sight worse. Some things they CLAIM they do better than we, but offer no hard evidence to prove it. And some things they pay a great deal of lip service to while not actually practicing what they preach to any appreciable extent. (Think certain Kyoto agreements)

I've visited some 47 countries, last count I made. Enjoyed the places and people in most cases. Have a lot of respect for them. Got along with em well. Well, mostly. Not too darned fond of the French. At least not the most vocal of them.

But saying that "Most of the rest of the world ..." does this or that, is by itself, an utterly meaningless statement to me. I'm no more impressed or swayed by that than some statement like, "American made is better." or "The Chinese made stuff is junk."

<Shrug> Sometimes yes ... sometimes no. Depends specifically on what particular thing you're talking about.

In any event, many of the customers I deal with DO NOT want a whole floor controlled by a single controller. And specifically state so in the contracts we sign. Most specify wording to the effect that any single controller going down should have minimal possible effects upon their building as a whole. They likewise wish that the "head end" going on the blitz will have minimal effects on the whole system.

So we tend to use controllers with no more I/O count than needed that can operate independently if the rest of the system fails.

Typically, one controller per air handler. One per chiller. Separate controller for building heating water circulation pumps. A smaller controller controlling perhaps a CUH and a couple or 3 exhaust fans. One ASC controller per VAV. Etc. All capable of independent operation should the need arise.

Sure, one can realize economies of larger scale. One or two very large air handlers as versus 8 smaller ones. A single controller that controls everything on a single floor of a building. But such ideas don't fit in with our customer demands and expectations. And often, nor does it fit in with the expectations of THEIR customers, the occupants of their buildings.

Don't think of this as criticism. Just an observation on my part. When I start doing business with a European customer, I'll start conforming to his or her expectations, wants, and needs. Until then, I deal with other customers who have other ideas and specific reasons for their ideas.

Almost always reasons backed up by past experience that dictated that doing it differently had consequences they were NOT willing to live with.

[techgabe]

We had a building with 4 large ahu's that were being controlled with 2 "Smart" 500's and 16 Distributed I/O module's. We removed the "Smart"s and replaced them and programmed them with one jace 600. We have not had any problems with communication and the AX programming, I find to be far easier to use than anything else I have used, including Spyder controllers. I use to strongly believe in having localized controllers in each unit. Now I am much more confident in having a central controller that can be used to run multiple functions or multiple equipment. With the increase of memory and processing power that can be put into one controller, i think it can be an option that can and should be looked at more often. I find no decreased reliability by using one controller, than using multiple controllers. Over the years, I have seen many systems go down due to one localized controller on a network going bad.

[sysint]

Hi Osiyo,

"most of the rest of the world" fits here because the product wasn't on our roadmap but was demanded. It came out of Asia and Europe so I guess I'm qualifying that as the rest of the world. Sorry to have left out Africa.. ;)

"In short, just because ... for instance ... Europe does this or that, or China, or whomever ... that does not in itself mean that their way is a better way." -- No, but since we have worldwide presence we are aware of world wide requirements (to a determined extent) and they are doing space control. This is WHAT they are doing. There have to be valid reasons, or why would they do things this way? Really only in North America is the node control method widely adopted.

At any rate, that was hardly the point of the conversation, it was simply an observation of the major use for a product we offer. Actually, it prompted it's development.

My curiosity with this is if/when energy costs get equivalent here that will change our methods.

[osiyo]

Hi Osiyo,

"most of the rest of the world" fits here because the product wasn't on our roadmap but was demanded. It came out of Asia and Europe so I guess I'm qualifying that as the rest of the world. Sorry to have left out Africa.. ;)

No problem. I've been to Africa, too. Several times. Spent 6 months there once (in Kenya).

If you have a demand for that product ... GOOD.

I wasn't criticizing the product. Wasn't my point at all. If you have a market for it ... GREAT.

I was just pointing out that the market we sell to, where I work, is different.


"In short, just because ... for instance ... Europe does this or that, or China, or whomever ... that does not in itself mean that their way is a better way." -- No, but since we have worldwide presence we are aware of world wide requirements (to a determined extent) and they are doing space control. This is WHAT they are doing. There have to be valid reasons, or why would they do things this way? Really only in North America is the node control method widely adopted.

Really? I've seen a lot of node control elsewhere.

But I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what percentage of folks, world wide, favor one approach over the other. I wonder if any valid studies have been done on that particular point?

In truth, I don't see a lot of valid studies done on a large scale which give a good feel for precisely what is being done in this country versus that, the differences in results over a period of years (short term studies in my experience are iffy at best as to their validity), and so forth. I'd like to see various strategies, schemes, and solutions compared over significant periods of time, with hard data to back up the assertions.

I think we'd all benefit. As it is my suspicion that there are things some folks are doing in Europe which are better than our methods, and vice versa. Likewise there are things Asia can teach us, and we and Europe both can teach them to do better. Same with the Arab world, Africa, and so forth.

But it can be damned hard to separate touting from hard facts. Separate corporate sales pitches from proven track records. And so forth.

Plus short term results, given in a lot of studies, don't give a good long term look at reliability, costs of maintenance, owner/occupant satisfaction over the years and so forth.


My curiosity with this is if/when energy costs get equivalent here that will change our methods.

Hmmm. Maybe ... or maybe not.

Technology is continually changing. Today's best ideas often look not so good 5 years down the road. After we've had some long term real world experience with it.

Without long term hard numbers and data, that included figures about long term reliability, customer/occupant satisfaction over the years, long term maintenance/repair costs, and so forth I wouldn't even guess as to how the results would look when comparing space control as versus node control (as you're calling it).

After all, they've been selling some pretty darned fuel efficient, low cost cars here in the US for years. But they do not dominate the market. There would appear to be only a limited market here for such. It would seem that many would as soon grit teeth and cut down on other expenses as to give up what they think of as the advantages of a somewhat larger and more powerful vehicle. <G> I'm one, an Chevy Aveo or a Prius isn't gonna pull my boat, don't care what yah say, I gotta be able to pull my boat. I'll give up fast food (which I dislike anyway) and going to the movies, etc first.

Point is, maybe in the US those architects and engineers will elect to stick with the current control methodologies they're using and instead elect to spend more money on more efficient AHUs, chillers, etc etc.

I wouldn't know.

[sysint]

I think you misunderstand WHY I brought it up. I brought that up explaining why we have a product and why some others make these high I/O devices. THAT's it. Wasn't a social commentary.

"Without long term hard numbers and data, that included figures about long term reliability, customer/occupant satisfaction over the years, long term maintenance/repair costs, and so forth I wouldn't even guess as to how the results would look when comparing space control as versus node control (as you're calling it)."---ALC has an article out on space comfort. Maybe you can look into it. It talks about what little data there actually is and analyzes it.

Granted the space control is the opposite idea of node control. Typical node control is top down. Space control is bottom up.

[digo]

...Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's. Can't do that with Distech or the JACE...

Sysint, you haven't worked with a JACE much, have you?
Programming changes done on a JACE are on the fly. I can manually override points, completely change my logic, reorder links, priorities, etc. No reboot required.
If, hoewever, you are completely restoring from a station backup, then you will need a reboot.

Spyders on the other hand, are not programmed live. The environment is similar, but the tool has engineering mode, live debugging, and simulation modes. Programming changes require a download. It can be done directly from a JACE, but it's slow.

[joey791]

If you make a programming change in an already running control it adds it in on the next cycle. So, no reboot of the controller or a cycle off of outputs.

Yeah ASI does the same thing with theirs

[beer30]

I use the Jace 6 usually with a 34 I/O board to control the central plant in a building. Then branch out with ASC's to the AHU's, VAV's etc. Maybe lon, maybe Bacnet.

The original question was why the high point count for Tridium. The way I see it, I am using one less programmable controller for the central plant, saving on install costs. The ease of programming, high reliability, friendly user interface, multiple protocol Etc is just gravy, which has also increased margin on my jobs. (espically ease pf programming and commissioning) I spread out my Tridium dealership fee over 47 installs in the last 12 months, which is equivalent to about 3 hours of install hours per job. (Peanuts).

I have never needed the full I/O capacity offered with a Jace, but it is nice to have it in my back pocket if I ever need it.

Hope that helps, Sysint

[beer30]

In re-reading my last post, it seems that I imply installing 47 Jaces last year. Not true. I had 47 jobs on the books, not all had Jaces. Sorry for the confusion.

[viceman]

"I think you misunderstand WHY I brought it up. I brought that up explaining why we have a product and why some others make these high I/O devices."

We all know why you brought it up AHAB. Tridium is your new white whale.

[sysint]

I think I prefer Don Quixote.

Seriously, our 110 was not an internal request. It came from the customer base. Also, I've talked with companies like Sysmik in the past liking/complaining about the cost of their hi-I/O controller and that guy was very straightforward explaining the market and it's cost effectiveness in that application.

[sysint]

I use the Jace 6 usually with a 34 I/O board to control the central plant in a building. Then branch out with ASC's to the AHU's, VAV's etc. Maybe lon, maybe Bacnet.

The original question was why the high point count for Tridium. The way I see it, I am using one less programmable controller for the central plant, saving on install costs. The ease of programming, high reliability, friendly user interface, multiple protocol Etc is just gravy, which has also increased margin on my jobs. (espically ease pf programming and commissioning) I spread out my Tridium dealership fee over 47 installs in the last 12 months, which is equivalent to about 3 hours of install hours per job. (Peanuts).

I have never needed the full I/O capacity offered with a Jace, but it is nice to have it in my back pocket if I ever need it.

Hope that helps, SysintWell, this makes sense. I guess licensing is simply your LNS credit cost per year. I would agree on most all your other advantages.

[sysint]

Sysint, you haven't worked with a JACE much, have you?... Digo, I get all of my information when I visit you guys and you all have different stories. Why is that do you think? So, now I'm resorting to picking guys I think really have it together and am going with what they say/show me. I do know if you enable IP852 routing on your JACE you are rebooting. So, your running programs are stopping. Definitely seen that.

[NINAX]

Does the LINX 110 or 111 carry any certifications, ie LONMARK, BTL?

Who does the OPC cert, the OPC Foundation?

[ctrlguy]

...Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's. Can't do that with Distech or the JACE...

Distech doesn't reset outputs on recompile either.

[sysint]

Distech doesn't reset outputs on recompile either.Tell you what- I'll verify this next morning with the old style and the new style controller since I'm doing a session with Distech guys. Today I was busy informing them of the problems in the AM they would get on that Distech Thermokon wireless sensor... which they subsequently had in the afternoon. They had an EC4A (?) and of course many different models of the new style housing.

[sysint]

Does the LINX 110 or 111 carry any certifications, ie LONMARK, BTL? Who does the OPC cert, the OPC Foundation? We have CE, FCC, EN60950 for listings I know of. Even though we are in Lonmark and one of guys (I think) is recently appointed to the board we do not have any listed devices because of their nature. I don't see Tridium listed either, which makes sense. Are they part of the OPC foundation? Don't know, didn't ask but I know we have certified product with them.

Honestly, I don't see us playing the BTL game. It's expensive and where does it get you? It's almost a mini-UL with their recurring fees. Possibly why you don't see good bacnet companies like Cimetrics in there.

[digo]

Digo, I get all of my information when I visit you guys and you all have different stories. Why is that do you think? So, now I'm resorting to picking guys I think really have it together and am going with what they say/show me. I do know if you enable IP852 routing on your JACE you are rebooting. So, your running programs are stopping. Definitely seen that.

Different stories come from different levels of experience. It's not all gravy, believe me I've had my share of complaints. For the longest time, my gripe was with the timesync service - which up to 3.3 uses an implementation of RFC-868.

With 3.4 they added support for NTP, done at the OS level - which does require a reboot when enabled. The thing is, once you get all of these items setup - before you show up on site - there's nothing that should require a reboot. Are you saying you'd be enabling/disabling IP852 routing daily? Or is that a one time deal?

[sysint]

You bring up a good point about setups and where everyone is with their upgrades. Regarding IP852 I'm simply pointing out something I've seen, that's all.

[osiyo]

I think you misunderstand WHY I brought it up. I brought that up explaining why we have a product and why some others make these high I/O devices. THAT's it. Wasn't a social commentary.

Fair enough. And I find the subject you've brought up to be interesting, along with the replies. In the whole, the thread is informative.

And while the trend in the area where I do business is not towards the space control concept you mention. I am glad you brought it up, so that I know that some folks are experimenting with that tactic. And that there are products designed to meet such a need. Another thing to tuck under my hat, consider, and follow up on in my reading when I'm browsing new articles in an effort to keep up with the new ideas and developments in our biz.

[NINAX]

We have CE, FCC, EN60950 for listings I know of. Even though we are in Lonmark and one of guys (I think) is recently appointed to the board we do not have any listed devices because of their nature. I don't see Tridium listed either, which makes sense. Are they part of the OPC foundation? Don't know, didn't ask but I know we have certified product with them.

Honestly, I don't see us playing the BTL game. It's expensive and where does it get you? It's almost a mini-UL with their recurring fees. Possibly why you don't see good bacnet companies like Cimetrics in there.

You must have misunderstood me, I didn't say anything about Tridium. I was strictly asking about your product. It is interesting though how you incessantly compare your product to them. You leave little doubt that you consider Tridium the 'gold standard'.

So the OPC Foundation is the major organization for the OPC world? I'll have to look for your company's products there.

Where does a BTL (or any) certification get you? It shows some conformance to owners & contractors. Is it that your company doesn't see the value, or that they can't/won't provide a product that meets the requirements?

[osiyo]

I use the Jace 6 usually with a 34 I/O board to control the central plant in a building. Then branch out with ASC's to the AHU's, VAV's etc. Maybe lon, maybe Bacnet.

The original question was why the high point count for Tridium. The way I see it, I am using one less programmable controller for the central plant, saving on install costs. The ease of programming, high reliability, friendly user interface, multiple protocol Etc is just gravy, which has also increased margin on my jobs. (espically ease pf programming and commissioning)......

....I have never needed the full I/O capacity offered with a Jace, but it is nice to have it in my back pocket if I ever need it.

Hope that helps, Sysint

Makes sense. And having some extra I/O available is always a handy thing.

In fact, many of our customers (the ones that have more knowledge about their systems) specify that a certain amount of spare I/O be installed into a job.

Even when they don't, it's our standard practice to install some. Not just from a Jace. We purposely design things so that the standalone (but on the network) controllers will have a few spares. Even the ones with a fixed onboard I/O count.

When we do a system, we take the attitude that its LIKELY we'll be doing future business with the same customer. And that they'll wish to make future modifications and additions. (AND, hopefully that its us that will get the call to do these things)

Thus we install extra I/O capacity over what is actually needed, distributed throughout the building. Ensure that no network port is too heavily loaded, and that there is spare capacity to make additions to that. And in cases of major equipment (large AHU's, boilers, chillers, etc) we even have out installers use larger conduit and pull spare cables. It doesn't actually cost that much to have the installers do that since they are there anyway.

Yes, it IS an additional expense. But in our case, we've found it to be a worthwhile effort.

For instance, just recently I completed a job, a new building. Was doing a walk through and customer training with the head of their maintenance department. It'd been a spec and bid job. So we'd put in what customer's design engineer had specified. Plus a bit more. When I was explaining one system to the Maint Head I mentioned that he and his system could have benefited from having had a couple extra items installed. He readily agreed, mentioned he'd wished his design engineer had thought of it. Couple weeks later I got a call, and he wanted my suggestions implemented. We were able to quote him a rather nice price, which he agreed to right off the bat.

That add alone was enough to pay off the extras we'd installed with a bit to spare. Now he's in the process of considering several other additions he is enthusiastic about. Even quoting him discounted rates as compared to the normal charges, we'll do quite well profit wise on these future additions.

It doesn't always work out. But works often enough so we consider it a worthwhile venture. In my experience, makes the customer happy. And makes the account salesman happy.

As concerns the Jaces, I'm no Jace Guru. Haven't been to the classes or anything. Do have copies of all the manuals. A new Jace install; initial configuration, setup, programming, and graphics; is done by our Jace specialist. Who HAS had most all the classes available and has whatever certs needed.

However, I have needed to alter and modify things in Jace boxes. Simple stuff like modify screens, make new screens, import new points, modify an existing program, etc. Seems simple enough, after yah nose around a bit and experiment to see what does what and how. (Making sure to make a backup first) Granted that I am not a newbie as concerns DDC systems, computers and operating systems in general, working with Java/JavaScript, etc. Takes a little time to figure out their schemes and methodologies.

Haven't actually read the manuals yet. But with a few phone calls to our resident Jace guru, plus a couple stops at his cubicle when passing by on other business to have him show me how to do something (and once I saw it, whatever it was that had stumped me, I HAD it. Usually thumping myself in forehead for being so slow as to not figure it out on my own). I've been able to do quite a lot with it.

Now, if an old, knuckle draggin, slow thinking, tiny brained, Neanderthal like myself can understand some of that stuff, that's saying something. The designers did a pretty good job.

I'll probably never attend the formal classes. For one, not really my job classification to do the initial setup and programming of front ends. I'm a testing and commissioning guy. The way we work here, I'm just supposed to make sure it works right, and fix any errors or omissions found. And add stuff later if customer wants something added. (Although I'm an occasional project manager, and do the engineering for smaller jobs) Secondly, in truth, altho its not openly said ... I'm considered a bit long in the tooth for the company to invest much money in my continued training. In all fairness, I can't blame em for that. I'm 60, going on 61, will probably hang up my current hat at 67 and go find a more laid back job that'll give me more fishing time. Can't picture self as completely retired, I'd go nuts.

[sysint]

Fair enough. And I find the subject you've brought up to be interesting, along with the replies. In the whole, the thread is informative.

And while the trend in the area where I do business is not towards the space control concept you mention. I am glad you brought it up, so that I know that some folks are experimenting with that tactic. And that there are products designed to meet such a need. Another thing to tuck under my hat, consider, and follow up on in my reading when I'm browsing new articles in an effort to keep up with the new ideas and developments in our biz.I'll try to link that ALC article. It talks about space comfort but apparently there is only about 4 decent studies on it. Really surprising when you think about it... we are supposed to be providing heating and cooling to people in spaces but little is done to define space comfort or achieve it. Maybe this is why (isn't it BOMA) state the top building problems are heating and cooling.

[sysint]

You must have misunderstood me, I didn't say anything about Tridium. I was strictly asking about your product. It is interesting though how you incessantly compare your product to them. You leave little doubt that you consider Tridium the 'gold standard'.

So the OPC Foundation is the major organization for the OPC world? I'll have to look for your company's products there.

Where does a BTL (or any) certification get you? It shows some conformance to owners & contractors. Is it that your company doesn't see the value, or that they can't/won't provide a product that meets the requirements?Well, Tridium is the only other box I know that is similar. I'll start using another name if you got one... I'll add it to the list.

On OPC, there is the foundation and now I think their is a newer open foundation that champions things like open programming language. I think also you will see a OPC-UA group. Maybe check with the provider of your front ends (better?) and see what they do about it.

Yes. BTL tells you your product is on the list. And you pay big dollars for being on the list. So, if your category is not really on the list should you pay big yearly renewed costs to keep your product on the list or don't you think once testing is done you should simply stay on the list? Further, tell me what you think about that testing proceedure that is so comprehensive that it merits consideration?

[sysint]

Makes sense.
And having some extra I/O available is always a handy thing....
When we do a system, we take the attitude that its LIKELY we'll be doing future business with the same customer.
And that they'll wish to make future modifications and additions. (AND, hopefully that its us that will get the call to do these things)...
Ensure that no network port is too heavily loaded, and that there is spare capacity to make additions to that.
And in cases of major equipment (large AHU's, boilers, chillers, etc) we even have out installers use larger conduit and pull spare cables. It doesn't actually cost that much to have the installers do that since they are there anyway.

... I'm considered a bit long in the tooth for the company to invest much money in my continued training. In all fairness, I can't blame em for that. I'm 60, going on 61, will probably hang up my current hat at 67 and go find a more laid back job that'll give me more fishing time. Can't picture self as completely retired, I'd go nuts.Very practical suggestions -These are the things that make your products look even better.

Don't wait around to get out. Guys like you always can have something different to do. My father took the pension hit and retired early. Never regrets it.