Comfortlink BACnet points

[simsd]

Need some help here guys.

We have a new Carrier 25 Ton Package unit with a Comfortlink controller in it. We installed the Carrier BACnet card and I had my controls sub for the JCI side, bring in the points. My problem is that the points we need from the Comfortlink were not exposed to us through the BACnet card. Specifically we would like to see the return air temp (critical in this application), the static pressure setpoint and it's actual reading.

Can someone help us through this. I do have the CCN service tool.

[joey791]

simsd,

I am no expert on this but I have done the Modbus part of the translator card once but not the Bacnet. You will need this manual here to change your configuration and add the point.

http://www.docs.hvacpartners.com/idc/groups/public/documents/techlit/808-356.pdf

[mbarson]

Only points in the units status table can be added to the translator configuration table. Points not in the status tables need to be added to the generics table in the service configuration table and then they will show up in the status tables generics group. Make sure the point names are spelled correctly as seen in the status table. Also if you have errors do not save them. If you have saved errors you will need to clear the points and start clean. Check Comm Stat and Maintenance tables in translator for problems. Hope this makes sense.

[sysint]

....Hope this makes sense.Nice engineering design. You need to adjust a lot of sophisticated parameters to make the device operate as expected.

Does Carrier provide the flaming hoops you need to jump through also?

[mbarson]

I can get them to work, just trying to help. Do have a better solution?

[sysint]

I can get them to work, just trying to help. Do have a better solution?Torch? Hammer?

[mbarson]

A better solution would be to install an i-Vu web server and the customer would have complete access and control without any proprietary software that the end use does not have access to like most of the other vendors. But I do understand the problems with third party integration and the biggest is one that other vendors do not understand how the equipment operates, at the same time they tell their customers how they can make it do anything they need.

[sysint]

That's funny. You want to use the proprietary CCN protocol for that? Listen, Carrier has been doing this garbage for years and their answer is another one of their boxes for a simple rooftop unit rather than make the points accessible. Plus, typical Carrier logic determines I-Vue is the answer when buildings contain more than that overscrewed rooftop. Why not have them concentrate on reducing the amount of screws holding together all those panels with the sharp edges first? Maybe they need to start out simple...

I've had years of Carrier exposure and they find a way to make simple control solutions completely difficult. We are simply talking about another one here. You should be able to plug in that bacnet card, MAYBE flip a switch and it should be ready to go. That's the way competent companies operate.

Now that they are going ALC I'm sure they will find a way to make their LON interfaces even worse than today. I can't think of a worse company for LON than Automated Logic. They absolutely stink at it. So much so I think it has to be on purpose. Nobody can be that bad by accident.

The funny thing is this is a simple bacnet interface and like I said--- You need set a bunch of sophisticated parameters and processes to get it to operate as expected.

It's not a matter of other vendors not knowing how the stupidly simple rooftop operates. It's learning how stupid the interface is. Just provide the data and be done with it. Carrier IS the problem here, not the vendor. Look, I can buy a sophisticated car and I can put the keys in, start and drive. I don't have to get under the hood and set some parameters and settings before I start. Good thing Carrier's not making cars...

[sysint]

As long as you are touting the Carrier equipment line-- here's some for you:
Just pointing out the obvious from the makers of the following rooftops:
NHT- No Heat Tonight
TJ - Total Junk
TJE- Total Junk Equipment
HD- Hard Down
TC- Total Crap
TF- Total Failure

Conquest -- If you had seen in person with horizontal discharge you would call it the Custer--- their last stand. Plus, you have to love the 23 screws you needed to remove on the burner section panel. Or the massive air leaks... Brilliant. Lets not forget jamming the VFD in the blower section. More Brilliance.

I don't even know where to begin with somebody calling something a Centurion... Apparently PG stands from Programmed Garbage..

Yea, your right. Those Carrier guys really know their stuff....

The only thing I really like out of them were those semi-hermetic compressors. They used to have this oval head model that seemed super-quiet. Whomever designed those really knew what they were doing. Obviously by today's products those guys are retired or dead...

[joey791]

You should be able to plug in that bacnet card, MAYBE flip a switch and it should be ready to go.



You can do this but it will only give you the first points down the list as it auto configures. If it gives you 50 points but you want point 64 you have to configure this yourself.

[sysint]

It should give you all the variables it has... period. If it's accessible to CCN it should be to bacnet. Period. What would be the reason not to?

Hmmm. Let me think. I-Vue sale? Hmmm. If I install CCN how easy is it to change? Hmmm. Not so easy. -- No need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what they are up to with this.

[mbarson]

I can't argue this anymore, time for a beer. I was just trying to help answer a question. You don't need TPI in the first place. It is other vendors trying to do all of the control of the RTU through a translator and it is not practical. All of the configuration of the unit can be done through the Comfortlink, no proprietary software needed. When set up and commissioned correctly the RTU does not need to be "tinkered" with. Changing configurations in the unit are usually the result of contractors trying to make up for poor engineering. I can't address unit construction but the controls are solid. As for the i-Vu it eliminates expensive software that goes out of date every time Microsoft decides to change change operating systems, easy to configure, price competitive, and very end-user friendly. Sorry if you have a problem with Carrier but for small to medium commercial buildings I believe they have a very good platform, especially when integrating to their RTU's, 3V systems, and chillers.

[mbarson]

I forgot... simsd drop me an email if you need further help.

[joey791]

I can't argue this anymore, time for a beer. I was just trying to help answer a question. You don't need TPI in the first place. It is other vendors trying to do all of the control of the RTU through a translator and it is not practical. All of the configuration of the unit can be done through the Comfortlink, no proprietary software needed. When set up and commissioned correctly the RTU does not need to be "tinkered" with. Changing configurations in the unit are usually the result of contractors trying to make up for poor engineering. I can't address unit construction but the controls are solid. As for the i-Vu it eliminates expensive software that goes out of date every time Microsoft decides to change change operating systems, easy to configure, price competitive, and very end-user friendly. Sorry if you have a problem with Carrier but for small to medium commercial buildings I believe they have a very good platform, especially when integrating to their RTU's, 3V systems, and chillers.

I have to disagree with you on this. I am doing discharge air reset based on outdoor air temp through my third party system.

[mbarson]

Ok, one more! Why do DA reset on OAT? The RTU does DAT reset on RAT already and slows the damper speed on OAT(much more accurate space control IMO). I will check in tomorrow!

[sysint]

I can't argue this anymore, time for a beer. I was just trying to help answer a question. You don't need TPI in the first place. It is other vendors trying to do all of the control of the RTU through a translator and it is not practical. All of the configuration of the unit can be done through the Comfortlink, no proprietary software needed. When set up and commissioned correctly the RTU does not need to be "tinkered" with. ....I agree with the beer part. Just about everyone has the ability for free config tools and servers. Doesn't help when your manufacturer has a proprietary interface that could easily be multiple protocol and still configured through any number of ways. They choose to be difficult. They do it for a reason.

[blackbelt3677]

What type of device are you mapping the carrier back into? NAE-NCE,FX? Is the Crrier setup Bacnet MS/TP or Bacnet over IP?

[orion242]

>I was just trying to help answer a question

And good for you. That's what this board should be for.

Sysint,

I fail to see how replacing the whole damn system is the best answer. I find it appalling that you pour on the Loytech Kool-Aid, than trash other systems. You’re operating a step (debatable) above any other spammer here, just looking for free advertising. I suppose the OP could add a Loytech product and everything would be rainbows and butterflies?!?

[Dallas Duster]

I agree with the beer part. Just about everyone has the ability for free config tools and servers. Doesn't help when your manufacturer has a proprietary interface that could easily be multiple protocol and still configured through any number of ways. They choose to be difficult. They do it for a reason.

Sysint, what would you do in this situation what system would you push on this facility?

[sysint]

Sysint, what would you do in this situation what system would you push on this facility?I'm not pushing anything. I thought the question was answered right away. I moved on. That's it.

Everything else is commentary on what lengths they go to to separate their system. I know. I've worked on hundreds of Carrier products....probably thousands actually.

Read the sentence: You need to adjust a lot of sophisticated parameters to make the device operate as expected.

It's a stinking rooftop unit. How hard do they have to make it to get data out of it? Good thing Carrier's not making communicating exhaust fans. I'm sure that Carrier would have to think long and hard about what variable to leave out of that... Start? Stop maybe?

I'm not advocating anyone or another manufacturer's products. I want them to clean up their act. No guy should have to post looking for a how-to on getting access to points on a rooftop to the manufacturer supplied communication card. Very poor engineering. So bad that you really have to wonder if it's a marketing and sales division decision.

Honestly, we aren't even past the stinking rooftop unit. This is a big deal to take a Carrier RTU with their onboard proprietary interface and ATTEMPT to connect a Carrier supplied communication card? How is that anything but ridiculous?</rant>

[Dallas Duster]

I'm not pushing anything. I thought the question was answered right away. I moved on. That's it.

Everything else is commentary on what lengths they go to to separate their system. I know. I've worked on hundreds of Carrier products....probably thousands actually.

Read the sentence: You need to adjust a lot of sophisticated parameters to make the device operate as expected.

It's a stinking rooftop unit. How hard do they have to make it to get data out of it? Good thing Carrier's not making communicating exhaust fans. I'm sure that Carrier would have to think long and hard about what variable to leave out of that... Start? Stop maybe?

I'm not advocating anyone or another manufacturer's products. I want them to clean up their act. No guy should have to post looking for a how-to on getting access to points on a rooftop to the manufacturer supplied communication card. Very poor engineering. So bad that you really have to wonder if it's a marketing and sales division decision.

Honestly, we aren't even past the stinking rooftop unit. This is a big deal to take a Carrier RTU with their onboard proprietary interface and ATTEMPT to connect a Carrier supplied communication card? How is that anything but ridiculous?</rant>

Geez the way that you love Carrier sounds like you used to work for them and ,it`s like you had to give up your first born or something. Nothing wrong with the way they operate. Stop ranting you will live longer and feel better. I think that every decision made in a company is a marketing and sales decision.

[NINAX]

I think that every decision made in a company is a marketing and sales decision.
Are there any others?

[Dallas Duster]

Are there any others?

That would be the first one.

We have this great product how much can we make off of it?

Then down the road how are they going to continue making money because everyone is taking their market share.

If you want to make your own Pepsi good luck getting the recipe. Your going to have to go buy a Pepsi and not doctor up a Coke to make it tatse like a Pepsi oh wait I think that was tried already.

Don`t we call it proprietory for a reason?

[NINAX]

That would be the first one.

We have this great product how much can we make off of it?

Then down the road how are they going to continue making money because everyone is taking their market share

Yes, after all, business is about making money.

I just wondering if you might have other reasons that a company would make a decision.

[djken]

Sysint - I don't know what your beef with Carrier is, nor do I care. What I do know is that you don't know what the f**k you are talking about.
Any CCN point on a ComfortLink unit that is available to the scrolling marque, navigator, or touch pilot, can be made available to third party control.
Whether or not the controls contractor knows what to do with the information is another story.
Why do controls contractors think they can control my unit better than I can? Carrier has been controling equipment alot longer, and better, than you have.

[NINAX]

Sysint - I don't know what your beef with Carrier is, nor do I care. What I do know is that you don't know what the f**k you are talking about.
Any CCN point on a ComfortLink unit that is available to the scrolling marque, navigator, or touch pilot, can be made available to third party control.
The point was how difficult is it to integrate to a different system. It looks like he might know more than you'd want him to....the way he struck a nerve, you've probably heard it before.

Whether or not the controls contractor knows what to do with the information is another story.
I would think most control contractors would know how to enable a chiller or set a discharge air temp setpt on a RTU.

Why do controls contractors think they can control my unit better than I can?
You couldn't have missed the point more and your view is in micro mode.
And just for the record, as evidenced by numerous members of this board, Carrier has yet to successfully corner the market on the best controls techs.

Carrier has been controling equipment alot longer, and better, than you have.
You might have the longer, but when the money goes down for better, I'll want to be in on that action.

[Dallas Duster]

Actuall the point was that the guys was needing some help intergrating a 25 ton RTU and he was starting to get some good feedback and then someone started an avelanche of negative comments that ended up getting off topic and then the guy that needed help is left holding the bag. Sorry for the run-on sentence but I was in a hurry.

[sysint]

No. The question was answered right away (2nd post- very competent answer) and I simply pointed out it was unnecessarily difficult for something that should be no effort.

To the point- simsd isn't the dumbest guy on the planet but he has to ask basically what the heck he has to do for something to operate as expected.

For advertising good listening, maybe add good reading to the list. I never said the interface could not work. You would naturally think that if it's a Carrier unit the Carrier communication interface would be able to work without any ridiculous amount of configuration. Not the case.

Perhaps you enjoy spending all sorts of nonsense time adjusting sophisticated parameters to get equipment to operate as expected. However, many others do not. More to the point- if I bring it out and 50 guys read this and decide they don't want a Carrier rooftop on their next jobs... GREAT. Maybe Carrier will change to provide something more advantageous to the customer rather than this hacked together communication interface (of their own mis-design).

Further, I know simsd and if he wants to he's more than capable of making a post telling me to drop it and I'll do it. Probably he has taken the answer, solved his issue and is smiling about how some guys here think that this situation is somehow supposed to be normal operating procedures from a manufacturer putting up a big defense of them. No defense here... just a solution... Make a stinking communication card that passes all points as the unit is configured automatically. Easy enough to do if you care. Carrier doesn't care.

[NINAX]

No. The question was answered right away (2nd post- very competent answer) and I simply pointed out it was unnecessarily difficult for something that should be no effort.

To the point- simsd isn't the dumbest guy on the planet but he has to ask basically what the heck he has to do for something to operate as expected.

For advertising good listening, maybe add good reading to the list. I never said the interface could not work. You would naturally think that if it's a Carrier unit the Carrier communication interface would be able to work without any ridiculous amount of configuration. Not the case.

Perhaps you enjoy spending all sorts of nonsense time adjusting sophisticated parameters to get equipment to operate as expected. However, many others do not. More to the point- if I bring it out and 50 guys read this and decide they don't want a Carrier rooftop on their next jobs... GREAT. Maybe Carrier will change to provide something more advantageous to the customer rather than this hacked together communication interface (of their own mis-design).

Further, I know simsd and if he wants to he's more than capable of making a post telling me to drop it and I'll do it. Probably he has taken the answer, solved his issue and is smiling about how some guys here think that this situation is somehow supposed to be normal operating procedures from a manufacturer putting up a big defense of them. No defense here... just a solution... Make a stinking communication card that passes all points as the unit is configured automatically. Easy enough to do if you care. Carrier doesn't care.

Hear hear.

[sysint]

...What I do know is that you don't know what the f**k you are talking about. Any CCN point on a ComfortLink unit that is available to the scrolling marque, navigator, or touch pilot, can be made available to third party control.
Whether or not the controls contractor knows what to do with the information is another story. ...You hardly understand what I'm talking about genius.... I'm not talking about some third party control or system. I'm strictly talking about the CARRIER RTU and the supplied CARRIER COMMUNICATION CARD. There should be no configuration necessary to make points available, they exist so they SHOULD BE AVAILABLE automatically. Do you get it now?

Why do guys like you think this "can be made available" crap is acceptable? It's there already so just pass it along. Problem solved. No, you guys feel you need to jump through hoops just for the points on a stupid, standard, every day, every other manufacturer has them, cheap packaged rooftop unit.

[Dallas Duster]

No. The question was answered right away (2nd post- very competent answer) and I simply pointed out it was unnecessarily difficult for something that should be no effort.

To the point- simsd isn't the dumbest guy on the planet but he has to ask basically what the heck he has to do for something to operate as expected.

For advertising good listening, maybe add good reading to the list. I never said the interface could not work. You would naturally think that if it's a Carrier unit the Carrier communication interface would be able to work without any ridiculous amount of configuration. Not the case.

Perhaps you enjoy spending all sorts of nonsense time adjusting sophisticated parameters to get equipment to operate as expected. However, many others do not. More to the point- if I bring it out and 50 guys read this and decide they don't want a Carrier rooftop on their next jobs... GREAT. Maybe Carrier will change to provide something more advantageous to the customer rather than this hacked together communication interface (of their own mis-design).

Further, I know simsd and if he wants to he's more than capable of making a post telling me to drop it and I'll do it. Probably he has taken the answer, solved his issue and is smiling about how some guys here think that this situation is somehow supposed to be normal operating procedures from a manufacturer putting up a big defense of them. No defense here... just a solution... Make a stinking communication card that passes all points as the unit is configured automatically. Easy enough to do if you care. Carrier doesn't care.

Well ok the question was answered and and then hoops and flames were added . You bring to point out that it can be done but needs a little extra help to accomlish. If you write something worth reading I might add good-reading to my profile. I liked the analogy about buying a GM car I feel the same way put the unit on the roof and turn it loose it can take care of it`s self especially since it has Comfortlink. Forgot to add that I really hope simsd does ask you to shut you trap should have bought a York then.

[sysint]

...I liked the analogy about buying a GM car I feel the same way put the unit on the roof and turn it loose it can take care of it`s self especially since it has Comfortlink... So why do you want to not be able to turn it loose and let it take care of itself with the CARRIER SUPPLIED bacnet COMMUNICATION CARD?

Apparently YOU DO expect that type of behavior.

Guess what?.... so does everyone else. Carrier somehow thinks differently. If you don't want their (basically obsolete) CCN protocol they decide to put their nose at ASHRAE and the rest of the world and not provide a decent bacnet interface. Ironic in many ways. So, yes I hope if simsd has the opportunity next time he buys something other than a Carrier. Whatever it takes for these dumb-dumbs to get their act together. Paying bills usually prompts action, so I'm all for it.

[Dallas Duster]

So why do you want to not be able to turn it loose and let it take care of itself with the CARRIER SUPPLIED bacnet COMMUNICATION CARD?

Apparently YOU DO expect that type of behavior.

Guess what?.... so does everyone else. Carrier somehow thinks differently. If you don't want their (basically obsolete) CCN protocol they decide to put their nose at ASHRAE and the rest of the world and not provide a decent bacnet interface. Ironic in many ways. So, yes I hope if simsd has the opportunity next time he buys something other than a Carrier. Whatever it takes for these dumb-dumbs to get their act together. Paying bills usually prompts action, so I'm all for it.

I must have missed out on something because the contractors I have worked with don`t whine as much as you do.

[NINAX]

I must have missed out on something because the contractors I have worked with don`t whine as much as you do.

I would have the same expectations as sysint has stated.

Usually when I hear someone play the 'whine' card, it's either they have no more arrows in their quiver, or they have accepted lower standards.

[Dallas Duster]

Well I will tell anyone with Carrier stock to sell it because Carrier`s controls are going to put them out of business. Yeah right .

[NINAX]

Well I will tell anyone with Carrier stock to sell it because Carrier`s controls are going to put them out of business. Yeah right .

Good thinking.

[simsd]

Okay guys,

Lets get back to the main subject.

So here's what were able to do today. After connecting Network Service Tool V, we went into Device Manager and were able to download (retrieve) the "A" series controller information. So what we have at this point in the Device Manager Directree is the A series controller and the BACnet translator. I can see the points I want in the A series controller through the service tool so this is good.

The big dilemma is how do I get a specific point from the A series controller into the BACnet translator? I mean specifically how do I do it? Like click here, click here, copythis etc. Also, the Automapping feature is enabled which probably need to be disabled as it would automatically retrieve the same first 60 available points over and over again, but can you please confirm this?

[Dallas Duster]

Type in the point names exactly like you see them into the Bacnet card. Yes turn the Automapping feature off. Then save the configuration just in case it loses the info in the future.

[licensed to chill]

disable automapping. You will need to manually type in the point you want . Type it in like is shows on status table. example SAT_ for supply air temp.

[simsd]

licensed to chill, thegoodlistener

Thanks guys - just got off the phone with the Carrier tech who did the start up. I was trying to map an Analog point to a Binary. Ie: I typed RAT where W1 was - so I received an error.

Do I need to reset the BACnet card and then do a download?

[simsd]

Well we still need some more help.

We managed to get the points we wanted mapped in but here is what happened. There are four columns when looking at the system from the NAE. It all looks like this:

Status Item Value Description

Normal SET_PNT_ SASP 60 Occupied Setpoint
Normal SET_PNT_ SASP_LO 55 Occupied Lo Setpoint

Now what you are seeing above is how the points should look. After we changed a few of the points this is what we got:

Status Item Value Description

Normal SET_PNT_ SASP 60 Occupied Setpoint
Normal SET_PNT_ SASP_LO 53 Supply Air Setpoint

What's happening is that the Vale and Description are correct to the right of the page, but the Item is now something else. The Item is where the NAE takes the point in order to display it in the graphics format.

Any thoughts?

[simsd]

Thanks to all, I got it figured out. I just needed to go to the Analog Values in the Directree under the NAE sand the controller itself, right click the point, click "Command" and then Edit the point name. Everything matched up great.