Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by s2sam

With attitudes like yours I now know why a number of Professionals stay away from these type of forums. You asked why no one is responding to your posts? Why would anyone with such a confrontational attitude? Professional courtesy, attitude, and a general interest to share knowledge seems to be rare.
All the best to you and I hope the owners of this site appreciate your efforts to attract meaningful posts and members.

I really, simply do not care what you think ... and I cannot understand why, what I think, troubles you so much.
Engineers ... always seem to think they know best heh?
Pfft ... professional courtesy?? ... perhaps if you didn't bother with a personal attack on me ... YOUR words might seem a little more um, professional.
Confrontation Hmm, wasn't it you too that confronted me in the first place??

I will post what I post ... simple.
I am always gonna point out the short-comings of MSTP....full stop. Particularly when the matter at-hand is on exactly that topic.

...I'll do it again too. Best you get used to it.

now please, add something to the debate...or stop nagging.

Originally Posted by MatrixTransform

that's right mate ... 'to you' ... so I recommend you select to block my comments from your sight ... I believe there is an 'ignore' button somewhere on the forum. Recommend that you use it.



listen, thanks daddy, I'll take it under advisement. I dearly love the way you yourself resort to 'bickering and bashing' to make yr point. I recommend that since yr paternal i-know-best instincts cannot be curbed that you simply try to model better behaviour! Try not airing you misgivings in public. I could I suppose ignore them myself and just post what I feel like posting, but since they are directed straight at me, its kind of hard not to reply. Maybe you should private msg me directly since you feel so strongly about it. I'll definitely do you the service of a succinct reply.

Bloody forums, seems there's always somebody moaning about what somebody else types... and there is nothing surer that that to drag a thread off-topic.
I post what I want. You post what you want. don't comment on what I type ... problem gone!

With attitudes like yours I now know why a number of Professionals stay away from these type of forums. You asked why no one is responding to your posts? Why would anyone with such a confrontational attitude? Professional courtesy, attitude, and a general interest to share knowledge seems to be rare.

All the best to you and I hope the owners of this site appreciate your efforts to attract meaningful posts and members.

Cheers

Originally Posted by s2sam

... but to me they get overshadowed by your "spirited" commentary.

that's right mate ... 'to you' ... so I recommend you select to block my comments from your sight ... I believe there is an 'ignore' button somewhere on the forum. Recommend that you use it.

Originally Posted by s2sam

... because of the bickering, bashing, etc that seems to be prevalent *

listen, thanks daddy, I'll take it under advisement. I dearly love the way you yourself resort to 'bickering and bashing' to make yr point. I recommend that since yr paternal i-know-best instincts cannot be curbed that you simply try to model better behaviour! Try not airing you misgivings in public. I could I suppose ignore them myself and just post what I feel like posting, but since they are directed straight at me, its kind of hard not to reply. Maybe you should private msg me directly since you feel so strongly about it. I'll definitely do you the service of a succinct reply.

Bloody forums, seems there's always somebody moaning about what somebody else types... and there is nothing surer that that to drag a thread off-topic.
I post what I want. You post what you want. don't comment on what I type ... problem gone!

Originally Posted by control$

Based on what I've seen using Lon FTT-10, Arcnet/bacnet, and MS/TP bacnet. MS/TP gives the most options for iffy communication wiring. For example; I don't know how many times I needed to install a system using the existing 18/2 twisted shielded wire. It'll work with MS/TP. Try that on Arcnet or Lon.

Not to distract from the OP, but to clear the air: I've done it numerous times on LON. Not that I recommend it, but it works. Even used dis-similar wiring on the same bus - 18/2 sheilded, non-sheilded, copper, copper tinned and even 22/2 echelon rated wire for the additions to the network. Worst case was around 50 nodes, had issues with a couple of devices dropping out, solved it with a LOYTEC device in smart switch mode which it filters out the junk and only passes the valid data. *From memory it was an L-Switch with 4 FT-10 ports and a 1250? port. Didn't use the 1250 port.

Originally Posted by MatrixTransform

people are free to print what they want (within limits)... you may be tired of the debate but clearly it continues heh?
Id suggest that if you dont like it ...then dont read it.
<snip>

That is true... except your Bacnet bashing tends to muddy the waters for potentially worthwhile information that may be beneficial to all.

Originally Posted by MatrixTransform

<snip>
we are indeed still waiting for succinct descriptions of the parameters in question arent we?
So maybe unless you have nothing to actually add, then your point is moot.

Perhaps if you would leave your bashing and snide comments out of your questions maybe someone would take the time to answer. That being said at times you raise some valid concerns and insight, but to me they get overshadowed by your "spirited" commentary.

However, you are right... If I do not like what I see I do have to look... and I have a number of colleagues that choose the latter because of the bickering, bashing, etc that seems to be prevalent.

Just saying...

Cheers

people are free to print what they want (within limits)... you may be tired of the debate but clearly it continues heh?
Id suggest that if you dont like it ...then dont read it.

we are indeed still waiting for succinct descriptions of the parameters in question arent we?
So maybe unless you have nothing to actually add, then your point is moot.

Good day All,

I do not know if I am the only one, but is anyone else getting tired of the same-old BACNet bashing? Does BACNet have issues, yes. Is there room for improvement, yes... but so is the case with other topologies/technologies as well.

For those that do not like BACNet, then may I suggest that you simply stop doing any work that requires BACNet? ... tell your customers that you only do <insert preferred technology>... it is pretty simply really. Otherwise deal with what BACNet requires and move on. This endless bashing is pointless and buries some good info/gotchas that others may benefit from.

Lastly, if you still feel strongly against BACNet's "issues" then why not contact ASHRAE and/or join one of their working groups to see if you can assist with addressing these issues? Again stop complaining and do something about it.

Cheers,

Sam

Originally Posted by MatrixTransform

Stability ... LOL... is the key work here!

and if MSTP was just a little more stable then we wouldnt be having this discussion at all would we?

Look LON has its own share of networking issues and gotchas too ... at least it doesnt fall over simply trying to address controllers !

Based on what I've seen using Lon FTT-10, Arcnet/bacnet, and MS/TP bacnet. MS/TP gives the most options for iffy communication wiring. For example; I don't know how many times I needed to install a system using the existing 18/2 twisted shielded wire. It'll work with MS/TP. Try that on Arcnet or Lon.

Originally Posted by kc2dnw

...making network management & modification a nightmare but make it very stable...

Stability ... LOL... is the key work here!

and if MSTP was just a little more stable then we wouldnt be having this discussion at all would we?

Look LON has its own share of networking issues and gotchas too ... at least it doesnt fall over simply trying to address controllers !

Originally Posted by kc2dnw

The issues addressed here with MS/TP here are issues of lack of understanding of basic networking in the field. ....

Yr right most setting should never need changing... in fact most of the MSTP setting are pretty much a waste of time....prolly be better indeed if they were hidden.
Anyway, almost 99% the physical media is the problem

mstp claims to be easy ... nothing could be further from the truth. Full of holes and pitfalls.
The addressing schema needs to be 'idiot-proof' ... building a node address schema that falls down when there is a simple clash ...is still plain ol' silly....its just soooo 'last millenium'

I just downloaded 14 KMC vavs on the bench and increased their MM setting to 30 ... so they can ship to site and (hopefully) be installed without bringing the network to its knees.

Did connect to the site via VPN and try setting MM on the other existing controllers via the Bacnet object in the JACE but naahh... they controllers wont accept it. so sigh!! ... still gotta physically go to site and change the other 12 existing devices to so that their MM setting is 30 too

... or the system wont work....lets also hope I got the MAC addresses all 100% right too heh?

thanks ashrae.

happy to hear of another way I can handle this....must be doing it wrong!

btw ... if this was lon they would have been installed and commissioned via the VPN already!

They exist within the the Echelon chip which is only modifiable by they copyright owner. All networks have these parameters, they are a function of the hardware. It is the protocols choice whether to make them modifiable or available. JCI N2 is the worse for setting parameters very low then making none of them adjustable by anybody, making network management & modification a nightmare but make it very stable.

There is no right or wrong, only different when it come to networks and protocols. Between the different applications and people different experiences you get opinions about network, but that is all they are. LON is no better then BACnet and no better then any proprietary protocol when it is looked at from a networking perspective, with a properly designed network for the protocol. When discussing application of a protocol then a whole new field of discussion opens up but it is all subjective.

-Jeremy

Originally Posted by digo

The Lon parameters you speak of either exist and are hidden from the user or they don't exist. Which is it?

Lontalk is not a token passing protocol, so it's pretty obvious why a "Max Master" setting doesn't exist there.

The Lon parameters you speak of either exist and are hidden from the user or they don't exist. Which is it?

Lontalk is not a token passing protocol, so it's pretty obvious why a "Max Master" setting doesn't exist there.

Sticking with a pure bus network (MS/TP or TP/FT-10), which is what the parameters that are being discussed are for, you can adjust the packet latency, burst data frequency, channel capture timer, etc which are all labeled as things like APDU, Max Master, etc in the BACnet world. These do not exist on the LON bus network. Once your cross into IP that is a whole different network typology on both sides of the world. I am talking about network parameters that are not protocol specific but hardware design based. These parameters in any protocol are often relabeled and made available to end users but in the case of LON they are not. This isn't always a bad thing as most people don't understand networking hardware and design enough to know what to do, it just means it's less flexible. Less flexibility translates into easier to use for the end user, until it doesn't work

-Jeremy

Originally Posted by digo

By similar types of parameters you must mean the min/max send/receive and send on deltas - for TP/FT-10 nodes, or you might be talking about channel timeouts, packet reorder timer, and channel delay - for IP channels.

Or perhaps what you're smoking is a little strong, because those parameters are all adjustable.

Originally Posted by kc2dnw

LON has the similar types of parameters but they are built in the chip from Echlon and the user has no access to them

By similar types of parameters you must mean the min/max send/receive and send on deltas - for TP/FT-10 nodes, or you might be talking about channel timeouts, packet reorder timer, and channel delay - for IP channels.

Or perhaps what you're smoking is a little strong, because those parameters are all adjustable.

The issues addressed here with MS/TP here are issues of lack of understanding of basic networking in the field. Most of these issues have nothing to do with MS/TP but are issues of RS-485 and token networks. Most of the parameters discussed should be set to defaults which are typical for your style networks and layouts. The reason I have to say your style is because everyone build network differently and will have a different typology based on their design. They also have a tendency to stick to these designs over all there projects because they are familiar with them. There is no right or wrong, just familiarity. The reason these parameters are available is for flexibility in designing networks and typologies. LON has the similar types of parameters but they are built in the chip from Echlon and the user has no access to them, so as long as you follow the rules the network designers laid out when they set the chip parameters you are all good. If you can not meet their design then too bad rewire the building.

In a typical network in a Building automation world you should like never need to set most of the a parameters (besides address) unless you are pushing a network to the limits or designing a network "outside the box"

-Jeremy

Originally Posted by mechmike2

I was under the assumption that the max masters setting referred to the physical number of devices on a network but as I sit here after wasting a day trying to get a bacnet network communicating it occurred to me that the max master setting may refer to the max MSTP address on the network which would explain why I can't discover some devices and have iffy comm. throughout my 5 networks. Can someone confirm or deny. I'm not looking to start another lon vs. bacnet debate.

What kind of controllers are you using? I just recently had a similar problem and it ended up being controller specific...

nice brief doc from Carrier... http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...808-417-01.pdf

MM looks like a way to not waste time looking for nodes that arent there...
APDU looks like how long to wait before deciding to move on because on no answer...
Max INFO frames seems like a limit on how much crap an MSTP device is allowed to talk before being compelled to pass the token.

Heres the thing ...Like every polling or master-slave or token passing bus, the physical medium must be solid or the whole system is going to fall down and not work
assuming the physical is correct and the comms is robust it makes me wonder WHY arent things like MM set automatically by the network?

Adding a new MSTP device should beautomatic in my opinion too. Considering that there is already a net-wide unique devID... should be able to hook it on the bus...everybody goes 'whoa dudes...new device here" and comms moves on...in fact why have a MAC at all?? why not shunt around the whole devID its only 2 or 3 bytes bigger than the MAC...ah, but of course because somebody in the committee needs a way to ID a device on the bus with a DIP switch ... so MSTP needs just one more little address space.

Originally Posted by MatrixTransform

Now there is a question that Id like a succinct answer to as well ...

and what about APDU timeout ... what is that exactly?

anyone??

I believe is has to do with how the controller responds. Some third party devices take longer to respond than others. I've had problems with controllers going on and off line randomly, all I had to do was increase this time. Its just another variable to make the ms/tp trunk even more vulnerable than it already is.

Originally Posted by mechmike2

... How about the max info frames ... finding the pertinent information seems difficult.

Now there is a question that Id like a succinct answer to as well ...

and what about APDU timeout ... what is that exactly?

anyone??

I do prefer lon but you gotta do what you gotta do.

How about the max info frames, is there a different setting for each manufacturer?
I have been trying to find a spec to determine what that should be set for but all I get is leave it at default.
For a York RTU the default is 1 which seems to me would cause tons of traffic. Carrier RTU Open defaults to 10. Honeywell Spyder defaults to 20. Functional Devices bacnet relay default to 1. I would think the more info a device can transfer while it has the token the better the network as a whole would operate, but finding the pertinent information seems difficult.