The Rage (because) of the (Gateway) Machine - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 59
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    steeler nation
    Posts
    2,036
    unless i have had a successful experience with a particular manufacturers gateway, i plan for and price a controller for each piece of equipment.
    I have burned too many hours dealing with gateways that are not reliable or that i simply can not get to work as expected.

    I just finished a job that had 2 JCI rtu's with bacnet interfaces. I haven't had any problems with them yet.
    IV IV IX

    use your head for something other than a hat rack.......Gerry

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by BACnet View Post
    I work for a manufacturer and I read these boards. Over the years some people have made comments about about some of the products I have a hand in. Guess what- I LOVE getting feedback, even if it's about a bug. My reasoning is simple, if I don't know about it I'm not likely to fix it unless I stumble upon the issue while adding other features. If someone posts about any of my products I get to the bottom if it asap.

    I like this kind of approach as well! I think this is a great resource pool for manufactures to get feedback from.

    It would be enlightening for you to identify the manufacture you represent! Hats off to you BACnet for diligently identifying and resolving design flaws that all manufactures have.


  3. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    234
    Is Johnson going to do anything about this issue? They are still selling units with this gateway.

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NE PA
    Posts
    36

    The Result of Raging intelligently against the Machine

    I finally got a response from my manufacture and their answer to my issue. I will let everyone be the judge of the outcome.

    To fill everyone in I received new Gateways in the mail with no interaction, explanation or instructions. I sent out a email saying that I would need clarification of what had been done to correct the issue and wanted to know about the discrepancy of the COV service that Field server says works and JCI says does not. I told them I wanted to know all of this BEFORE our company would attempt changing them out for the 4th time. here is their response below.....(the S-Lincs talked about are the Gateways in question)

    "To start, there has been no change in firmware of the S-lincs since the last ones you installed. The most recent shipment you have received are S-lincs that have been tested using the latest test procedures. The test procedures were modified to identify a specific Modbus communication problem, the same hardware issue that I had discussed with you earlier, the same issue that was present in one of the two S-lincs you had returned to me previously.

    This problem results in unreliable intermittent communications between the translator and the control board. I believe this was part of your issue. The other issue is the use of the COV feature. I had originally told you that this feature was not support by the control. As you know that statement was incorrect. As a result of our last correspondence, I had asked our controls group to verify the operation for the AO points that were giving you problems. It was determined from our testing that the COV feature does indeed work for the AI and BI points but it does not function properly for the AO points giving you problems; outdoor air temp, outdoor humidity and return humidity.

    We consulted with Field Server and they have confirmed there is an issue with the COV feature when used on those specific points. They have since provided a revised version of firmware to correct the issue, however our quality procedure requires any software revision to be thoroughly tested before it can be released for use in the product. At this time, engineering has not established a timetable for this testing to be performed so I am not able to tell you when the revision will be available.

    We have verified that by polling those points on a regular basis, you will get reliable data, when using the S-lincs verified to be operational under the latest test criteria. At this time I would recommend that you change the S-lincs and poll those problem points on a regular basis. I am confident this will resolve your problems with unreliable or missing data." (end of Quote from the Manufacture)

    Ok now all of that being said:
    This has been going on since early January! Why was this not tested and proven before the units got approved for sale? Why are all of us being used as beta testers with out being compensated for our efforts. All I wanted was to have a job that works properly? Why is this being done at our expense and not at the expense of the Manufacture that promised correct operation?

    Comments Welcome!
    Everything you do
    Will come back to you So...
    Do What You Love and Love What You Do

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by paulir View Post
    Well you can tell that I am really pi**ed off, but I think that I have the right to blast their butts, when this saga has been going on for three months! How long a time before the manufacturer JCI/York, and Fieldserver take a SERIOUS OWNERSHIP, this is financially killing the job, and they hem/haw around like they have all the time in the world. We did round 5 a week ago Friday with no response!!

    I am afraid this is going to end up in litigation, which is a waste of everyone's time and money!
    Well here it is 3 weeks later, still no response from manufacturer. My Mechanical Contractor has asked them to respond, still nothing. My Tech emailed them last month, no answer.

    Still have the ISSUE with TWO JCI/York RTUs, Millennium ZJ150N.

    Are they ignoring me for voicing my opinion?
    Intelli-Building = Less Stress, commissioned with diligence!

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, AB Canada
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by DCVoltZ View Post
    I finally got a response from my manufacture and their answer to my issue. I will let everyone be the judge of the outcome.

    To fill everyone in I received new Gateways in the mail with no interaction, explanation or instructions. I sent out a email saying that I would need clarification of what had been done to correct the issue and wanted to know about the discrepancy of the COV service that Field server says works and JCI says does not. I told them I wanted to know all of this BEFORE our company would attempt changing them out for the 4th time. here is their response below.....(the S-Lincs talked about are the Gateways in question)

    "To start, there has been no change in firmware of the S-lincs since the last ones you installed. The most recent shipment you have received are S-lincs that have been tested using the latest test procedures. The test procedures were modified to identify a specific Modbus communication problem, the same hardware issue that I had discussed with you earlier, the same issue that was present in one of the two S-lincs you had returned to me previously.

    This problem results in unreliable intermittent communications between the translator and the control board. I believe this was part of your issue. The other issue is the use of the COV feature. I had originally told you that this feature was not support by the control. As you know that statement was incorrect. As a result of our last correspondence, I had asked our controls group to verify the operation for the AO points that were giving you problems. It was determined from our testing that the COV feature does indeed work for the AI and BI points but it does not function properly for the AO points giving you problems; outdoor air temp, outdoor humidity and return humidity.

    We consulted with Field Server and they have confirmed there is an issue with the COV feature when used on those specific points. They have since provided a revised version of firmware to correct the issue, however our quality procedure requires any software revision to be thoroughly tested before it can be released for use in the product. At this time, engineering has not established a timetable for this testing to be performed so I am not able to tell you when the revision will be available.

    We have verified that by polling those points on a regular basis, you will get reliable data, when using the S-lincs verified to be operational under the latest test criteria. At this time I would recommend that you change the S-lincs and poll those problem points on a regular basis. I am confident this will resolve your problems with unreliable or missing data." (end of Quote from the Manufacture)

    Ok now all of that being said:
    This has been going on since early January! Why was this not tested and proven before the units got approved for sale? Why are all of us being used as beta testers with out being compensated for our efforts. All I wanted was to have a job that works properly? Why is this being done at our expense and not at the expense of the Manufacture that promised correct operation?

    Comments Welcome!
    Good day DCVoltz,

    Something seems amiss here in regards to their reluctance to provide you with a working firmware version for COV... Indeed, I can see their motivation and necessity to verify the firmware before customer use (in case the fix created other issues, etc), however, not providing you with a firm release date for this seems somewhat odd... it brings into question of whether there is really a firmware fix at all... maybe it is a ploy to buy more time?

    Given the time frame that this has been going on, etc I cannot see why they do not release you this version with the proviso that the "firmware has not been fully tested... etc" so that you can at least try the firmware with the hope that it would remedy the situation for you and your customer... yikes... customer service appears not to be the priority with these vendors...

    Cheers,

    Sam

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NE PA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by paulir View Post
    Are they ignoring me for voicing my opinion?
    I have no idea but one thing is for sure, pure diligence and not allowing them to get away with it, is the only thing they respond to. The more you allow them to slide the the less they will do to correct the issue. The only way to get this problem resolved is hanging them out to dry. To expose their lack of concern and proper testing procedures, and to make them pay dearly for their lack of planning. Good Luck to you, keep up the pressure, do not let up on them. I have over 40 hours of pure phone time logged in this issue, let alone the many site visits, trouble calls, and equipment changes that have been made. I am convinced this is a Industry wide issue that covers many different manufactures. This is just one of many problems that have arisen since integration has become the mainstay of Building controls.

    So when does this end?
    Being passive on our end just enables their lack of proper planning, testing
    Being persistent just causes us to lose all profitability of the job
    Where is the Win in this?
    Everything you do
    Will come back to you So...
    Do What You Love and Love What You Do

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by BACnet View Post
    Well in this case it appears that the modbus part is not the problem, (it seems to have been the gateway in this case), but your point does stand. Modbus is a very simple protocol to implement so it will continue to be a favorite choice among manufacturers who don't consider controls to be important.
    It appears that the manufacturer's device itself is a large part of the problem.

    "The test procedures were modified to identify a specific Modbus communication problem, the same hardware issue that I had discussed with you earlier, the same issue that was present in one of the two S-lincs you had returned to me previously. This problem results in unreliable intermittent communications between the translator and the control board."

    These manufacturers are determined to provide their own controller when it is not their speciality. They implement some form of rudimentary Modbus and then through a gateway.

    The question is right to be asked "when this ends?" My response from experience is that if your manufacturer is not utilizing a SoC platform then it is much more likely to have problems with multi-protocol devices.

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NE PA
    Posts
    36

    Status update

    I received a phone call from JCI control department telling me that they want to visit to my site. They asked about local airport and hotel accommodations. They stated that they want to fix this issue and will not leave until it is accomplished. They stated that the forums (like this one) and the feedback they were getting from it was one of the reasons they want to get this taken care of and no longer believe this is a isolated issue. I have handed their number out to a few people that have asked for it. Now I know some of you guys have been emailing and calling your local reps with little or no response The only way I got any response from York/JCI was using their national tech support number. If anyone needs it just message me I will forward it. I will keep this updated and let you all know the outcome!
    Everything you do
    Will come back to you So...
    Do What You Love and Love What You Do

  10. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NE PA
    Posts
    36

    The End to the Rage

    After all of the negative reports that I have made on here concerning my problems with the S-Linc Modbus to MSTP Gateway I want to also report the Positive! We had a FieldServer and a JCI Rep come to our site on Tuesday and after they updated the firmware and the point list of the S-Linc we are pleased to announce that all systems seem to be working properly. I want to give a High-Five to FieldServer and JCI for getting to the core of the issue and making my Job 100%. I also want to let everyone know this is just an example of how perseverance and holding on to a principal can get you what you need to accomplish your goal. All-tho it should be said and repeated that it does not pay in monetary concerns to stick up for ones beliefs.
    (In construction that is the biggest concern of all to deal with!) I have said in previous posts that most Control contractors do not have the time or the job resources to accomplish what I has been done here. It is truly unfortunate that issues like this will go one and continue until the pressure can be placed on the manufacture to perform properly. I hope that all of you whom have issues like this one can use this to see that it can be done. If the price is right and the concern can be properly conveyed. Good luck to all of you who have to fight the good fight to get what was promised you!
    (FYI the issue seemed to be solved when the points were changed from a BACnet Analog Output to a BACnet Analog Value they changed all AO's to AV's in this fix) I just hope that all the people that need this fix can be notified and have their issues taken care of as well!
    Everything you do
    Will come back to you So...
    Do What You Love and Love What You Do

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by DCVoltZ View Post
    (FYI the issue seemed to be solved when the points were changed from a BACnet Analog Output to a BACnet Analog Value they changed all AO's to AV's in this fix)
    Thanks for this update.
    This tells me that only 4 units out of 53 have the correct firmware on my job site. I remember running into this issue on only 4 units, where all the AOs were in fault (I duplicated controllers from a template with my points structure defined, along with history extensions, etc.)
    When I tried re-discovering the points on those four, I noticed all of the AO's were changed to AV's.

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth\Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    1,696
    Can you tell me what firmware your new boards are? I am fixing to have to replace one that is about a year old. I am being told that many of the points have changed in the new boards.
    Go Rangers!

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NE PA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by lwarren View Post
    Can you tell me what firmware your new boards are? I am fixing to have to replace one that is about a year old. I am being told that many of the points have changed in the new boards.
    The total product description is as follows
    ProtoCessor FFP485 Camry
    Firmware V2.01k
    application software verison V6.06h (A)
    protocol version 1
    protocol revision 4


    You are very correct in the statement of points changing
    all BACnet AO's or command points have been changed to AV's
    but the point numbers have stayed the same
    some naming of the points were altered but not the extent that caused me any issues
    I hope you have a good integration
    Everything you do
    Will come back to you So...
    Do What You Love and Love What You Do

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event